Conservative Samizdat

My Predictions For Who Will Win The 2012 Florida Primary

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:51:00 +0000

With the Florida Primary election taking place tomorrow, I will make my prediction as to who will win. Here they are:

Mitt Romney: 44

Newt Gingrich:`29

Rick Santorum: 16

Ron Paul: 11

Mitt Romney will most likely win Florida by a huge margin. Many people have said that if Mitt Romney wins Florida, he will most likely have the GOP nomination all wrapped up. The race isn't over yet..I don't foresee Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul dropping out anytime soon. Rick Santorum will probably stay in the race but it really depends on how his daughter is doing.

However, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have an uphill battle after Florida because the primary elections will becoming fast and hard. Except for Romney, none of the other candidates, with the exception of maybe Ron Paul, have the staff, resources and organization to keep up with the increase in pace of elections.

Let me share with you what the race looks like up until Super Tuesday. The next primary race is in Nevada on February 4th and Mitt Romney will definitely win in that state. After that, on February 7th in which three states will be holding elections: Colorado (caucus), Minnesota (caucus) and Missouri Missouri. A few weeks later on February 28th, Arizona and Michigan will hold their primary Washington will hold their primary on March 3rd and then a few days later will be Super Tuesday in which 10 states will be holding their primaries or caucuses. Those states are: Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary) and Virginia (primary).

Its hard to predict how well each of the candidates will do after Florida but I can tell you that Mitt Romney will win most of the primaries up until Super Tuesday. I expect all of the candidates to stay in until Super Tuesday. I do think Rick Santorum will drop out after that and it will be down to Romney, Paul and Gingrich after Super Tuesday.

Is Ron Paul A Racist Or Not?

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:14:00 +0000

I get a lot of e-mails and comments on my blog from Ron Paul supporters who argue that Ron Paul is not a racist and provide me YouTube clips and news articles to prove it.

However, Ron Paul's newsletters raise some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist. First, lets review the facts.

Its been established by witnesses and public records that Ron Paul was heavily involved in his newsletter published under his own name:

"...the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul's wife Carol, Paul's daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001."

Its clear that he was intimately and deeply involved with the magazine in terms of editing, publishing, financing, advertising, and staffing his newsletter.We don't know exactly how much money Ron Paul made from these newsletters but from all the available evidence, he profited nicely from it. We also know that Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write many of these racist articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. We know that Ron Paul started publishing these articles in the 1990s.

Now that we've established the basic facts, lets review why his newsletters raises some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist.

First, if Ron Paul isn't a racist, why publish the trash in his newsletter in the first place? Yet, those articles are there for all to see.

Initially, Ron Paul absolutely denied he penned those newsletters. Then we get a half admission that he did write articles but we're to believe he only focused on economic issues. But given all the lies Ron Paul has said about his own newsletters, its difficult to believe that he only wrote the economic articles. Can we really believe Ron Paul didn't write them?

Even we are to believe that he's being honest that he only wrote the economic articles, he allows well known racists to write the articles. Why hire these men in the first place? Why didn't he reject the articles when these men submitted it for publication? Why didn't he issue a retraction and apology after they were published? Why didn't he fire these men after the article were published? The fact that he let racist men write racist articles with his approval and never once objected to it before or after these articles were published is troubling.

There's the additional question of why even try to use racism as a strategy to increase his business? Its such a horrible business and public relations idea unless you know your articles are being read by the racists in America who have no qualms or objections with the content of the newsletters. Then there is no problem.

If a magazine or newsletter was found to have published racist material, they would have issued an apology and retraction immediately. Moreover, they would not have purposely used racism as business strategy to increase circulation and profits.

Ron Paul never did this. Instead, the let these articles stand as they for more than a full decade since the 1990s without any corrections, retractions or apologies. Only when he's running for President in 2008 and 2012 does he try to distance himself from his own newsletters that were published under his name.

How convenient.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that raises serious questions about Ron Paul's bigoted views towards minorities. I don't like accusing people of racism and I don't do it lightly.

