Victory! Light Bulb Ban No More: Republican's Win Sanity Battle

The Solyndra of the consumer light products now has competition Image from colubmiacountyga.gov

The battle over the little squiggly, inefficient, yet "politically correct", hazmat hazard lighting devise, scheduled to replace the best invention: the good old fashioned light bulb has been won. Those of you hording the standard Edison bulb can now relax, however, one might wish to go out and stock up on those on sale now, before retail prices increase. Send a huge thank you note to those rascally Republicans in the Congress.

GOP 2012 Iowa Fox News Debate Winners: Gingrich, Romney – Stable, Bachmann Misleading

Paul’s Foreign Policy Issue. Lackluster: Perry, Huntsman, and Santorum


The Frontrunner(s) - image Washington Examiner

The Fox News 2012 Iowa GOP Debate offered very little new in the way of showing differences between the candidates – Both Gingrich and Romney remained polite and did not heed the call to arms from the moderators, specifically Bret Bair (who appears to like a bit of rabble-rousing) – on points and on answering the questions without “dodging”, Gingrich was straightforward, however, appeared off his game and somewhat tired. Romney, true to form, ignored the timer, however, was given the time to do so by the moderators more than any other candidate, he appeared to stand up for himself, however, took less barbs than the current front runner Newt Gingrich.

Those who are running behind Romney and Gingrich in national polling, attempted to compensate and ended up overcompensating, specifically Bachmann, who leveled the most accusations against Gingrich and his record, with increasingly inaccurate and misleading statements. Gingrich, to his credit, remained calm and refuted the false allegations, with the exception of one: Bachmann’s claim that Gingrich favored Partial Birth Abortion and was not pro-life. In that instance, Bachmann went off the charts – refer to articles from: Life News.com: “Misleading calls claim Newt Gingrich Not Pro-Life on Abortion. Apparently, an anonymous group in Iowa has been making claims regarding Gingrich since November, and Bachmann has no problem aiding them (according to Poltiico. Bachman also had a difficult time grasping the difference between a lobbyist and a private consultant, consistently harping on Gingrich “taking taxpayer money” for work done for Freddie and Fannie. When called on these allegations by Gingrich as being false, Bachmann immediate cited the St. Petersburg Times (not the most Conservative of Organizations) Politifact as giving her a perfect rating, Politifact immediately put out a statement disputing Bachmann’s claim.

Ron Paul, who, as of yesterday, was neck and neck with Newt Gingrich in Iowa polling, remained true to Paul form, he is an isolationist in the mold of George Washington, however Paul neglects to acknowledge that times have changed since 1786. That said, he is perhaps, the most consistent constitutionalist, with the exception of Gingrich, on the panel. Ron Paul did get into a heat with Bachmann, again, Bachmann overstating the truth on the issue of Iran and its nuclear capabilities as to who said what when. Paul also appeared less energetic in this debate than in the previous debates.

Rick Perry remained Rick Perry, with little opportunity to answer questions, he compared himself to football sensation which is being called a ”Hail Mary Pass” and rightly so. Although acknowledging that he is enjoying the debates (that may be subject to a fact check), Perry’s inability to articulate at a level shown by the other candidates, explains his less than exciting poll performance.

John Huntsman, who is perhaps one of the more underrated candidates, simply has not had the same camera time as the balance of the candidates, and it is unfortunate. His record as Governor of Utah is impeccable (especially when compared to Perry’s and Romney’s – the two other Governors on the stage). Huntsman’s governance in Utah would make a great case study for any of the GOP candidates on that stage – as a tutorial on “what to do right”. His lack of organization, and his soft-spoken demeanor, for now, has held Huntsman back.
Santorum’s performance was solid, however, he had about as much time on questions as Jon Huntsman, and for someone who has spent time in Iowa, more than any other candidate on that stage, the reception belied the effort.

The audience: made of Iowa Republican caucus goers, gave the loudest and lengthiest applause to Newt Gingrich, the other candidates not so much.

One heckler for reform of the Federal Reserve noted their disappointment in the fact that there were no questions poised on that subject – in the last 10 minutes of the debate. It is assumed that this would have been a Ron Paul supporter – the individual who received the second highest applause from the audience.

