Romney and the Etch-A-Sketch - The Perception of Flip-Flopping Politicians – The Strategy Santorum Should Adopt Post Haste.

Mitt Romney’s top advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom’s remark on CNN produced a bit of brouhaha – or a joke if one will, regarding the former Massachusetts Governor’s ability to move from position to position in what appears like lightening speed. He’s quickly shrugging it offaccording to CNN, however, in looking at Politician’s, especially from Massachusetts or similar states (Illinois anyone?), one knows there is a pattern that is strictly political, that of taking up one position and quickly changing that position as public opinion, the political climate and geography are considered.

It is a fact of life in a State such as Massachusetts that one can be a conservative on the inside, but in order to get into office, one must swing to the left – or vice versa, this is regardless of political party. Even in Massachusetts, during the aftermath of 9/11 and the rise of George W. Bush’s approval ratings, politician’s doing door-to-door retail politics, (on a local scale) we’re not readily admitting to party affiliation. When asked about party affiliation, one aspiring candidate noted that he was a “conservative”, when pressed as to what that meant, he honestly replied that if he were to say he was a Democrat he might not get the votes he needed (there are pockets of Republican’s even in the Bay State) – that type of honesty got the vote, even in a State where it was assumed a Democrat would win (which he did not), but at the least he was honest. It’s a rarity here, and elsewhere, that a politician stick to a position for very long – and the two most noted for changing position rapidly in Massachusetts are John Kerry (D-MA) and Mitt Romney, referred to as the “Etch-a-Sketch”.

If one sticks to a position, or does not make excuses for their beliefs or background, then it is as if that individual has some sort of flaw – if one stick to the middle, or swings with public opinion then that person appears to win out. The fact that voters have short-term memory can be counted on in every election, in every state of the Union, by these politician’s who one cannot tell if they mean what they say even ten percent of the time.

Case in point is Romney’s gubernatorial campaign against a Democrat rival who was as conservative or more conservative in some area’s than Mitt Romney – Shannon O’Brien and Romney both tried to “out-pro-choice” each other in the final weeks leading up to the election, and O’Brien put her foot in it, watching a 15 point lead evaporate to a deficit by the time votes were cast. The fact that Romney was not clear on his position (pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice) even had the Massachusetts GOP concerned when acting Governor, Jane Swift, urged Romney to make his stand on abortion clear(Boston Herald). One can imagine that the issue of abortion, especially in Massachusetts is a non-issue, but that is not entirely the case, there are “degrees” of how pro-choice even Catholics can be – using the argument that “I personally would not advise abortion, but who am I to say what someone else can do” – it is Freedom of Choice that is primary in those voters minds, as they go to the voting booth – and depending upon how the argument is framed, the politician either wins or loses – in Romney’s case, he won by standing on both sides of the issues.

Would he have been re-elected? That’s debatable, one can point to a myriad of reasons why not, but the most likely would have been his “Conservative Stance” in Massachusetts on the budget and the cuts that he made to balance the budget, the fees that he raised or instituted that aided in brining in the cash needed to balance the budget – and the Democrat Party in Massachusetts poised to spin or tell the truth, either way – about his “flaws”. Meanwhile, Conservatives in the State were souring on the Governor for his stance on raising fees (taxes), and his Universal Health Care law. One has to understand that there is a streak of independence in Massachusetts whereby even the sane laws are challenged – the seat-belt law, helmet laws - making it difficult for politician’s to appease everyone and keep smiling and in office.

There are exceptions to this rule, however, and one who supports Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, is one of them. Brown does not vote or write legislation to appease the political winds, he does not change his mind in opportune moments, he is who he is, which can confuse the Conservatives and Democrats alike – he is, aside from polls indicating his rival in November, Elizabeth Warren, anywhere close to unpopular – he is a self-described independent, which ends up being a moderate in some people’s minds, a conservative in others. He makes no excuses for who he is, or the positions he takes, and if challenged by his constituents, he explains why – he is the exception to the rule in Massachusetts. Yet, there are those on the right who supported his candidacy, and now feel that he is too far to the left, and there are those on the left who feel he is too far to the right – that make’s Scott Brown the only Senator from Massachusetts who is doing his job - which gives independents, or the majority of voters, exactly what they want.

Rick Santorum is another example, one who does not change his position or make excuses for whom he is, however, he is competing on a national scale, against a chameleon who is practiced at the art of political chicanery and who is counting on voters to have a memory lapse during the general election. There are steps, even at this late date, that Santorum could take to capitalize on the “Etch a Sketch” remark, however, buying the toy, and using it for props (he was not the only one do to so), might have been used as a joke, rather than a serious statement on what everyone who is a political junkie and paying attention at this point, knows – Mitt Romney changes his mind faster than most people change underwear.
Santorum stands steadfast in his religion, as a Catholic, as a Christian (Catholic means Universal), he stands steadfast also in his foreign policy views, his views on the economy – he has some brilliant fixes, and articulates those points in a way that appeals across the broad spectrum of the electorate. He has been, however, dogged by the stigma of “social issues”, and perhaps refuses to take the bait, yet it is costing him. People fear his Religious views, without understanding that he has no intention of pushing his views on others. The problem is he has to ask and answer these questions every time he sets foot in front of a camera. He needs to resolve this issue, similar to what his rival, Mitt Romney did in 2008, when Romney held a press conference on religion, and moved one. Of course, Romney lost that election, but it was not the religions aspect, it was a field that had a GOP pre-conceived nominee in John McCain, and a Mike Huckabee who would quit. Huckabee too was branded “religious”, by virtue of his person, and the fact that he was a Minister. If one is a Christian (Evangelical, Born Again), these types of candidates are like a gift from God, but to the balance of the population, those occasional Catholics, or occasional Christians (pick a denomination), those candidates are frightening. When one hears, via the news, that the candidate is one-sided, and is only interested, in Rick Santorum’s case, in running the country with his Catholic Faith, no matter how false a claim that may be, it instills a fear which translates into a vote for Mr. Etch-a-Sketch. Santorum should, from this point of view, make his case once and for all, and drop the subject, and that includes all social issues – people already know where he stands on those fronts, he is a practicing Catholic in his personal life, he is pro-choice – move on – before it is truly too late. It is not to say Senator Santorum should deny his faith, it is to say that is something the general public, his staff, his potential voters, already know – the media can and should be forced to hear the economic and foreign policy points, the social issues can be left on the sideboard – now and in the general election.

It is going to be a point of fact that the Obama administration has more political intelligence on Mitt Romney than any other candidate, so for the media to marginalize Santorum to this extent, should be sending up alarm bells all the way around – he is the last candidate the Democrats want to see nominated, (because he appeals to their voting bloc when he gets a chance to talk about manufacturing, for instance, and he has a record in the Senate to back up his claims), and the media, might just be happy to see Santorum sunk without ever having to publish or broadcast one bit of his voting record, or policy. Romney on the other hand presents a field day – maybe – he is a corporate/political animal, and a corporate/political understands how to play against similarly positioned opponents. Case in point, the President has changed his mind on several issues, alienating his base at times and making the appearance of being pro-pipeline (for example see his recent trip to Oklahoma), while being over the top devoted to his “Green Jobs’ program (see visit to Green plan that employed 5 people while spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars to do so). Should Romney be the nominee, it will, in essence, give voters a choice between two very similar politicians. It is not the ideology that is in question, because it is difficult to pin down exactly what that ideology is, once the ads start running and September is upon us.

The Etch-A-Sketch remark will undoubtedly make it into an Obama for President advertisement, while, perhaps the hypocrisy of the pipeline visit in Oklahoma will end up in a Romney ad – it will be two candidate who are both trying to out-moderate each other – and whoever tries harder may end up losing as the exaggerations of policy are ramped up in the debate over who is more this, or who is more that. Look to history to see a very close race with no clear differences between two candidates.

Rick Santorum would not have it easy, in running against the President, but the difference is his convictions may be more appealing if he were able to get off the pulpit, both real and perceived. That would result in a clear problem for the incumbent, a coal-miners son, who supported legislation in the Senate that put his own Political Part’s panties in a bunch as it was pro-labor, and who also never over promised nor under delivered. Dragging up dirt on Squeaky Clean will be a challenge; therefore, they are marginalizing the candidate now - on both sides of the aisle – to prevent him from getting the nomination and possibly ousting the incumbent, and the other, as they hold a deep seated belief that no Conservative can win a general election. This is how short-term memory works – the GOP has forgotten that the man it most touts as representative of the party is the one man that they wanted out of the race – Ronald Reagan.

One has to understand that when Mitt Romney is endorsed by Jeb Bush, and of all people, Bob Dole, he is the party’s perfect moderate candidate, however if he were to somehow win, it would defy history, and it would be against the odds.

GOP Update: Mitt Romney Wins Big in Illinois – Up 12 Points Over Santorum – Paul Bests Gingrich for Rock Bottom 3rd and 4th Analysis.