Yet, its very clear that there's strong evidence that he is. There's no denying that there are serious questions about Ron Paul's bigotry. Even if we are to view all the evidence in a way that is most favorable to Ron Paul, his actions and words strongly raises doubts that's not a racist.

Whether Ron Paul is a racist or not is a matter of legitimate debate since we're deciding which man we want to live in the White House and be President. With all the available evidence and the troubling questions they raise before you, I'll let you decide if Ron Paul is a racist or not.

Herman Cain Finally Endorses Newt Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:17:00 +0000

When Herman Cain dropped out of the 2012 race about a month ago, there were rumors that he would be endorsing Newt Gingrich. Now, Herman Cain has given his endorsement to Newt Gingrich which he has wanted to do for quite sometime now:

Just over a week ago, Cain addressed a gathering of Republicans in South Carolina and said he had held off from endorsing a candidate because he didn’t want an endorsement to “split my support.”

He said Saturday that the decision to back Gingrich had been in his heart for some time.

“There are several reasons, many reasons as to why I have reached this public decision,” he said. “I had it in my heart and mind a long time ago.”

“One of the biggest reasons is the fact that I know that speaker Gingrich is a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas. And I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president, and going through this sausage grinder -- I know what this sausage grinder is all about -- I know that he’s going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America. We all do.”

The endorsement isn't surprising given that one lying adulterer is endorsing another adulterer. I don't think his endorsement will help Newt Gingrich at all.

Actor Jon Voight Endorses Mitt Romney

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:08:00 +0000

To be honest, I almost fell out of my chair when I found out that Jon Voight endorsed Mitt Romney at a rally at the Fish House in Pensacola, Florida today:

Academy Award winning actor Jon Voight threw his support behind Mitt Romney today, telling a crowd of hundreds at a local restaurant that Newt Gingrich “falls short” of having the characteristics needed to run the White House.

“Governor Romney is a man of faith, honor, love, and truth,” said Voight. “These are the first very important qualities a president must have. He is strong, honest, and wants to bring the country back to its exceptional place, where we have been for hundreds and hundreds of years, until President Obama decided to follow his father’s footsteps and take us to socialism.”

“I’m sorry to say Speaker Gingrich may fall short in many ways,” said Voight. “Please join me to bring in Gov. Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.”

The reason why I am surprised by this endorsement is because Jon Voight acted in the controversial cinematic disaster called, September Dawn, in which he played the role of fictional bishop Jacob Samuelson. The movie was released during the midst of the 2008 Presidential primary when Mitt Romney was making his first attempt to become President of the United States.

The film was not a success because it received strong negative reviews from movie critics like Roger Ebert and Eric Snider. The movie also flopped because the film mixed too much fiction for it to be called a historical movie. It was a horribly written script with bad acting, bad dialogue and shoddy filming. Some people called the film massacre porn. Many Mormons and non-Mormons were upset with the film since it viciously attacked the LDS Church by falsely conflating the Mountain Meadows Massacre with modern day Islamic terrorism

Jon Voight defended the film by describing it as a warning against religious fanaticism and denied that the film was not intended as a direct criticism of Mitt Romney.

I understand that Jon Voight was just doing his job as an actor. Its good to see that he can separate his work from reality and politics. I am surprised but happy to hear that he had endorsed Mitt Romney.

2012: What The GOP Race Looks Like Right Now

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:09:00 +0000

When the 2012 campaign first started, there were a lot of Republicans that were thinking about throwing thier hat into the ring. As time went on, the field started to shape up as candidates were announcing that they were either in the race or not.

This is what the 2012 GOP race looks like right now:

Currently Running

Mitt Rommey, former Governor of Massachusetts

Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania

Newt Gingrich, former Reprsenative of Georgia's 6th district

Ron Paul, current Reprsenative of Texas' 14th district

Buddy Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana

Fred Karger, Gay Rights activist

Dropped Out

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota

Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico

Herman Cain, business executive and talk radio show host

Michelle Bachmann, U.S. Representative Minnesota's 6th district

Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China

Rick Perry, current Governor of Texas

Decided Not To Run

Donald Trump, real estate magnate

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor

Haley Barbour, current Governor of Mississippi.