The television audience: For the very small percentage of the entire electorate that actually turns on debates, Fox News was not quite as solid as the ABC debate held just last week. ABC has, to date, the highest debate viewership at 7.6 Million viewers. In the 2010 elections 81.9 Million votes were cast. Putting that into perspective, calculating a minus 40% for Democrats and 20% for Independent Voters, that leaves: 39.3 million Republican’s available to watch debates. (Note: The Fox News Debate Viewership should be out before Monday)

Therefore, although a certain segment of the electorate (those categorized as “political junkies” (blogger: guilty, or those who seek to really understand the process) do tune into the debates, the balance who don’t rely on advertising and/or the person they see most in the News (if and when they do watch a news segment). This is why, when pollsters fail, and the chips fall in a shocking direction, the pundits are put to shame.

Who will win the Iowa Caucus, at this point in time it is difficult to tell, however, the individual with the best ground and grassroots campaign going may be the surprise candidate. With the individual running the most positive messages either in a tie, or close, this may be why Mitt Romney wisely failed to jump on the front-runner Newt Gingrich, knowing that negative attacks and advertising diminish the candidate espousing the same.
For this blogger the most entertaining segment of this debate was the Fox Post debate review, and one Charles Krauthammer, who appeared to have difficulty weighing in on the performances of the candidates, perhaps he, like Gingrich and Paul, was simply tired, or “off his game” a bit. The Fox Post Debate Team surprisingly gave the debate to points to Michelle Bachmann, for being “aggressive”.

Currently Fox News has not released the full video of the debate, rather Snippets of the candidates question on electability
In closing, one can anticipate swings in the polls on both the national and primary or caucus state level, some of which will bear little resembles to the outcomes, (excluding those taken within the last two weeks prior to the vote). It will be the ground game in both New Hampshire and Iowa that will garner the win, in South Carolina; it will be the individual who comes across with the most sincerity and conservative credentials that are proven. As of today, Gingrich is tied in Iowa with Paul, behind Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina (said to be the state that is most predictive of the nominee) Gingrich is currently leading by a wide margin.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment to this conservative feminist is one Michelle Bachmann. One cannot take away Ms. Bachmann’s personal record, which is stellar, nor her voting record, again, she voted against Bush as many times as against Obama, however, when it comes to crunch time, instead of playing fast and loose with the facts, in this opinion, standing firm on her convictions and attacking anyone but those candidates on that stage, would have pushed her polling higher. She has the ability to be an effective leader, and the heart to take on the task, but she has a trust factor when it comes to facts. A sticking point from this perspective - one which leads down the slippery slope of intentional deception, one which is not admirable in a woman or a man. Therefore, Congresswoman Bachmann should, calling it quits by Florida at the latest.

GOP Newt Gingrich Now under Scrutiny for His Catholicism – from the Media: WAPO Headlines: “Catholic Blind Spots” and “Catholic Case for Gingrich”

The GOP Candidates: Branding by Religion: Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Pual and Bachmann - image detroit news

GOP Presidential Newt Gingrich has come under scrutiny for a myriad number of past indiscretions (going back 20 odd years in most cases) by his GOP Rivals and the press once he rose to the top tier, and then became the one to best in the 2012 GOP Nomination Process. It appears with everything thrown at Gingrich but the kitchen sink, including potential personality issues, which would have one believe every pundit and politicians has had a crash course in psychology lately, his ability to work across the aisle (cardinal sin), his “wild” ideas, that are, when taken in context, sound and forward thinking (Promotion of a space program, teaching children to learn the concept of work and reward from a private sector standpoint). With each new “bomb” thrown at Gingrich, regardless of the source, he continues to rise in the polls (among Republicans primary voters – but at close inspection of certain polls, he also appeals to independents and moderate Democrats).

Those elite, those Washington insiders, and those pundits and talking heads (especially the likes of Glenn Beck who is, when one looks at certain predictions he has made in the past, akin to “Chicken Little”) – prefer one candidate in particular, and the rest of the population is considered - less able to make the choice of the right candidate on their own – in simple terms. It is the process that they are attempting to pervert that is prompting the rise of Gingrich, as they did in the past with the rise of anyone but the individual the GOP had pre-ordained as the front-runner, often two years before the first vote had been cast.