Mitt Romney with his Wife Ann Romney celebrate Illinois Victory - image CNN

Mitt Romney, former Governor of the State of Massachusetts won the State of Illinois outright by a 12 Point Margin yesterday – Santorum took second place with 35% of the votes to Romney 46.7%, while Ron Paul placed 3rd at 1.3% and Gingrich came in 4th at 8% (99%% Reporting, NY Times) The Illinois contest validated Romney’s status as front-runner in what has become one of the most interesting GOP primary contests in recent memory. Romney prevailed, with a low voter turnout, and expectations that a split between the population in the Urban/Suburban and Rural areas at 50%, might allow Rick Santorum a stronger showing than expected – however, Romney pulled voters statewide, from all Demographics – which was a first for the man who had been rolled out as the front-runner by the Establishment GOP before the Iowa Caucus. Romney will add 43 of the delegates available to his tally, with Santorum pulling 10 with his second place – Gingrich and Paul did not register a high enough percentage in Illinois to be awarded delegates.

Exit polling in the first round gave Romney the advantage, the race was not immediately called, due to previous primaries where early exit polls proved unreliable, most notably Mississippi where Romney was shown clearly in the lead by early exit polls, yet lost the race to Santorum. The differences in geographic demographics also factored in the Illinois primary, with the Chicago Urban and suburban areas most like those same areas in Massachusetts, making this primary a must win for Romney.

Negative advertising may have played a role in this primary as well with reactions to negative advertising, and the sheer volume (Romney outspent his adversaries 21 to 1 in the Chicago DMA), playing to Romney’s favor, rather than against, as had happened in Mississippi. Public Policy Polling came within 3 points (margin of error) in predicting the win for Romney, also showing Santorum as his closest challenger, with Paul and Gingrich in double digits, but barely. This is now clearly a two man race, with Romney at a significant threshold going forward to what has been termed as the “second half” of the primary.

The question now remains, how much longer will Gingrich and Paul remain in the race, especially if both men continue to pull single digit showings in states that are critical. There is now no clear mathematical or theoretical possibility of either Gingrich or Paul coming in with enough delegates to force a second round at the Convention in Tampa. That said they have run longer in respect to historical odds than in previous races, where the GOP frontrunner is established by Super Tuesday, with one challenger going forward. In 2008, Romney was out of the race, endorsing McCain, with Mike Huckabee a clear number two, who stayed in the race up until May – in a clear attempt to keep the GOP party in the limelight despite the best efforts of the McCain campaign to end the race early and allow McCain to go on to fumble on his own – He was, perhaps the weakest candidate besides Bob Dole to be fielded by the GOP. Both Dole and McCain were considered moderates – as is Mitt Romney.

That said, the Obama Campaign is taking no chances, while in Chicago, they invited the Romney Press Corp to a briefing at the Obama headquarters, this according to Politico. Apparently the Romney Campaign was unaware that press assigned by news organizations to the campaign, was off holding a briefing with the opposition in Chicago. This briefing had left he Romney Campaign unfazed, understanding that the press is not going to show any “love” to Romney should be become the actual nominee (or any GOP nominee for that matter). The question remains, if Romney is the nominee, will he, like McCain disappear from the overall coverage once established as the eventual nominee, or will he make news consistently, to force the press to cover the campaign?

Again, going forward this is now a two-man race, with Santorum polling in Louisiana in similar margins to Romney in Illinois - Santorum should handily win this state. In this Poll Romney is tied with Newt Gingrich, however, Romney does have some momentum going into Louisiana, and may pull out a solid second, moving the margins closer to Santorum. It is doubtful that Gingrich would be able to pull out a win, given the polling data, and the primary history to date.

What this race has boiled down to, once again, is cash flow and the organizational structure of the final two candidates. In Romney’s case, he has continued to use negative advertising as his main weapon against any adversaries, with little else in the way of contrasting his performance with the performance of the aforementioned. The focus of late has been on Rick Santorum, who is the only other viable candidate in the race going forward. The problem with negative advertising is that it does not always work to ones advantage on the ground in each state, as proven by the difference between Mississippi and Illinois, that said, it has forced Santorum and his team to focus on deflecting attacks rather than getting out a message that includes tax reform for manufacturers, as well as strong positions on job creation, foreign and domestic policy. While fending off Romney’s attacks, the media pigeonholed Santorum as the “social issues” candidate, refusing to let go of a moniker, which belies the former Pennsylvania Senator’s record in the Senate. In other words, Santorum holds to his social and religious convictions with no apology, however, he separates the two when authoring legislation and or in his past votes.

Going forward, the Santorum Team must stay on a message that walks a thin line with Social Conservatives, yet pounds home a message of Freedom through a series of proposed initiatives that would reduce the scope of the Federal Government, allow manufacturing to make a rebound (desperately needed) in the US, and foreign policy, which the aforementioned combined are his true bailiwicks. In addition, defecting Romney’s attacks, although a necessity, should not override the message of the candidate, and finally, although Santorum has a stellar grassroots campaign, it is not clear if there are enough veteran campaign staff onboard.

Of note: Illinois was compared to Massachusetts, which is an appropriate comparison, despite the obvious geographical differences in terms of size, the states are simpatico in political make-up, as well as possibly competing for the title of “most corrupt state governments”. The individual voters are definitely more moderate to liberal, with conservatives being in the minority. A case in point is Massachusetts, where the Republican Party barely registers, the Democrats have a larger share (11 % to 35 to 36%), and unenrolled voters run either Tea Party, Conservative or Left of Center, or both (depending on the candidate). In this scenario, Romney walked away with the vote, despite the fact that on the surface it is one of his “home states”- it was more of an ideological and geographical divide, with Western Massachusetts showing more support for Santorum than the Central and Eastern portions of the state (One eastern County did give Santorum more than 15% of the vote. This allowed the more Moderate candidate, Romney to win convincingly in the Bay State.

The final question that arises is Santorum capable of continuing to compete against Romney in states going forward and preventing him from taking the nomination outright by June. That question is clearly not answerable at this point in the game. With upcoming primaries expected to split between Romney and Santorum for the balance of March and April. It is anticipated that Santorum will win Louisiana, however, the April primaries, for the most part, favor Mitt Romney: On April 3rd, contests in Maryland and DC (similar to Massachusetts and Illinois – although Maryland does have an interesting mix, given the upset by Christine O’Donnell over the moderate incumbent in the 2010 primary – if those demographics holds, it may be competitive for Santorum - DC should handily go to Romney. Wisconsin, a cousin to Massachusetts and Illinois, also appears, at this point, in Romney’s column.

April rounds out with a return to the East Coast in big delegate winner take all contests: Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, again, more moderate/Democrat should be – Romney, and New York, with a heavy concentration in the urban and suburban areas that favor Romney with a large upstate population that would shift to Santorum, is at this point a Romney state, and finally the home state of Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania, should break for Santorum. This is based on the geographic trends in this contest to date.

Can Santorum break the mold? - Yes, if he can continue to raise the funds, if he can stay on an message that is top heavy on foreign and domestic issues, while including social issues, but not to the extent that has been played by the media, and finally, if he can contrast without coming off as negative in adverting against Romney, instead shoring up his credentials, specifically his voting record, and moving to the middle without alienating those large bloc of social conservatives who appear to be single issue voters. Play up the fact that he is the candidate polled that can best Obama in a national election would be pivotal, and the focus on contracting himself with Obama, in part, more than with Romney would shore up his campaign going forward.

Highlights of the evening: Romney held a brief and rousing speech, not before purloining Santorum’s latest message on “Freedom”, Romney spoke firsts – Santorum in his speech, opened with the fact that he had congratulated Romney, and that Romney had gone on to adopt his Freedom theme. He then went into an excellent description of the differences between the economic plans proposed and those in place. It was one which includes a nod to protection of religious freedom, but was top heavy on pivotal issues.

Santorum’s reference to not using a teleprompter could have been aimed at President Obama but was more likely aimed at Mitt Romney who also relies on Teleprompters.

Personal note: Although this blogger prefers Santorum personally, due to his economic, foreign policy and domestic policy approach, compared to the former Governor of the Bay State (of which this blogger can speak with some authority regarding the performance of said former Governor). It is imperative that regardless of choice of candidate, one must understand that both of the last men standing can best Obama in the fall – however, one can bet dollars to doughnuts it will not be the meek that prevails, it must be a candidate that stands firm, and that will take on the media, and the Administration based on Constitutional issues. It is this opinion; Santorum would perform better in that position and in the position of contrast when it comes to the debate forum. Perhaps most importantly, those states that have not participated in the process for decades or were not able to impact an election, are now able to do so, and they have two clear and competent choices – between a credentialed Conservative who has voted for the people of his State wile in the Senate, and perhaps not in line with the Party at all times, and a Moderate Republican, who is more apt to change positions more frequently than most, which may appear to be a personal advantage, or one which is politically expedient. Both men have worked across the aisle to move issues forward, however, one more to the left of Conservatism than the other.