Mitch Daniels, current Indiana Governor

Chris Christie, current New Jersey Governor

Paul Ryan, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district

Mike Pence, U.S. Representative for Indiana's 6^th district

John Thune, U.S. Senator, South Dakota

Jim DeMint, U.S. Senator, South Carolina

Sarah Palin, Former Governor of Alaska

Donald Trump, business executive

Fact Check: Newt Gingrich And Rick Santorum Endorsed RomneyCare

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:24:00 +0000

During CNN's Florida Republican GOP debate, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum attacked Mitt Romney over his health care plan. However, both candidates supported RomneyCare before they were against it.

Newt Gingrich & RomneyCare

USA Today fact checked Newt's claim during the CNN debate that that he never endorsed RomneyCare and found out that Gingrich's claim is FALSE:

Former House speaker Gingrich claimed he had never favored a federal mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance — only a state requirement.

Gingrich: I didn't advocate federal mandates. I talked about it at a state level …

Not true. Gingrich said "Congress" must require high-income persons to have insurance, not state legislatures. He did so explicitly in a 2007 opinion piece:

Gingrich, June 25, 2007: In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to [among other things] require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.

His support for a federal mandate is of long standing. In 1993, on NBC's Meet the Press, he said:

Gingrich, 1993: I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

Gingrich was proposing an individual mandate as an alternative to the Clinton administration's ill-fated health care plan, which was centered on an employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide insurance for their workers. And he held to a similar position as recently as last May, also on Meet the Press:

Gingrich, May 15, 2011: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

NBC's David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

Gingrich: It's a variation on it.

If Gingrich was thinking about a state-only mandate, he never said so at the time. And he clearly said "all of us" would be subject to his "variant" of the mandate just last May. We judge that Gingrich is falsifying his own history on this matter.

Rick Santorum, Individual Mandate & RomneyCare

During the CNN debate, Rick Santorum went after both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for supporting the RomneyCare and individual mandate. The New Republican found that Rick Santorum is being dishonest in his attacks since he supported the individual mandate:

PolitiFact verified several days ago that Santorum's claim that Gingrich has supported some version of the mandate for 20 years was "mostly true." But it didn't think to ask whether Santorum, too, has supported the individual mandate in the past. And as it happens, he has. He supported it in 1994, according to this April 7, 1994 article in the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call, and this May 2, 1994 article in the same newspaper. It's possible that the newspaper would have gotten this wrong once, but in the heat of a primary campaign it's highly unlikely Santorum's campaign would have allowed it to get this wrong twice.

Moreover, Rick Santorum has flipped flopped on RomneyCare. He endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2008 Presidential elections yet Santorum had issues with it now:

“I feel we need someone who is a strong, principled conservative who believes not in government mandates, not in government control of the health care system, but in a patient-centered approach to health care,” Santorum said.

Santorum added that both the state and federal laws "tend to drive employers out of the private sector plans because they’re expensive and more people end up on the government plan."

“Ultimately, it’s a failure," Santorum said.

Apparently, the phrase, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" has no meaning to Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. They can't hide from their past and are hoping voters won't notice the glass shattering every time they try to attack the individual mandate or RomneyCare. But the voters do notice it.

These two men also don't realize why Mitt Romney is bullet proof when it comes to attacks on RomneyCare. They'e in no position to be throwing blows at Romney since they've both supported the individual mandate and RomneyCare. As as result, every time they attack Mitt, they get weaker and weaker while Mitt Romney gets stronger and stronger.

