Game On? Insider Advantage – Last Poll Iowa 2012 – Romney-Paul-Santorum Tied – Gingrich Stable - Support Shows Uptick – Anyone’s Game

Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum - any combination of wins possible - image from reddogreport.com

The headline fromthe Southern Political Report via Inside Advantage: “Iowa: Romney and Paul Neck and Neck; Santorum Surges; Gingrich Stable: Others…Gone” shows exactly how up in the air the Iowa Caucus is at this late date – in a statistical tie. This particular polling firm has called Iowa correctly in 2004 and 2008, the poll of 729 registered Republican voters taken after the Des Moines Iowa Register Poll has a margin of error of 3.5% gives the following results with a margin of error of plus/minus 3.5%: Romney 23, Paul 22, Santorum 18, Gingrich 16, Perry 10, Bachman 6, Huntsman 2, Other 1, and No Opinion 2. If this is the case, the ground game is going to come into play heavily today – giving those candidates with the most organization the edge – Santorum’s rise is, according to the firm, at the expense of Michelle Bachmann, which may be the result of Santorum’s endorsements from evangelical leaders.

What is most telling is that New Gingrich not only remains steady at the 4th position, but has gained points in this poll, given the amount of negative and misleading advertising placed on behalf of PAC’s in Iowa – the majority coming from Mitt Romney, followed by Ron Paul’s organizations. Gingrich, who had been last, in the middle, first, and then 4th has the opportunity in this particular year to capitalize on the Southern and Midwestern States, where Romney again, remains steady in the 20’s, and Paul’s rankings are dismal – Santorum will remain the wild card, along with Perry going into the South.

In Virginia, where Romney and Paul will remain the only candidates on the ballot, Paul trounced Romney in 2008 – Virginia, a Super Tuesday State, saw its AG at first attempt to change the Commonwealth’s primary rules, allowing all candidates ballot access, however, changed his mind a day later. As the states are proportioning delegates up through Super Tuesday, this will give Ron Paul an edge going forward. Should Paul upset Romney in Virginia, and the balance of the delegate heavy states put Gingrich and Santorum in the lead (as they head into the South) Romney may be out of the race by March – there is little that suggests he can, at this point, go the distance in the primary, with polling continuing to give him numbers steady in the 20’s.

The 2008 polling data from the same firm, gave Huckabee the lead, followed by Romney, Thompson and McCain with Paul coming in 5th above Giuliani with a larger margin of error at 5% (approximate), McCain who finished 4th in Iowa went on to win the nomination. The IA poll numbers 2007: Huckabee 30, Romney 24, Thompson and McCain both at 11%, and the final Iowa rankings were: Huckabee: 34.4, Romney: 25.2, McCain: 13.0, Thompson: 13.4, Paul, 9.9, and Giuliani: 3.4.

A big factor to consider in this race as in 2008, Romney remains at 23 to 25% in all polling, suggesting a repeat performance of 2008 – given the fact that Romney in 2008 not only outspent Huckabee by a wide margin but also was behind a barrage of negative advertising aimed at the former Governor of Arkansas, he could not rise above what is the Romney Benchmark.

Trying to call Iowa in 2012 is, as of this point, impossible – given the fact that there is no one candidate that has a lead outside the statistical margin of error in the top 4. For example, the final numbers could end up with Paul, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Romney - (Mindful of the fact that 41% of the Iowa Caucus participants are capable of changing their minds in Caucus – See article on the Des Moines Iowa Register final poll- here) The above reflects a tight race, giving credit to ground games and adding media attention now being shown to Santorum – and the possibility of Romney being pushed back, as Gingrich and Santorum combined have been seen as the “anti-Romney” to Conservatives. Should Romney remain at 22-24% he will place in the top four, however, should the Gingrich, Santorum or Perry supporters on the ground in Iowa, convince a portion of those 41% to change votes from Romney or Paul, the 24% could fall 10 points. It is a statistical nightmare. It is anyone’s guess – and tonight, the world will know the results, and the focus will be on New Hampshire.