GOP Heads to Illinois, McClatchy outlines Problems Faced by Romney in the Land of Lincoln

Romney trouble connecting to moderates? (Shown with Ron Paul) - image Libertarian Peacenick.com


From: St. Louis Today: “Several Hurdles Ahead for Romney in Illinois”, a piece by David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers, speaks to the problems that Mitt Romney faces going forward into Illinois. It is difficult to assess, which of the issues pointed out by the author, is the most difficult for Romney – one that was not mentioned as an issue and perhaps should have been was the opening paragraph noting that Romney’s ads are everywhere – if they are the negative ads run against Santorum in Mississippi and Alabama, one might not hesitate to put that in a negative column. Exit polls in those states showed the excessive negative advertising by the Romney campaign cost him votes, and was a net plus for Santorum. The list of issues highlighted in this piece includes:

His own “persona”, which apparently does not resonate with voters, is number one on the list. This is followed by a related litany “Romney is having trouble erasing doubts that he's too stiff, too politically inept and too insensitive to constituents who confront gasoline prices over $4 a gallon every time they drive down a street.”

The economy has not improved rapidly follows, however, Romney is touted as “Mr. Fix it”, therefore, if this appears to be a problem, he has not sufficiently sold the electorate on his skills (see above)

They are concerned about Santorum, spending millions more on ads, and adding campaign spots (see problem with negatives).

The Romney Camp counts the wins in Michigan and Ohio (slim victories, one with less than 1%) as having given him momentum, and that a loss in Illinois would be damaging.
Santorum is a problem, polling well in the Chicago Suburbs with “evangelicals” , and in the balance of the State – (note: in the poll referred to, Chicago Tribune, Romney was leading in the Chicago Suburbs only (but see population), with Santorum taking a larger lead in 95% (approximate) of the balance of the state).

Those voters seen as potential Romney voters do not appear enthused.

The problem form the perspective of this writer notes that Romney’s attempt at being Conservative has turned off the reliable moderate voter (i.e. Romney voter).

Above all it is his persona, which the article cites as the one reason Romney may not do as well as he potentially should in Illinois: Complete with quotes:

Romney's passion problem stems from two sources. One is his style, which many find wooden and distant.

"One word: Plastic," said Judy Thorne, a Mount Prospect, Ill., retiree.
"I just have this feeling he won't get things done. He's a little bit of a pushover," added Madeline Mainzer, a Niles microbiologist. "He's too influenced by people too much, and doesn't really know what he hopes to do."
Romney's other dilemma involves the economy. Voters routinely quote his recent gaffes about his wife's two Cadillacs or his friendships with NASCAR or professional football team owners.

While the economy has begun to recover in this state, people remain uneasy.
Craig Ochoa, a Hanover Township, Ill., highway commissioner, found that while the economy "may be changing for big manufacturers, for most people things aren't changing as much as they would like.

"That's the issue," he said. "Most people couldn't tell you the difference between a conservative and a liberal."

In fairness to all candidates, which would include President Obama, if they do not appeal to the party base, in the beginning of the campaign stages, and then move to the middle after the nomination process, they stand a chance of going no-where. Obama, however, has a personality that is charismatic, which, when marketed correctly, overcame the dual-messages necessary to get him elected.

Romney, when attempting to appeal to the base, falls flat, and this attempt, although well played, has not garnered the support of the base (going to Santorum and then Gingrich), and at the same time has alienated the moderates – that is the difficulty that all candidates face in the information age 24/7 news cycle, - one can say something in Peoria, and it is news in Idaho Falls. If a candidate can stick to principles, and his person elicits trust, be that candidate a conservative or a liberal, those qualities will bring them to the nomination (most often), and once nominated, the onus is on the candidate to either moderate their message, and move slightly to the center – the most successful in doing so, was Ronald Reagan, who was dismissed as too conservative to take the nomination by the establishment GOP (who preferred he more moderate George H Bush), and the media threw everything in the book at Reagan, from questioning his intellect, to the fact that he was “conservative”. However, he maintained his base, and moved only slightly to the middle – of course, he had Jimmy Carter to run against.

Obama, who is similar in style to Carter, would find a conservative Candidate difficult to best. This may be why a Chicago group of Obama campaign activists headed to the island of Puerto Rico (and Romney does very well in all the territories), to denounce Santorum. It may be the polling that shows Santorum besting Obama in key states - Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, while Obama Bests Romney by 2 points. (Rasmussen). This calls into question which candidate the President would prefer to run against: the one that the media supports, or the one which the media takes every opportunity to maligned.

Mitt Romney Wins Puerto Rico – Notes Republican Party Message Appeals to Latino Voters

Mitt Romney Celebrates Puerto Win - image from: (no kidding) planetromney.com

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 and 2012 GOP Presidential Candidatewon the island territory of Puerto Rico with 83% of the vote yesterday (83% reporting) – Romney amassed 98,000 votes, with the balance of the candidates in single digits (Santorum 9%, Gingrich 2% and Ron Paul 1%). Romney “framed his win in Puerto Rico as the territory's desire for a candidate that "most represents their feelings" -- and especially their desire to nominate some who can bring about a stronger economy and a smaller government.
He also said his party can appeal to Latinos, and win the presidency, with a low-tax, pro-business message.” CNN

The latest territory win for Romney in not included in the delegate count which stands at Romney: 521, Santorum: 253, Gingrich: 136 and Ron Paul: 50, with 1324 Delegates Remaining. (NYTimes – Excellent Graphic) The totals from the AP via NYTimes include Super Delegates, or those elected officials who have pledged their support/endorsed a candidate. Currently, Romney has 32 Super-delegates; Santorum has 2, Gingrich 4 and Ron Paul 1. The state delegate count stands at Romney 438, Santorum 251, Gingrich 132 and Ron Paul 49 – these figures do not include Missouri or Puerto Rico. (NYT).

This is Romney’s second win with over 50% of the vote; Massachusetts gave Romney a 72% lead over his rivals. In 2008 John McCain won the Territory with 90% of the vote, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul received 10 and 8% respectively. (NYTimes)

The contests move to Illinois and Louisiana this week, with polls showing Romney leading Illinois by 9 points (Rasmussen), Santorum holds a slight lead in favorability, (which mirrors the Mississippi polling), with 32% of those polled, like to change their minds, 93% of those polled are certain to vote. Public Policy Polling should release their weekend polling in Illinois today. Both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are below 15%, Gingrich at 14% and Ron Paul at 7, with Romney at 41, and Santorum. Rasmusen Reports

Illinios is considered a another "must win" for Mitt Romney.

2012 GOP Update – Romney Campaign low on Cash- Polls Romney Negative Ads Kill Approval – Illinois Now the “Next Must Win” State – Frontrunner?

Romney with his teleprompter, Campaign Short on Cash (AP) image 1st Republic14th Star blog

According to the AP the Mitt Romney Campaign is strapped for cash – while his main opponent, Rick Santorum is out campaigning, Romney is busy trying to raise funds to keep going.

“Romney has scaled back expenses, trimmed field staff in some cases and begun to count more on free media coverage to reach voters. And he's still relying on an allied super political action committee to supplement his spending on expensive TV ads.”
“The once-lopsided money race between the top two Republican candidates has never been closer. For the month of February, Romney boasted his second-best fundraising month ever, taking in $11.5 million. Santorum, who has a vastly smaller organization to support, wasn't far off, with $9 million.”
Romney, who arrives in Puerto Rico Friday, March 16, was forced to spend two days privately courting donors in the New York area.
On Wednesday, Romney had five finance events in New York, all packed, raising about $3 million, with more Thursday. Wednesday "was the best day we've had so far," said New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, who accompanied Romney to multiple events.
But that money is badly needed to refill coffers that had sunk close to their lowest levels since Romney launched his presidential effort last year.
The campaign stopped conducting expensive polling ahead of the Michigan primary. Instead, it now counts on lower-cost voter ID phone calls, which aides contend are nearly as accurate as internal polls. Romney also stopped using the 150-seat plane that could accommodate the press after Super Tuesday and is instead flying with a small group of aides and Secret Service agents on a smaller and cheaper aircraft.
Further, his staff is pursing what it calls creative ways to maximize free television coverage to supplement a flood of paid television advertising. Romney notified local media, for example, that he's scheduled to arrive at the San Juan airport Friday at 2:30 p.m., although there are no formal remarks or events planned for that time. That's not typical for the buttoned-down campaign with the tightly controlled media schedule. The AP via Cleveland Plain Dealer

The tactic of negative ads hammering every single Romney opponent backfired in 2008, and now, Romney is faced with the same situation – polls indicate that the more Romney attacks his opponents, the less favorable he becomes – exit polls in both Mississippi and Alabama showed that the negative ads run against Santorum and Gingrich by Romney’s Pac gave him a net loss in both states Scripps News.