They have help of course, from their friends across the aisle – at times it is difficult to tell if one is listening to Ann Coulter or David Axelrod, (of course the later uses crude language and Ann does have superior intellect), regardless – the people who are voting will have the say – and they will have that say if the candidate of choice is Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann and yes, even the apparent “chosen one” – Mitt Romney.

However, now the gauntlet has been thrown down in a manner that hasn’t been employed since the 1960’s and the race that brought one John Kennedy to the White House – the fact that Gingrich is a Catholic. Now there are two articles with what appear to be opposing views from the Washington Post the first: Gingrich’s Catholic Blind Spots - speaks to the fact that Puritans set he rule of government when they arrived at Plymouth, and therefore, the Catholic vision of governance is slightly different in that they do not expect their leaders to be “saints”, rather to follow the tenants of the Church, as interpreted by University Professors and a host of “experts” on the subject of Catholicism. It is almost as if to say: Gingrich is not Catholic enough, based on his past.

This article is followed by a second entitled “The Catholic case for Gingrich, for now”. Speaks to the fact that Gig rich basically follows the ten tents of the faith, yet, one must watch over the next few weeks to see if he perhaps sways in any way.

Understanding a President’s faith may be a sticking point (see the rhetoric against John F. Kennedy pre-election hysteria surrounding his Catholicism) or more so a “tool “to frighten one voting bloc against another, the fact of the matter is the Catholic Vote has traditionally gone to one party, with very few inconsistencies- and that party is the Democrats. Of those high profile Catholics who have held, or currently hold office, the familiar names of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, pick a Kennedy, Richard Neal, the Massachusetts 1st District Representative, and the majority (with the notable exception of Neal) receive high marks, not from the church but form pro-abortion groups such as NARAL.

Yet, when it comes to an election year, one can find them most often in a Church with a full contingent of press in tow. The fact that with few exceptions (again Neal) the legislation that they produce and the votes they cast, run contrary to Catholicism in so many way. There is, however, nary a peep out of the press. These living and deceased Catholic Democrats have been lauded in both the church and the press, regardless of infidelities, multiple marriages or their stance on issues such as abortion.
Catholics, like women, African American’s, Hispanics, “belong to the Democrats”. (Would the Washington Post be Aware of that 70 Million strong voting bloc and attempt to sway the same?)

Newt Gingrich had a lot of nerve converting and therefore, since he’s now receiving (in polls) Catholic support, something must be done to “take him down a peg”.
As this blogger is a Catholic Christian, born a Catholic – yet a questioning Catholic, and a student of History, one finds that the use of religion, especially by those who are convenient “pundits” to apparently challenge the faith of another Catholic, is in a word, abhorrent.

One can see why, as an Historian, the Catholic Faith would appeal to Newt Gingrich, it is stepped in History, with the word “Catholic” literally meaning “universal”, giving one a comforting notion of a faith that has held fast since Christ anointed Peter as the fist Pope, to the tenants of forgiveness of sin, and those many wars throughout the history of Europe that were fought by princes and kings in order to either throw the yoke of Rome off their personal backs (See the beginnings of the English Church), and those that fought to keep the faith pure for political reasons. From this perspective it is the perfect mix of history and theology makes this the most attractive of all Christian Sects.

That said, in the political arena, where does the faith of one candidate over another’s mean a hill of beans in a society based on freedom from a State Sponsored Religion? Would it matter if one candidate were a Baptist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Catholic, a non-denominational Christian, or Muslim? Our nation was founded on the principal of freedom to practice religion, any religion, without being burned at the proverbial stake for not being “Catholic enough” or “Evangelical enough”?