Ron Paul Was Intimately Involved With His Racist Newsletter

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:12:00 +0000

The more we find out about Ron Paul's involvement in his own racist newsletter, the less credible his denials of knowing about the bigoted content of his newsletters become. Initially, Ron Paul said that he contributed absolutely nothing to his own newsletter:

Now, Paul says he had nothing to do with the contents of the newsletters published in his name.

"Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I've said for 20-something years, 22 years ago?" Paul said on CNN Wednesday. "I didn't write them. I disavow them. That's it." Paul then removed his microphone and abruptly ended the interview.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and "did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them."

A few days later, in an interview with Dave Wiegel for Slate.com, admitted that he did contribute articles to his own bigoted newsletter but that he only wrote articles focusing on economic issues:

CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear? How confident were you that the newsletter accurately portrayed your views on those things?

PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.

CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.
PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.

Recently, several close associates have come forward saying that Ron Paul was intimately involved in his own newsletter.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

There is additional evidence that demonstrates how close Ron Paul was with his bigoted newsletter:

Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001.

The company shared offices with his campaigns and foundation at various points, according to those familiar with the operation. Public records show Paul’s wife and daughter were officers of the newsletter company and foundation; his daughter also served as his campaign treasurer.

Another person close to Ron Paul claimed that Ron Paul started adding racist material in his newsletter in a way to increase their profit in their magazine:

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.

The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.

The Washington Post obtained dozens of copies of the newsletters from the Wisconsin Historical Society. Texas news outlets wrote about them in 1996, and the New Republic published extensive excerpts in 2008. The issue resurfaced late last year, when Paul’s presidential campaign picked up momentum. The extent of Paul’s involvement and his business strategy had not been known.

Paul’s publishing operation began through a nonprofit organization he created in 1976, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, which advocates for limited government and a free market. The group, founded the year Paul entered Congress, published Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, mostly a collection of his congressional speeches and commentaries.

In 1984, just before losing a Senate bid and leaving Congress, Paul formed Ron Paul & Associates. He soon began publishing the Ron Paul Investment Letter, initially offering mostly economic and monetary information. Texas tax records listed Paul as president of the business, his wife as secretary, his daughter, Lori Paul Pyeatt, as treasurer, and a longtime Paul associate, Lew Rockwell, as vice president.

Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

The evidence keeps piling up. We know that Ron Paul Paul wrote a letter to his subscribers promoting his racist magazine.We know that Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write many of these racist articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. We also know that Ron Paul has some association with known racists. As a result of the growing evidence of Ron Paul's racism, its gets difficult to believe his denials that he is not a racist.

Its clear that conservatives, Tea Partiers and Independents should not vote for or support Ron Paul.

Is Newt Gingrich Playing Passive-Agressive With Romney's Faith

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:59:00 +0000

Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne, the Pentecoastal pastor who runs the The River at Tampa Bay church, held a Newt Gingrich rally on church grounds. After the completion of that pro-Newt rally, Dr. Rodney-Brown explained to Florida voters that they can overlook Newt's affairs but they cannot accept Romney's faith:

After the event, Howard-Browne said that the marital infidelities of Gingrich, like all sinners, could be left in the past.

'We've got to hold people accountable. But if they say they've asked for forgiveness then we have to go with what the word of God said - we have to forgive.'

He expressed grave reservations, however, about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

'Mormonism is a cult and that's the problem,' he said.

'Mormonism, if you study the whole history of it, and I'm not trying to create a problem, but they had death squads that would go around kill everybody that wasn't a Mormon.'

Mormons, he said, were 'very honourable people, very clean-married, godly, family' and their faith had 'been doctored up and painted nicely.' But the 'problem is the additon to the scripture, which is the book of Mormon, and all the other additives that Joseph Smith brought to the table.'

Howard-Browne said he was not aligned with any candidate, though he left the church grounds in Gingrich's bus afterwards. Gingrich was not present for his prayer.

Dennis Prager, a well known Los Angeles conservative talk show host has this to say about those who believe Romney's faith is a cult or a bizzare religion:

This kind of rhetoric about a candidate's religion has no place in any political campaign. Pastors like Robert Jeffress and Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne are preaching a dangerous, false and dark idea that a candidate's faith is more important than his values.