Now, with Illinois looming as the next “Make it or Break it for Romney”, his campaign is now increasing spending in Illinois - to date he has spent 3.4 million on ads in Illinois (WSJ). In addition
The polls in Illinois show a tight race between Romney and Rick Santorum, with Gingrich polling at 12% and Ron Paul in single digits. As the primary is held Tuesday, with Romney hoping for the Urban and wealthier suburbs to push him over the edge, his continued use of negative advertising may actually give Santorum a boost in those areas – similar to what occurred in Mississippi where Romney was favored to win heavily in the Urban areas, while Santorum would take the more rural areas – that is not what occurred – Romney favored to win, fell to 3rd place.

What happens if Romney loses Illinois? – According to Alan J. Steinberg, who served in the EPA under the Bush administration Santorum will become the new favorite to win the nomination.(New Jersey .com)

Of course, each state becomes the next “must win” – as Californians are now looking towards their June 5th Primary as the deciding factor in the race. accoreding to the Washington Post - However, that may be another close one, as polls are varying wildly at this moment, PPP has Santorum within 5 points, while Rasmussen has Romney leading leading handily.

Of course, before the campaigns get to California, (who holds the next to last primary), they face off in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana (where officials have placed Santorum on the ballot) – the majority of the ramming states favor Santorum (poll wise) and geographically.

Therefore as Romney has to attend fund-raisers, Santorum is hitting the campaign trail – While Romney is outspending Santorum 10 to 1 with negative advertising, Romney’s approval numbers are dropping, each state is now becoming the “must win State” for the former Massachusetts Governor – this adds up to the man currently holding the most delegates (combined actual delegates won and super delegates (those establishment Republicans who have signed on with Romney out of some idiotic notation that moderates win general elections – they suffer from short term memory – see Dole, McCain, etc.), at (490 approximate) to Santorum’s 200 (approximate), waging a delegate war of attrition similar to the Ron Paul Model. In other words, at the end of his campaign - We know where Ron Paul’s numbers are now: in single digits in every state since Virginia, where he appeared alone on the Ballot with Romney and had a respectable showing.

2012 is nothing more than a protracted repeat of the 2008 election cycle, and one is now realizing, when the money is gone, and the campaign is resorting to posting on blogs and new sites where every seemingly negative article on Romney is an invitation to use the “Mormon Card” , the desperation of the Romney campaign is now apparent.

The question going forward is which candidate is truly the Front Runner and will Illinois really settle that question? (Keep in Mind that Missouri caucuses March 17th (Santorum Favored), Puerto Rico on the 18th (No Polling Data, but again, the base which supports Santorum is more populace that the rank and file Republicans, could go either way), and then Illinois (polls are tight) followed by Louisiana (Santorum). This may make the Nutmeg State of Connecticut the next Must-win State for the former MA Governor.

2012 GOP Update: Is Gingrich on Team Romney?

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign - image Mother Jones.com

Mitt Romney’s website: Mitt Romney Central, is nowfeaturing Newt Gingrich’s anti-Santorum web video – a poorly spliced version with one segment that shows Santorum supporting Arlen Specter for his vote on supreme court justices, while the video slices it to support for Obama Care.

One can be certain that all of the candidates have supported individuals and/or legislation that has been objectionable to Conservatives at some point in their Career – with Gingrich spending the most time in Washington, he may have crossed the aisle and or made compromises that would appear to be anti-Conservative. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all had to work with Democrats, and did so, with some of the aforementioned, maintaining their principles, while others, not so much.

This Romney/Gingrich Theory just took on more juice as the word from Fox News is that Gingrich will stay in the race to the bitter end, even if he continues to loose – the only one that Newt Gingrich is helping in doing this is Romney – Gingrich’s voters would most likely split, but the majority going towards Santorum, given Santorum the edge.

It may be that Gingrich is growing more obstinate due to the calls from the public and Team Santorum to suspend his race as there is no clear way in which, at this point, Gingrich can win the delegates necessary to do much of anything – he is headed into Ron Paul territory with each primary or caucus. It is difficult to imagine that a politically savvy individual like Newt Gingrich would be doing this out of some sort of “spite”; however, one might see him doing so for political position. While these “rumors” of a Romney Gingrich (taking one for the team, so to speak) alliance pick up steam, the former Speaker is doing little to mitigate the mounting circumstantial evidence that he is either crazy (not likely) or in bed with Romney. It happened before, in 2008 Romney considered Newt Gingrich as a V.P. Running Mate, although a bit premature considering he failed to get the nomination(Desert News)

Note: This blog has watched all GOP candidates closely, and has actively supported the Gingrich candidacy – based on policy and the fact that one would pay to see that man debate Obama, given he had sufficient sleep. However, he was so badly damaged by Mitt Romney’s negatives and his lackluster debate performance before the Florida Primaries, with subsequent primary loses, and made his candidacy no longer viable in this opinion. However, the stronger performances of Rick Santorum and specifically his economic and foreign policy stands, made him the most viable of all candidates, when combining the ability to win a general election, the legislation hat he produced that was consistent in regards to his State (therefore he represented the people who hired him), and finally, the superficial, he is the youngest, photogenic candidate (for those who vote solely on the American Idol ticket. The defining moment was his shot at both Romney and Gingrich during the Florida debate. As a fan of the former Speaker (especially for the work he did during the Clinton Presidency), one can only hope these rumors are unfounded, and that the Speaker understands it’s time to take one for the nation, not the “Team”.

2012 GOP Update 3-6-12-Romney Squeaks Along-Santorum Strong in Key States-Gingrich and Paul Footnotes-A Two M-n Race-Analysis with Note on MA

Two Frontrunners - Romney and Santorum - image CNN






Eleven States weighed in on the Republican Nominating Process yesterday – Romney, as of the latest vote totals, has added 7 states, Santorum added 3 and Gingrich won his home state of Georgia. In the States voting Romney, two are decisive wins: Massachusetts and Idaho, with 98% reporting in, Romney took 72% of the Vote in Massachusetts, and 61% of the vote with 100% reporting in Idaho. (See full results at http://elections.nytims.com/2012/primaries/calendar) In Massachusetts, with low voter turnout, Santorum did best in Western Massachusetts (See county by county map) , with the heavier populated areas from Worcester eastward, with the exception of Bristol County which includes the fishing port of New Bedford. Romney took 72% of the vote in the Bay State, despite exit polls indicating a majority of those voting felt Romney’s Health Care Mandate went too far. Santorum finished second, with 12.1%, Paul: 9.6% and Gingrich: 4.6% In Idaho, Romney won with 61% of the vote, with Santorum edging out Paul by a slight margin or second, Gingrich captured 2.1% of the votes. (All primary voter statistics source: New York Times)

Alaska, with 96% reporting: Romney, 32.6%, Santorum, 29%, Paul 24% and Gingrich at 14.2%, a 4 point victory for Romney. Vermont with 93% reporting: Romney 39.8%, Ron Paul, second with 25.4%, Santorum: 23.7% and Gingrich 8.1%. Romney did slightly better in Virginia, taking 59.5% of the vote, to Ron Paul’s 40.5% of the vote, however, the balance of the candidates, although submitting the required number of signatures, failed to qualify due to Virginia State rules. This was the largest percentage of the vote captured by Paul to date, much of which can be attributed to a protest vote as one does not see Virginia as a strong Libertarian or moderate state.

In Wyoming, with 26% reporting, Romney has a 55% lead to Santorum 30.5% of the vote. Paul 2.5% and a whopping “others” have bested Paul by 11.4%.

The Buckeye State of Ohio – considered the biggest prize of the day, with 99% reporting, shows a squeaker for Mitt Romney at 38% to Santorum’s 37%. Rick Perry and John Hunstman registered insignificant numbers, (These candidates also appeared on ballots in other states such as Massachusetts.) Gingrich totaled 14.6% and Ron Paul: 9.3%. The New York Times site has Oklahoma in a slightly lighter shade of blue; (Blue for Romney) as it appears the margin has not yet been decisive enough to fully declare Romney the winner. The Ohio win for Romney would be lackluster, and similar to the win in neighboring Michigan, where he bested Santorum by outspending the Pennsylvania native in advertising, all negative.

In case of point brought up in a CNN panel last evening: Romney has, to date, won states where he heavily attacked his competition, through either his campaign or his PAC. This gives rise to the question: if Romney were to campaign on solely the issues, would he have pulled out wins in any states? His campaign even ran negative ads in Massachusetts, which is normally given up by the GOP and those competing in the state for General Election as “Safe Democrat” – which has continued to be a tactical error, considering the majority of the electorate is unenrolled. (See CNN Video Below)



Newt Gingrich won his home state of Georgia with 47.7% of the vote, Romney came in second with 25.7%, Santorum third at 19.6, and Ron Paul at 6.5 (others (see above) also won a slight percentage of the vote). This was the only state of the 11 that Gingrich won, and did not place 3rd or 4th with Ron Paul, making the argument for a continued stay in the race appear to hold little standing. Going forward into the balance of March it would be difficult to fathom with those states on the slate (Southern, Midwest, and the islands including Hawaii) Gingrich pulling out nothing more than bragging rights if he wins one or two of the states – and that is a big if.