This blog believes that Gingrich, given all the polling data will remain steady, and going forward into New Hampshire, will compare and contrast his record with that of Mitt Romney’s, specifically Romney’s time as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, his only hands-on experience in Governing and working with Legislators. From a Bay State Perspective, Gingrich would have the edge would he use simple examples of Romney’s tax policies, while Governor, alone. Romney may blame the Democrat Legislature but it is the Governors’ office in the Commonwealth that has the final say – and a line-item veto. Should Gingers compare and contrast without going dark and negative in the Romney style, he may do much better than expected in New Hampshire, and one must not, in any way shape of form, discount Ron Paul in the Life Free or Die State.

Mitt Romney Raises Taxes & Fees by $700 Million Partial Term as Governer of Bay State

Mitt Romney Signs Massachusetts Health Insurance Mandate (notice the players?) - Image and article Southcoast Conservative

Although the candidate, Mitt Romney, is a "fiscal conservative" who "creates jobs", and improved the business climate as well as personal income growth in Massachusetts, the actual Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was a different story. Understanding that Mitt changes his mind on a dime, he may not longer feel that increases in fees for gun permits, marriage permits as well as hikes in corporate taxes, and the like are the stuff of which Presidential candidates are made - however, once President, would he keep the promises to the U.S., the same promises he made to the unwitting citizens of the Bay State?

During the 2008 Presidential primary process, one blog (out of many) for candidate Mike Huckabee (who like Gingrich and anyone else standing in front or near to the front of the "Romney Machine" has been and will be the subject of massive attack ads - by Romney PAC'S and/or the Romney Campaign. So to those who are about to change the direction of our country in Iowa and New Hampshire (crediting the South Carolinian's with a bit more sense), perhaps a trip down Mitt Memory Lane maybe in order.

From South Coast Conservative: (Formerly Massachusetts for Huckabee) comes a plethora of interesting articles on then Governor Romney. (This is well researched Political Intelligence)

"He did not have any broad-based tax cuts in his four years as governor," said former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci, who preceded Romney in office.

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: More Than $700 Million Per Year In Increased Fees And Taxes Under Romney. "Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday. Michael J. Widmer -- president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which closely tracks state finances -- said the state has raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as 'closing loopholes.'(Brian Mooney, "Analyst Puts Increase In Fees, Taxes At $700m," The Boston Globe, 9/27/06)


Massachusetts homeowners paid a steep price for Romney's shell game. The average single-family property tax bill statewide rose from $3,015 in fiscal 2002 to $3,799 in 2006, a 26 percent increase, or $784 a year.4 During the same period, the residential property tax levy (that is, the total amount collected) increased by $1.8 billion statewide, or a staggering 35 percent from fiscal 2002 to 2006.
(Massachusetts Municipal Association Research Bulletin, 4/3/06)

Romney’s Claim That He Didn’t Raised Taxes Is “Mostly A Myth.” “Romney will likely also be eager to push the message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code.” (Stephen Slivinski, “Fiscal Policy Report Card On America’s Governors: 2006,” Cato Institute, 2006, p. 26)

(go here to read additional posts that outline exactly how Mitt Romney "helped" Massachusetts

As there was so little difference between Romney and most Progressives, it made sense for the poeple of Massachusetts to elect Deval Patrick, mentored by David Axelrod, and friend to the President, Barack Obama.

If this makes a Conservative, fiscal or social comfortable, then surly we are living in a Rod Serling episode that never ends.

Obama Signs Bi-Partisan Defense Act – Does not apply to U.S. Citizens – Read the Bill - HR 1540

HR 1540 – (Final Version, Passed by the House (controlled by Republicans) and the Senate (Controlled by Democrats) and Singed by the President (A Democrat)
(GOP.gov via Thomas (Library of Congress)

Under subtitle D - Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
H. R. 1540—266
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.

Key points in this Act: The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.

Also in this section it does not increase or decrease the powers of the Office of the President, rather everything appears to be status quo with a good deal of reporting due by the Office of the President to the Congress.

The actual contents of the Bill do not specifically match the President’s statements made from Hawaii –

From Infowars:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

It’s a campaign time, let’s blame the Republican’s, let’s blame the Democrats.
Enough said.