The good news is that other religious leaders have publicly stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. Influential Christians like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen , Richard J. Mouw, Reverend Franklin Graham and Reverend Rob Schenck have all stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. The truth is that a candidate's values is more important than his faith.

I recommend my readers to watch a debate between attorney Jay Sekulow and Pastor Robert Jeffress on Mitt Romney's religion because they discuss whether or not a candidate's faith or values is the primary issue voters should be using when deciding to vote for a candidate. Its a powerful and educational debate that every voter should watch.

Newt Gingrich is trying to play the same old tired strategy of playing passive-aggressive with Mitt Romney's faith. This strategy started with Mike Huckabee who employed this trick during the 2008 Presidential election. Other candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry have attempted to employ this tactic in this election before dropping out of this race.

What is so interesting is that Newt Gingrich, along with other 2012 candidates, denounced Pastor Robert Jeffress who supported Rick Perry and called Mormonism a cult. When Craig Bergman, who used to be the Iowa campaign director for Newt Gingrich's campaign called the LDS religion a cult, the Gingrich team quickly dispatched a spokesman to repudiate Craig Bergman's statement:

"He made a comment to a focus group prior to becoming an employee that is inconsistent with Newt 2012's pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign," said R.C. Hammond, press secretary for Gingrich.

Another Iowa Gingrich campaign staffer emphasized that Newt did not agree with Mr. Bergman's statement:

Linda Upmeyer, the chairwoman for Gingrich’s Iowa campaign, reached by telephone for reaction this afternoon, said she’s never heard Gingrich himself say anything negative about Mormonism.

“I’ve never had any discussion that resembled that with Speaker Gingrich,” Upmeyer said. “I have no doubt there are people that reject Mormonism but I’ve never engaged in a conversation regarding that, ever.”

Is this part of a new desperate strategy to defeat Romney by employing a passive-aggressive strategy against Mitt's religion? So far, there has been no response from Newt Gringrich's campaign. They haven't rushed out to repudiate Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne's statements about Romney's faith like they have with Pastor Jeffress or Craig Bergman. I hope and expect that the Gingrich campaign issue a statement distancing themselves from Rodney-Browne's statements about the LDS faith very soon.

WSJ: Bain Saved America In The 1980s

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:09:00 +0000

The Wall Street Journal has an article explaining how private equity firms like Bain helped saved America during the 1980s:

Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney's political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney's lifetime contributions to the nation's economic well-being. If only he'd tell the story.

We are of course putting forth "Bain Capital" as not merely the Romney private-equity house but as the stand-in for the period of American economic history that ran from 1980 to 1989. Back then it was called the Greed Decade, with asset-stripping barbarians at the gate. Virtually everything about this popular stereotype is wrong. Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been.

...

Arguably, the primary force that set off the 1980s upheaval in U.S. corporate restructuring was the deregulation begun by Jimmy Carter and continued by Ronald Reagan. Airlines, ground transportation, cable and broadcasting, oil and gas, banking and financial services all experienced regulatory rollback. Meanwhile, a competitive, globalized marketplace was rising. Management at some of America's biggest companies, confused by these rapid changes, found themselves sitting on huge piles of unused or poorly deployed cash and assets.

Thousands of Mitt Romneys allied with huge pension funds representing colleges, unions and the like, plus a rising cadre of institutional money managers, to force corporate America to reboot. In the 1980s almost half of major U.S. corporations got takeover offers.

Singling out this or that Bain case study amid the jostling and bumping is pointless. This was a historic and necessary cleansing of the Augean stables of the American economy. It caused a positive revolution in U.S. management, financial analysis, incentives, governance and market-based discipline. It led directly to the 1990s boom years. And it gave the U.S. two decades of breathing room while Europe, with some exceptions, choked.