Santorum pulled three states (and one might be tempted to Count Ohio, given the squeaker it was for Romney), North Dakota: 39.7% with Ron Paul in second, Romney 3rd and Gingrich a distant 4th. In Oklahoma (a preview of Texas), Santorum won by 33.3%, Romney at 28%, Gingrich at 27.5% and Ron Paul again registering in single digits, along with “others”. Finally, Tennessee delivered for Santorum, with 37.3% to Romney’s 28%. Gingrich placed 3rd with 24% and Paul again amassed that 9% of the vote.

Overall, the results show a front-runner in delegates and states own, who has not, at this late date, sold himself as the nominee – he fails to connect to the all-important Blue Collar, Independent and yes, Conservative base of the party- all elements necessary to win a national election. This is especially true in the states he won by a narrow margin or lost entirely, specifically those in the Middle and Western sections of the nation which hold what’s left of the manufacturing jobs in the country as well as, energy (oil and natural gas), and agriculture.

What the results do show is that, two candidates, Santorum and Gingrich, are cut from the same legislative cloth, and hold similar records (granted Gingrich was the Speaker of the House, while Santorum was the Majority Whip in the Senate), they are appealing to the same conservative base. One can Monday morning quarterback (always an assumption which, anyone knows….), and understand that the results of Super Tuesday would have been vastly different had Gingrich not been in the race: Romney would have won Massachusetts and Virginia no doubt, but, would have taken Vermont, Alaska and Ohio.

In the majority of states, however, Gingrich failed to capture enough votes to register, and Paul must understand at some point, that his delegate strategy simply will not work. One has to ponder, what both Gingrich and Paul will do with their delegates once this does go to the convention. In most cases the delegates are released either at large (to make their own choice) or released to another candidate.

Of note however, in a year that is highly reminiscent of the 1980 race between Ronald Reagan (much despised at the time by the establishment GOP and branded as too conservative) and Bush Sr. (the Establishment Choice – Bush Sr. did not give up the hunt until the end of May of that year. In addition there was much talk amongst the beltway of the time and the GOP establishment of a brokered convention.

This is a case of those that want to rule, finding that they are outflanked by those who they think they rule over, the rank and file voters, who are obviously not enamored of the establishment candidate (Romney), while Santorum resonates across all lines. Although painted as some sort of religious nut by the press, (as Reagan was constantly portrayed as a clown and far too socially conservative to win a general election), he is the one candidate that does carry those voters who are pivotal in winning a general. In the final analysis Romney, although the choice of the establishment, given the data to date, he would not be able to win in a general election against the President. Should Romney run of funds, (and that is nearing given the calls begging for more cash to continue), and not be able to best his contenders by beating them with negative ads that are borderline at best, and outright fabrications at worst (his PAC), he would again, have to rely solely on his personality and his ability to connect to the voter – to purloin a title form a favorite movie – Romney would be “Gone In 60 seconds”. In fact, if he had not used the force of his almighty horde of cash, he would not have won or come close to winning in every state he has, with perhaps the exception of Massachusetts, where the moderates are less conservative than most Democrats!

The race will continue regardless, and it appears that there is still time for one front-runner to emerge, depending on the results.

The delegate count by State win (does not include Super Delegates) Romney: 372, Santorum, 177, Newt Gingrich 110, and finally Ron Paul, with 49 (Based on the delegate count, not including super delegates (those that endorse a candidate and what is known as the establishment GOP) or those delegates not yet allocated in the contest at the NYTimes http: //electiosn.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates)

The total to win: 1144, the total left to allocate: 1541 – It is, as of this date, either Santorum’s or Romney’s road to the nomination. It is difficult at this date, to see Gingrich capturing enough delegates in the remaining states to mount any type of a comeback, despite the fact that there are some heavy southern states coming up. In addition one cannot see Romney capturing the southern states given his performance to date (Florida is a larger version of New York and Massachusetts, and therefore, honestly, only holds that title by virtue of Geography). Ron Paul, well, he may pick up another delegate her or there, with no clear reasoning other than to bring awareness to the Federal Deficit.

What the primaries have told us to date, is that Romney is at best a weak candidate and at worst a regional candidate, Santorum holds the most important swing states, Gingrich is also a marginal candidate, and Ron Paul is still Ron Paul.

Keep the popcorn in the cupboard, and get ready for the rest of the month of March, possibly April and most likely into May before either Romney or Santorum becomes the clear front runner and the dust has settled.

Personal note: As a resident of the Bay State that supports Rick Santorum’s candidacy based on the fact that he has the best economic plan (which, begs the question, why does the media find only those who stress social issues first as a reason for voting Santorum? The plausible answer: the media wants Santorum out of the race simply because Obama would prefer to run against Mitt Romney. ) In watching the returns come in, it was not victory (which would have been sweet), rather the necessary 15% of the vote that would have given Rick Santorum delegates from the Bay State. It is matter of pride (which goeth before a fall) to reside in Western Massachusetts, where had the balance of the state mirrored the results, Santorum would have pulled the delegates from Romney’s home state. It has led to the conclusion, which has been a conclusion for many years, over different issues (mainly taxes), that Western Massachustts should secede from the Bay State, establishing its own statehood and giving the nation 51 of the 57 states necessary to vindicate President Obama’s knowledge of geography. (He may have been counting the territory which is the only logical reason for noting 57 states.)

There was a Santorum Grassroots campaign on the ground in Massachusetts who worked tirelessly, and although the results in the Bay State were not what was hoped for, they are in place ready for the general election, which, given history, the nominee should be determined by May.

2012 GOP Update – Michigan Swings in Final PPP Poll toward Santorum – Election Predicted to be Cliff Hanger

Public Policy Polling’s final marginal’s on a two day poll released yesterday show a Rick Santorum with a one point lead over Mitt Romney in Michigan. (PDF here.) - the poll has a margin of error of 3.2 points. There are several points in the poll that are of particular interest – the first being that early voters (18%) polled cast their votes by a margin of 56% Mitt Romney to 29% Rick Santorum, however, those that have yet to cast their vote prefer Rick Santorum to Romney by 40 to 33%. Santorum, whose economic plan suggests a zero tax for manufacturers, does slightly better with union members 37 to 32% to Romney, with 8% of the poll taken including Democrats (63% Republican, 29% Independent). The majority of those included in the poll did not watch the last debate (66 to 34%) and 27% of those responding may change their minds going into today’s vote. The statistics what Michigan voters are seeking in a candidate is most telling – with 56% preferring a candidate that they agree with on issues, and the top priority being the economy besting social issues by a margin of 64 to 19%.


Public Policy Polling, a Democrat leaning polling firm, is most often rock solid in predicting outcomes this close to an election, predicting Santorum’s Trifecta in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri. The fact that they are this tight, with a swing in Santorum’s favor the second day of polling, gives Santorum a slight edge, but still within the margin of error – making the Michigan Primary a nail-biter.

The Establishment GOP and Main Stream Press – Fear of Santorum – The Battle Between Conservatism and Moderates within the GOP – Analysis

Santorum - Feared by the GOP Establishment and the left - photo time magazine

First an article from the Daily Beastheadlines: “The GOP’s Panic over Rick Santorum”- which speaks to the GOP’s first choice Romney and their failed “strategy” for him to win the GOP nomination. The article notes that that polls show Santorum leading Romney, either one on one or with Paul and Gingrich, however, if it looks like Romney is out, the GOP has Chris Christie, new to the political stage as the Governor of New Jersey waiting in the wings to take on the Party’s Minimization. The article describes the reasoning that Santorum’s “controversies” will turn away young voters – rather than say a Mitt Romney or Chris Christie might get them to the polls in droves (Note later remark is bloggers sarcasm).

Following that logic, the man who has professed to not the office (so many times that it has become legendary) – and article from CBS alludes to the same theme – titled “Michigan may be Romney's last stand”, the CBS piece illustrates the rise of Santorum and the polling in Michigan, and should Romney lose Michigan, the GOP powers that be promise a “Brokered Convention” – this according to non-other than Chris Christie.
Needless to say, this same type of rhetoric from both the Press and the Establishment GOP was heard once before in 1980- the candidate was Ronald Reagan – and the panic was the same – how the tune changed once Reagan became the most popular of Presidents, and is now seen as the “bar” for all GOP Presidential hopefuls.

This is the problem with the national GOP – they believe that unless they run a “moderate” candidate, they cannot win (having short memories – see Reagan) – therefore they run, the Bob Dole’s, the John McCain’s, the appeasers to the left, and the result – they lose. Whiel losing the GOP might or might not pick up a majority –but a lot depends on the strength of the GOP in general and specifically the Speaker of the House – and right at the moment, John Boehner is more Romney than say Gingrich – who was successful is accomplishing just that – with Dole as the nominee. From a strategic standpoint, the only candidate that would worry all sides and achieve a rally to the base and independents who are fed up with the Obama administration policies (specifically economic), is Rick Santorum. Ron Paul, the perennial candidate, has a good percentage of the youth vote locked up – and as far as the youth vote goes – they generally do not account for a large enough percentage to affect an election. However, the “religious right” does. The Evangelicals and the Catholics are two of the largest voting blocs in the nation – If they come out in droves for a candidate (2000 and 2004 for George W. Bush (Evangelicals) and 2008 for Barack Obama (Catholics), then there is an effect, a real effect on who becomes the nominee.