The fact that the former Speaker is now a Catholic, has little to do with a reason to vote or not, for the man = however, the fact that he is a man of faith, does imply a moral compass - one that is necessary in any candidate regardless of brand of religion. The reasons one would support a Gingrich Presidency would be the man’s intellect, his wisdom as a result of intellect and age, and his sense of history, which, one must understand is a blueprint for “what not to do” when it comes to options regarding everything from foreign policy to social programs to yes, taxes. As with all past presidents, their religion was a personal matter, and one finds it difficult to find one President who has led the nation based on a specific brand of religion, however, all Presidents have involved the name of God – we are a nation founded on Christian and Judeo Principals – so to those who nitpick that someone isn’t Catholic enough, or perhaps too Catholic, or too Evangelical or too Baptist, or too pick a brand, are merely attempting to sway one’s vote as one may not be smart enough to make the choice – without the help of Glenn Beck, the DNC, the RNC or pick a pundit. – Therefore these individuals “use” religion to their advantage.

Moreover, the measure of man or woman running for the highest office in the land, should not be based on their choice of religion, rather their competence, past life experience, combined in a resume that qualifies one over another for the position they seek- and it is up to the voters to cast their ballots based on the following: their conscious as Americans, as Citizens of the United States, and to do so, one must look at the candidates and ask: who would lead us in dignity and intellect, safety and on a course that would allow us to be the nation that is known to give the most, offer the most, and deny not one citizen an opportunity to rise and prosper. The fallacious argument that the GOP candidate will not win if they are not “young enough” or “too white” or “too old” or “too much a female” or not “moderate enough” is, in a word, insane.

Those who feel they rare in the position to best advise and lead the public (all in the name of the Beltway) have every right to endorse or champion their favorite candidate, however, to vilify another to the point of picking on their religion, is – in a phrase – “above their pay scale” (Barack Obama’s answer to a question in a faith based debate at Saddleback Church, to Rick Warren in 2008, when asked to define when life began.)
One might not agree with the President Obama’s policies, and therefore, one has choices to make as to whom one would choose as a Replacement. It is not the fact that he President can or cannot be bested in a political contest, it is the fact that we have a process, a process in which, the people, not the pundits, or members of Congress, or the also rans, should shill for one candidate that “party leaders” preordain. It is perhaps, this arrogance that has cost one Mitt Romney, the ability to rise to the nomination for a second time. Would either Gingrich or Romney or Paul, or Perry or Santorum best President Obama? They are all aptly qualified to one degree or another, therefore the answer is yes – as long as the pundits and the national GOP stay on the sidelines and let the people decide who the nominee should be that leads on the ideology of less government, fewer taxes, strong foreign policy and defense of our nation and a respect for the rights of states to determine what is best for their constituents, and if not accepted in general, there is always another election.

Speaking as a Massachusetts Conservative with some Degrees of Moderation and a bit of pragmatism and the ability to actually research legislation written (sponsored), or supported (co-sponsored), the outcomes and the roll-call votes of those in Congress and the Senate (records available on line, this is not a special talent), it is to this mind that Gingrich represents the best choice to lead the nation forward, at a reasonable pace. If one reads through the posts of 2008, one will find that this blogger also has supported Mike Huckabee, and then when the going was tough, and the three remaining choices were Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton – Clinton was the choice, not based on the fact that she was a woman (yes, feminism), but on her voting record and her views at that time. Of the three, she was the strongest on defense, followed by McCain (seriously) and finally a man who had no record to speak of – a one term Senator, and former State Legislator, whose voting pattern culled from Illinois, made this voter a bit uneasy on social issues and issues of limited government.

Therefore, at this moment, in this time, Gingrich Is the choice of this individual who has grown more conservative over the course of the past four years, as one might suspect, so have others that are moderate and independent. The President does not belong to one group or another, but especially the President should not be chosen by a political party, or the press, and should the people prefer a candidate those aforementioned are not supporting – tough. Finally, the polls: as a student of polls, the ability to predict a “winner” depends on the largest possible sample, additionally questions posed are not often as clear, by design, and as pollsters also lean politically to both the right and the left, the outcomes can be “modified” and that “perdition” becomes more of a propaganda piece than an actual useful statistical analysis. Therefore, who dose the voter trust, one would suggest their instincts, as to whom one feels would be the best leader, and then let the chips fall where they may.