Obviously, Bain didn't single handedly save America but the private equity firms did of which Romney's company was among many firms that helped America revitalize its businesses by forcing them to reform, restructure, evolve and slim down.

We need a candidate who will reduce the size and scope of government and create an atmosphere were businesses can grow or reform and revitalize itself. If you want to return to another economic boom of prosperity similar to the one America experienced in the 1980s, then Mitt Romney is your candidate.

Judicial Watch: Newt Gingrich Is Corrupt

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:23:00 +0000

Judicial Watch just released its top 10 corrupt politicians of 2011. While Newt Gingrich is not on the top 10 list, he does get an honorable mention. Judicial Watch explains why:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a career plagued by scandal and corruption.

Perhaps most notably, on January 22, 1997, by a vote of 395 to 28, the House of Representatives voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich for “intentional…or reckless” disregard for House rules and ordered him to pay an unprecedented penalty of $300,000 for ethical wrongdoing. It was the first time in the 208-year history of the House that such a step against a Speaker had been taken. (Gingrich had faced a raft of charges for alleged ethics violations during his tenure in the House.)

Following a scathing special counsel report to the House Ethics Committee detailing the charges against Gingrich, the former Speaker admitted to providing “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable” statements to congressional investigators. In a written statement, Gingrich stated that his actions ''brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”

During the current presidential campaign, Gingrich has continuously misled the American people about how he, like many retired politicians, participated in DC’s lucrative influence-peddling industry.

Gingrich insinuated during one presidential debate that some members of Congress who took money from Fannie and Freddie should go to jail. And yet, over a span of eight years, according to Bloomberg News, The Gingrich Group was paid between $1.6 and $1.8 million by the home mortgage company. At the same time, Freddie Mac was engaged in massive fraud. Gingrich suggested he was a “historian” for Freddie Mac. But the evidence clearly shows he was “throwing his weight” behind the two Government Sponsored Enterprises to prop them up, saying in one interview that Fannie and Freddie provided a more “liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have” without them. Ironically, President Obama, the man who Gingrich is seeking to oust from office, is keeping secret each and every Freddie Mac (and Fannie Mae) document, including those that could shed light on Gingrich’s relationship with Freddie.

Gingrich also has claimed, “I have never done lobbying of any kind.” However, as documented by the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney, Gingrich was a hired gun for the drug lobby who “worked hard to persuade Republican congressmen to vote for the Medicare drug subsidy that the industry favored.” Carney reports that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America confirmed that they paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News “cited sources from leading drug companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.”

Gingrich has also sustained heavy criticism for his troubled personal life, including the admission by Gingrich that he cheated on his second wife while serving as Speaker of the House with then-House employee and current wife, Callista Bisek.

The Unelectability Of Newt Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:12:00 +0000

A few weeks ago, I thought the race would boil down to a competition between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. However, Newt Gingrich has bounced back from Romney's SuperPac on him in Iowa. He's won the endorsement of Rick Perry and won the South Carolina primary yesterday.

If Newt Gingrich thinks he can win the Republican nominations, he's got a lot of hurdles to overcome. Those hurdles are listed below:

1. Rick Perry's big campaign donors are supporting Romney, Not Newt:

While many of Perry's evangelical Christian donors in Texas could find Gingrich appealing, fundraisers from the establishment wing of the GOP are more likely to gravitate to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Indeed, two top Perry fundraisers—Mississippi-based political strategist Henry Barbour and Dirk Van Dongen, a lobbyist who co-chaired the governor's fundraising efforts in Washington--signed on to the Romney camp Thursday.

"Most people I'm talking to seem to be ready to go to Romney," Barbour said. "Newt's impressive, but I don't think he can win the White House. Look, this is about winning in November and I think Gov. Romney has the best chance to win. If we don't win in November, we're wasting our time."

Barry D. Wynn, a South Carolina fundraiser who left Perry's campaign to raise money for Romney two weeks ago, said he and other members of the finance team were turned off by Perry's attacks on Romney's business record. He noted that Gingrich has been even more vehement in his criticism of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that Romney led.