Therefore, although the press and the national GOP and the DNC are terrified of the fact that those two factors, who they both court and dismiss at the same time – (being somewhat elitists) – when a candidate is surging who may be more credentialed than the rest of the PAC, but is not moderate enough for the taste of the national GOP, or the press, he is labeled “controversial”. Santorum has made statements that are just that, controversial to those who have no idea of what Catholicism entails, or the “Sexual Revolution – not the Progressive viewpoint, but the religious and also statistical viewpoint – and the latest charge that Universities might be teaching students liberal, progressive and anti-religious ideology. The problem with Santorum is that although one might not want to take a good looking the mirror, he does – he doesn’t mince words, and he makes no apologies for his statements.

The fact that colleges and universities are catered left (including Catholic institutions) is no secret. One is challenged and derided if one is not “secular” - it is a fact, but one must ask the college students, not the media and those elitist who were in agreement with the general think.

The Chicago Tribune in a piece that might be considered somewhat misleading given the headline “Rick Santorum rejects absolute separation of church and state” – speaks to the differences between Romney and Santorum, however, emphasized Santorum’s note on the “class system” developed by progressives.

The former Pennsylvania senator also doubled down on comments he made the previous day that believing everyone ought to go to college is snobbish and devalues the hard work done by Americans who don't hold college degrees. (Chicago Tribune)

It has become part and parcel of the American think that without a college degree on can do nowhere, however, those graduating from college today are faced with a choice between which fast food chain they are going to work for, assuming there are jobs available.
The Progressive ideology suggests that there is a class system (this is a taught at most universities in Senior Seminars): The First Estate, (those coming over on the Mayflower), the Second Estate (the Kennedy’s, Roosevelt’s, etc. who are very wealthy), and the Middle Class (or Elites), those who have a four year degree, then the Blue Collar workers (those who hold a high school degree and work in public service (police, firefighters, etc.) and then the “masses” – those who hold no degree.

It is the most ridiculous and misleading piece of useless information that is given to students that are about to receive a 4 year degree – that somehow the Kennedy’s are American Royalty, that they are now elite, and that the rest of the groups are “beneath them”. (This blogger had to sit through that course and not without a bit of argument). It is the most anti-American thought process, a class system in a nation that was designed to give opportunity for all, regardless of education, regardless of social standing, and yet, the courses and dogma give the student the impression that they are part of a social class – one last ditty from this course – certain things are not to be told to the “masses” because they cannot handle the information – no kidding. Also one is not supposed to "share" this "entitled" piece of information (indoctrination?)

When Santorum spoke of Kennedy’s speech on Separation of Church and State, he spoke to the fact that Kennedy was distancing himself from his Catholicism as he was facing a fierce battle for the nomination and his Catholicism was being used against him quite effectively – he needed to come up with an assurance – and he took the progressive stance – which appeased those on the left who feared the Pope would be running the United States (no kidding those were the anti-Kennedy ads from within his own party). It is an oxymoron to say the least, when the Constitution directly states that the State should make no religion primary, and protects the practice of religion – that’s it in a nutshell. The Separation of Church and State means simply that the United States cannot set up a Theocracy – and as far as anyone who studies the Constitution or has read the Bill of Rights – it is difficult to misinterpret. Yet if it is in the political interest of the Press, or a party – it is done so on a daily if not hourly basis.

The message one will hear is that Santorum is out of touch, right wing, when the reality is, he is a Catholic, with Catholic viewpoints (not shared by all Catholics, just as there are differences in all Christian and Jewish faiths (Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, for example) and one must suspect others not mentioned. His points are not within he mainstream think regardless of whether they are right, and that is all one hears. One does not hear about his economic policies nor his foreign and domestic policies, nor his energy policy. Rick Santorum is not Mitt Romney or the establishment GOP candidate – Good! Good for the Country – especially if they learn about his non-controversial statements (press and GOP speak) but rather his sound policy statements. The fact that Chris Christie, and the balance of the GOP standard bearers are threatening a “brokered convention” (just like they did in 1980 – except they wanted to run George H Bush instead of Reagan) – is just that, a warning to those who might see chaos and vote for Romney against their better judgment or their own preference.

The likelihood of this happening is nil, but the GOP and Press shoving this down the voters throats “literally’ is ridiculous. From this perspective and without a Chrystal ball – no one knows at this point who will win Michigan and or Arizona (as polls are too close to call), and on Super Tuesday, ten states go to the polls: Alaska - which may go to Romney, Georgia where Newt Gingrich and Santorum are doing well, Idaho, Santorum, Massachusetts, Santorum or Romney, North Dakota, Santorum, Ohio Santorum, Oklahoma Santorum, Tennessee, Santorum, Vermont – Romney, Virginia Ron Paul or Romney.

The fact is that Romney on Super Tuesday, based on current polling, may take 3 states, and with proportional delegates awarded in some, pick up a few. It is where he suffers, in the middle of the country and the south, which makes it impossible for a candidate, a GOP candidate to win the nomination and then win the presidency.

A closing though, Rick Santorum is not Ronald Reagan, but their current situations are so similar, one must make the comparison – one might suggest that Santorum would be the candidate to best Obama, given the national polls as well – therefore, the media fights against another Conservative taking the role of President, and so does the National GOP. It is a question of power, having power over those “masses” that is at stake. Santorum is, for all intents and purposes, a working man’s advocate, and that just breaks all the rules of both the Progressives and the national GOP – to encourage a working man (or woman) to believe they are of equal worth to the Elite – it’s simply heresy.

CNN GOP AZ Debate 2 23 12 – Winner Gingrich, Romney Lies Through Teeth but Strong on Delivery, Santorum Strong on Defense, Paul – just Ron Paul

The Candidates; Paul, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich seated for CNN debate - image Gaurdian UK


A Matter of Trust

The 2012 GOP Candidates gathered in Arizona for the last debate prior to the Primaries to be held in Arizona, Michigan on the 28th and the Super Tuesday State Primaries on March 6th. The four remaining GOP candidates went from the usual introduction, to an attack by Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on the one Candidate running strongest in the polls, Senator Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich, stayed out of the battle of what amounted to “he said, she said” – between Ron Paul (the pot who calls the kettle black when it comes to earmarks, then babbles his way to - “protect the constitution, or some such snippet of a slogan” to get his point across – which apparently is: I’m going to attack whoever is the front runner, regardless of whether or not, I’ve done the same thing, and then end it with something my supporters understand.

Former Governor Mitt Romney did the same, however, his delivery was stellar, and he managed to continue to pound home on Santorum to the point where he sounded believable – to anyone who hasn’t exactly “fact checked” Mitt Romney. The opening remarks he made regarding the Catholic Church, which is a hot button issue, was a major stretch – considering it was his usual excuse to those who reside in Massachusetts and looked towards a positive outcome: (Paraphrasing) “There is nothing I can do – the deck is stacked against me, too many Democrats!” – The most egregious assertion was his "work" with the Catholic Church and their ability to operate as an adopt service in Massachusetts – from Cactholic Culture.org:

Boston Catholic Charities has decided to pull out of adoption services, rather than comply with Massachusetts law that requires adoption agencies not to discriminate against homosexual couples.
The surprise move by Boston Church officials, announced on March 10, avoids a political showdown in Massachusetts. The state's bishops had said last week that they would seek an exemption from the law that mandates equal treatment for same-sex couples.
The Boston office of Catholic Charities has been caught up in a controversy since last November, when it came to light that the agency had placed several children in homosexual households. Church teachings say that adoption by same-sex couples is a form of violence against children.
In December, Boston's Archbishop Sean O'Malley reportedly received a direct instruction from the Vatican saying that a Catholic agency cannot be involved in adoptions by gay couples. (The San Francisco archdiocese has recently acknowledged a similar message from Rome, responding to same-sex adoptions arranged by the office of Catholic Charities there.)
On February 28, the four diocesan bishops of Massachusetts joined in a public statements indicating that they would seek an exemption from the government's non-discrimination policy. Today's announcement indicates that the bishops have abandoned their effort.
"We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," said Father J. Bryan Hehir and Jeffrey Kaneb, the president and chairman, respectively, of Boston Catholic Charities. Their joint statement concluded that they could not find a way to "reconcile the teaching of the Church which guides our work and the statutes and regulations of the commonwealth."
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had said that he did not have the authority to grant an exemption for Catholic Charities from the state's anti-discrimination laws, but he indicated that he would be sympathetic to legislation advancing that goal. However, leaders of the state legislature warned that a Church bid for an exemption would be unsuccessful, leaving the bishops no other option but a court battle.

The same story can be found on the Boston Globe’s website, for those who might think that Catholics are a bit too worried about good and evil getting in the way of a few facts.

Romney Lobbied hard for the Salt Lake City Olympics, and yet, continues to pound on Rick Santorum on doing the same (as does Ron Paul). He also taxed and fee’ed his way to a mandated balanced budget, in Massachusetts, everything that Santorum attacked or counterattacked to the left and right of him was the truth – it was the delivery. He appeared tired., and he became technical – at one point, which is surprising, Santorum was describing the workings of the Congress, something which Mitt Romney declared, he could not understand – it was a minor point, to be certain, however, Romney if elected, should understand how the legislature works – it was understandable the delivery dry, and a high school student (hopefully form one of the “best schools in Massachusetts” (There are a handful of the state’s schools that do have graduation rates over 60%), could understand. Mitt Romney apparently needs a civics lesson. His new debating coach however, is doing a fine job.

In the final questions, Romney refused to answer a question on what the one misconception the public might have about him – instead going into a “Why you should elect me President” stump speech – coming off as a bit arrogant. In total he was the second to least “frazzled” appearing candidate on the stage, the most composed goes to:

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, answered very few questions, with short, pointed statements that were well structured and well spoken – he was consistent throughout the debate – and, appeared to be a different man, the Newt Gingrich of the pre-South Carolina Debates, who did not show up for the Florida debate – he was back last night. Best line of the night: In referring to Mitt Romney’s assertions against Santorum and Romney’s work with the Catholic Church – Newt Gingrich held that “incredible” look on his face, until he leaned to Romney and said “Nice Try” – then went onto support both his and Santorum’s assertions against Romney by noting – the truth. It was easily brushed aside by one Mitt Romney.

Rick Santorum, of course, being charged as one of “those Catholics” that actually practice their religion, had a few good points in the debate, but appeared flustered at points, most likely due to the Ron Paul on his right and Romney on his left, and their continual assault on his record, while apparently, ignoring their own, or outright lying. He was the most passionate in his delivery in defense of Iran, and his grasp of the situation in the area (going a back at least a decade) is of import. Although one can give credit for Mitt Romney’s ability to get the foreign policy talking points down, and Newt Gingrich, (goes without saying), knows whereof he speaks on foreign policy) – it boils down after watching what amount to a three ring circus (Paul, Romney and Santorum) – of one question.
Who do you trust not to act rashly, but to come to be sensible on the points relating to Iran, and oil production and delivery and the options on the table leading to stabilizing the Iranian Theocracy? Who do you trust to be as honest as a boy scout, best Obama in the polls (in September) and to deliver a plan on economics that has not wavered and would best serve both those in Manufacturing jobs, of which there are very few (especially in Massachusetts)?

It is the fact that Santorum, who is now saddled with the “crazy Catholic” moniker over a speech given at a Catholic College (private church institution) in 2006, where he used the word “Satan” - something those on the left feel would not resonate with Catholics, and the views he personally holds that are within the confines of Catholic doctrine, which one would expect a Catholic to hold. However, he is the Boy Scout, next to another Catholic, Newt Gingrich. Santorum may have lost the debate on form, but on substance, he held on. He appeared somewhat tired, not unlike Romney’s worst debate performances (the man who owns that title over the plethora of debates held to date), and Gingrich’s performance on two occasions, one which was critical – that of Florida.

It will be perception and the battle lines of delivery on the ground in each of the states, and the reality that if there were to be a comeback for Gingrich, it has to happen not on Super Tuesday, but in Arizona and Michigan. Therefore, it is up to the Santorum Team, to ensure that their candidate is well-rested, at every stump speech made between now and the Super Tuesday and to come out swinging, staying on point, as everything he said for the last five decades (he would have been two) will be brought to bear on the media.

However, it is that nagging question of which one of those candidates, appears most trustworthy to lead the nation, to protect the nation, to deliver on their promises, and who has a record of delivery on promises made in the past – whether or not one might agree with supporting state programs (through earmarks), or if one is in the anti-Catholic Camp, the Right media followed by the left media, and those American’s who were concerned about JFK’s Catholicism. As it happened in 2008, when the extremely qualified, 2-1/2 term Govenor of the State of Arkansas ran against Mitt Romney and John McCain (two moderates who were sure to lose, either the primary or the general election as is historically the case when moderate Republicans run for the office of the Presidency), each article, each newscast, would begin with “The Baptist Minister, and somewhere near the end of the article or newscast, or perhaps not at all, the point as made as an afterthought, the successful two and one half term Governor of Arkansas, a state one might point out that has a fairly strong Democrat to Republican ratio.

It was that Huckabee was rising against Mitt Romney, as is Santorum now, so if one cannot beat someone on their record, or resonate with the people, the press (from the left and the right), goes after that individuals faith, making it appear that it would be central to their governing the nation, with evidence in droves to the contrary, in the form of state governors records, and/or legislation signed by a Governor, and or votes taken, legislation written by a Senator.

Romney looked good – this time, has grown stronger in the debate arena, but only time will tell if those in Arizona and Michigan will trust Romney enough to throw their full support behind the “businessman” and one-term Governor of the State of Massachusetts In the upcoming primaries.

There is no answer to that question, however, one can assess how the standard media is handling the last debate – in Massachusetts the report by CBS locals used snippets of the debate video that caught each of the candidates in the worst one-frame, part-answer to a question that made them all look – pretty bad – that newscast went on to speak about Obama’s Campaign the fact that the Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, would be co-chairing the Obama Campaign. As sure sign, if any, that Massachusetts is being considered a state that needs a figurehead – how odd one might think – almost as odd as the constant adds run by Romney’s back currently hitting the airwaves In MA – ads are attacking: Rick Santorum.

In the interest and practice of full disclosure, this bloggers supports Rick Santorum as the 2012 GOP Nominee. The reasoning is not based on Social Issues, although his remarks following the Obama Administration assault on the Catholic Church resonated (given that this non-practicing Catholic is still a Catholic), further, the assertion by the media, Drudge Report to New York Times that Santorum is some sort of “religious nut” when he is merely practicing and speaking about Church Doctrine, strikes a cord of support rather than the intended result. It is his stance on economics, specifically his plans for manufacturing that are vital to this nation, his grasp, and strong grasp of foreign policy issues, which are always the key to this bloggers choices: foreign policy and economies. The social issues are secondary, if considered at all. In making this choice of a Santorum candidacy, it was not done lightly, as readers understand that this bog has favored several different candidates over the course of the campaign. However, in the debate arena, in the stump speeches, and in the laity to tell the truth even if it hurts, (goes to trust) of all the candidates, Santorum is the only one that satisfies both criteria. Is he able to beat Obama, polls have indicated that yes, indeed he is – so although technical points were awarded to both Gingrich and Romney due to their delivery, it was the passion and knowledge portrayed by Santorum, once again, that keeps this Massachusetts Moderate a supporter. Massachusetts Moderate – then why not Romney? It is the issue with truth, and when one can stand on the stage and in front of a nation deliver barbs against opponents, with a PAC that runs advertising that is patently false, then that individual’s quest to win at any cost, including abandoning truth and running on record, turns this voter flat. In the 2008 elections, when faced with a choice between McCain or the not yet decided Democrat Candidates, Barack Obama (and yes, Newt had that born alive issue down pat – it was for this reasons (Obama’s support for the doctors, not the living child who managed to escape the physicians ice pick) that Obama received the highest rank of any candidate by NARAL (A pro-abortion group) or Hillary Clinton, this blogger (feel free to check the archives), supported Clinton. Not due to the fact that she was a “woman” (goes to the feminist moniker), although that was a plus, but more on her voting record in the U.S. Senate on issues of defense (she has more, to be blunt, cajones than either McCain or Obama on record, this Massachusetts Moderate would have preferred a Clinton Presidency to a McCain or Obama Presidency – but was left with no choice but to vote against Obama, not for McCain. Sue me, I also voted for Carter, people change their minds, in a matter of a period of years sometimes, just not on a daily basis (if one needs to think about whom I’m referring, then one needs to read more about Massachusetts favorite sons John Kerry and Mitt Romney (ok Kerry has higher favorable).

Therefore, this blogger goes on records, and the ability to face the American public straight on without reservation, and with truthful assertions and explanations that Mitt Romney may not understand about how Congress works.

It is however, a fact in this mind, given the records of three of the individuals vis a vis Obama, (and a dose of reality, no matter how many delegates Ron Paul has, in truth, the polls and the results thus far, are not encouraging as far as any known path to the nomination) is that they are all, to a man, even one who can stand there and stretch he truth like a slinky, are all a better choice to run the nation. Therefore, the preference is: Santorum, Gingrich, Romney (goes to trust, but in the end, Romney may be more trustworthy than Obama, so one would have to vote for him regardless.)

As to a brokered convention: poppycock: The candidates for all their flaws and foibles, are still our candidates, and let the chips fall where they may – again, with exceptions, they are all preferable.

The video in 9 parts courtesy of 2012 Debates You Tube Channel
Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

Part VII

Part VIII

Part IX

Breaking GOP 2012 Update -State of Maine Recount! Counties Missing from Official Tally – Romney May Loose Maine – Paul a First State Win- Analysis

Who Won Maine - That's the Question! 184 Vote Romney Margin May Disappear in Recount - image Washington Times

Fromthe Portland Press Herald – the Main GOP is recounting the caucus votes due to pressure from Maine State Republican Committee Members

1. Romney won by 194 votes out of 5585 total, those votes did not include Washington County

2. Clerical and Commuter errors, in much of Waldo County were left votes off the table, and other community vote totals were erroneously entered (Press Herald)

In light of the Press Heralds information – a slim margin of 194 votes, with large (for Maine) blocs of votes either missing or entered incorrectly, could change the schematic of the race towards Paul, and/or give Romney a larger edge – but, with the focus on the Establishment GOP and its role in the Romney campaign, one would be under the impression that Paul, not Romney would have something to gain if the votes are recounted, and corrected.

The large state, (historically the former upper end of Massachusetts, made a singular state in the Missouri Compromise), is one of the larger states in the Union with areas such as Washington County, where the vote was delayed due to snow, slowing the process, especially as the primary is in the format of a caucus. The fact that a winner was declare with 20% (approximately) of the vote totaled, with known errors, is at best incompetent.
The Maine Caucus is similar to that of the Missouri Caucus both being non-binding where no delegates are awarded until later in the process (In Maine’s’ case May, Missouri releases their delegates in March).

If Maine goes to Paul, the current state win count would be:
Gingrich: SC
Paul: Maine
Romney: NH, NV, FL
Santorum, IA, CO, MO, MN

The next primary contests are on the 28th of February in Michigan and Arizona, a debate is scheduled for the 22nd on CNN at 8 PM EST, both the March 1st Debate and the March 5th Debates have been cancelled, those debates prior to Super Tuesday – therefore the performance of the February 22nd Debate per candidate will not only be of import in Michigan and AZ, but will play to the voters in the Super Tuesday States: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia – of those states, Alaska is one that may move towards Romney, Massachusetts, the Santorum Campaign has Grassroots in place on the ground, no other campaigns are active. In Virginia, there are two names on the ballot, Paul and Romney – where in 2008 Paul bested Romney in the state primary. It is difficult to tell at this stage, but one might not want to count out a Paul in Virginia, where it comes down to a choice between two candidates (See Missouri).

In the case of Santorum - given his popularity with manufacturing states, (or former manufacturing states) and the middle and western states, may see Idaho, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee go his way. Massachusetts and Vermont could prove to be upsets with Massachusetts going to Santorum, or Paule (Santorum again, has boots on the ground), and Vermont leans Libertarian, therefore, that is as difficult call. Those two states (although not on anyone's radar) will depend on candidates grassroots strength and or the presence of a candidate on the ground. The later is unlikely given the nature of both states (Liberal leaning). That said, with no-one watching: Mitt Romney, although popular with the establishment GOP in Massachusetts, he has an uphill battle with the State’s unenrolled and rank and file Republicans.

Speculation: If Romney should lose Michigan, it would be a, as pundits note, a blow, simply because he spent his early childhood there, however, if Romney were to loose Massachusetts, it would send a strong message of rejection across the board, as the state is used as a testing ground for moderate/liberals nationwide. With Super Tuesday and the schematics of all states combined, watch for a downplay of importance from the Romney campaign on the role Super Tuesday plays in the nominating process (similar to the reaction to CO, MO, and MN.)

2012 GOP Update – the Catholic Church and Birth Control vs Governing – Media Grasping at Straws with Rick Santorum Anti-Woman Rhetoric

Rick Santorum - a Problem with Women? - from Christian Science Monitor



Apparently and according to an Op-ed in the Washington Post, Rick Santorum said “Birth Control is Harmful to Women” – and since he said that (without the entire context of the video which is below) he therefore must be “against women”. However in listening to the entire video – which apparently is one of the few things that the left (or the right, perhaps opposition research) has on Santorum In viewing the entire video, It is quite clear that he was speaking as a Catholic, from a personal perception, which is not to be confused with the way he voted. Santorum supported Contraceptive use from a legislature’s standpoint- period.

The fact is the man understands the separation of Church and State, which the current occupant of the White House apparently does not. This is why the Catholic Church is not buying into the whole: if you own a charity or business and you are the Catholic Church and you fund everything, you must pay for contraceptives and abortions – against the tenants of your faith. When the Bishops rejected that as totally unacceptable (again Church and State), the President pulled an “end-run” and figured he’d just have the insurance companies mandate coverage for birth control and abortion - in essence forcing all religious groups to go against the tenants of their faiths.

The action prompted former Governor of Arkansas and 2008 GOP Contender for the Presidential nomination, to note “We are All Catholics Now” Huffington Post, and leaders of all faiths, including Muslim Clerics, voiced opposition to the President’s plan.
Therefore, as a practicing Catholic, Santorum, in expressing his Catholic viewpoint, is looked at as someone who is “out of touch” or not with or for women. This is, in essence the most ridiculous statement any opponent might take, especially as his record supports the separation between Contraction and the support of bills that included aid for contraceptive use. It is the political attack practice of drawing a conclusion that the individual and “what they might do” as a Catholic (or Christian), is clearly going to influence their position as President - its bunk and they know it.

There was great fear with John F. Kennedy first ran for office, - he was a Catholic, and the opposition were concerned that Rome, the Pope, would run the nation. Of course, now, after history has given us the nature of the man, one finds there was no grounds whatsoever for the charges leveled at Kennedy, and his choice of Religious – again Catholic.
It is that there are practicing Catholics, like a Rick Santorum, and so many Catholics from the other side of the Aisle (Pelosi for example), that do not vote in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church – In fact, Nancy Pelosi is at odds with the teachings of the church on almost every single issue, especially her support of Abortion at any stage. Yet they are both Catholics, one is touting the line for the Progressives, and denying her faith, while the other is a Catholic, does not deny his faith, yet legislatures with the separation of church and state in mind. It’s honest and frankly refreshing.

The line will become from the left, should Santorum win the nomination and that appears to be increasingly possible, (if not probable should he win the Michigan Primary), then it will that Santorum will be “against women” – even though, his record states otherwise – what one has to understand is that frankly – women are not that stupid. Women understand the difference between the two, just as Senator Santorum understands his roles, and what his role would be as President. The fact that he is so proud of the accomplishments of women, (one need only look to his wife, and how he speaks of her, in terms of his pride of her accomplishments), it would be inconceivable that he would attempt to pull an end run around the constitution, for something as small an issue (in light of the much larger problems facing this nation), similar to that of the President. Sorry, but, one can’t see a President Santorum banning Birth Control from the land.

As far as birth control being dangerous for women, honestly some of it is – as the science of pharmacology develops, there have been, over time, instances where women have suffered because of the use of a particular product ((IUD)), or the benign hormone based birth control, now with much reduced hormones (cancer), is still offering some side effects. There is also, one must note, advances in the product to make them much more “safer” than they were in 2002, or prior to that period.

One must ask – have they yet perfected a bill or devise for men so that women do not have to remember to take that pill, or surgically implant a device? It is the woman who is constantly made responsible, for an action that involves two. The argument could be made that those on the left, screaming about the former Senator, might be a bit anti-feminist (rhetorically speaking).

One must also ask: does one prefer a candidate that has a basis in faith and that subscribes to that faith, and has been consistent in their legislation, and the way they lead their lives, understanding the separation of church and state, or does one prefer a candidate that either does not speak of his faith, or, is at best, unclear as to their faith, and disregards the constitution when it comes to legislation.

As a non-practicing Evangelical Catholic, this blogger appreciates the straight-forward, individual, one who would stand up for the Catholic Church and any Church, while bringing the Constitution to bear on social issues.

The truth of the matter is, all candidates that remain, have either been in the legislature in some capacity, and having done so, have signed bills and supported legislation for spending that would be seen as “big government” and or pork (and yes, that includes Ron Paul), and one who was Governor, who received Pork for the State, and as a private CEO of the Olympics, lobbied hard for Federal Funds. It is who will admit it, who will say, yes I did this because it benefited my state or district, that is the stand-up guy, as long as that individual hasn’t lobbed accusations at his opponents, and only one of the four comes to mind and that is Rick Santorum. Apparently, the left and the right must understand that as well, considering these attacks are, at best flimsy - Santorum is, therefore, the "front-runner" and therefore has not become a threat to Progressives and those candidates remaining in the GOP Presidential nomination process.

Therefore, as a women who is keenly interested in the character of the President, and that candidates record in government or in working with the government, one gets a glimpse of that candidate might approach the presidency. Of the four, Santorum has, given more time in the debate arena, and in the multitude of interviews, shown himself as a “stand-up” guy. Not the lesser of four evils, but someone who one can actually get behind and support. Yes, even as a “woman”, one of the group that is perceived “owned” by a party based on one issue and one issue only – abortion and contraceptives. Not equal pay for equal work, not equal protection under the law, but on a social issue. Nothing could be more insulting to the intellect of the woman who votes.