2. Not only does Newt Gingrich have fundraising problems, he's got campaign organizational problems. Newt Gingrich doesn't have the organizational stamina or financial resources to go head to head with Obama. As a result, Newt Gingrich will gas out early in the campaign because he doesn't have the resources to last long against Obama.

3. Newt is still struggling to pay back the debt he created in the early days of the 2012 election because he spent alot of money on his wife when he should have been spending it on his campaign. Perhaps with Newt's victory in South Carolina, he might be able to pay it off. I doubt it given that major donors are lining Mitt Romney because they know he manages people's money very well.

4. Newt Gingrich is not on the ballot in may of the primary states:

Karl Rove explained why getting on each of the state ballots matters:

Organization truly matters, especially in low-turnout caucuses. Four years ago, for example, 118,917 Republicans turned out in Iowa—and only 424 votes separated the third- and fourth-place finishers. The total turnout was considerably less than the 229,732 Iowans who voted in the GOP primary for governor two years later. Being organized in all 99 Iowa counties means more people can be dragged to caucus meetings who might otherwise stay home on a wintery eve, believing their vote doesn't matter.

5. Newt Gingrich as has a freight train of baggage:

He was accused of approximately 84 ethical violations while he was Speaker of the House. It is an established fact that Newt Gingrich has had to pay back $300,000 in ethics fine back in the 1990s after The House Committee on Ethics released its report on Gingrich.

6. Newt's adultery reveals he is a morally challenged man:

During the South Carolina Primary debate, Newt Gingrich deflected the question about his second wife's accusation that he requested an open marriage. However, the audience rose to its feet not because the accusation was false but that he did a masterful job in avoiding the question:

The substance of the answer was preposterous, of course. This is the man who was calling Clinton to resign because of lying over his sexual indiscretions. He also accused the Clinton administration of lacking moral standing and gravitas. I bet every one of those audience members screaming for Newt mostly likely called for Clinton’s resignation even before it was known he lied under oath.

Why was his terrible answer widely and uncritically received as “hitting it out of the ballpark”?

Because the answer was not about whether he asked his wife for an “open marriage,” it was about managing the political fallout from the accusation.

As David Frum tweeted: “It’s manifestly true that Gingrich wanted open marriage. He had one! Only dispute is whether he told his wife about it.”

Newt Gingrich cannot deny the fact that he divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer so that he could marry the woman that he was having an affair with while he was married to his first wife. Shortly after marrying his second wife, he began cheating on her by having an affair with a congressional staffer. Then he decided to divorced his second wife shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis so that he could marry his current wife who he was having an affair with during his second marriage.

The sad question for voters all across America is whether or not Newt's second wife, Marianne, was telling the truth about Gingrich's request for an open marriage?

I believe Marrianne is telling the truth. However, even if she isn't telling the truth, we have to understand that the difference between an open marriage and adultery is that in adultery, a man is sleeping with someone other than his wife without the wife’s permission. When Newt didn’t get his wife’s permission to carry on a relationship that he was already having, he just continued on with out her permission. What is equally shocking about Newt's multipe affairs is his excuse for his unfaithfulness as a husband was that it was the result of working too hard for America.

7. As a result of his multiple affairs, Newt Gingrich will definitely lose the female vote. He will push female voters into voting for Obama and will cause women vote against the GOP for years to come in the future.

8. With Newt Gingrich's multiple affairs, he is a poor spokesman for issues that are important to values voters. He has no credibility when it comes to issues like traditional marriag. He will discredit and destroy the social conservative movement. He will harm them for many years to come because not an asset but a liability to them. If Social Conservatives back newt, they will lose credibility with rest of America.

9. Newt Gingrich is possess traits that they don't like about Bill Clinton and Obama:

10. Newt Gingrich cannot win the general election against Obama. Conservatives, for whatever bizzare or irrational reason, like Newt but the rest of America doesn't. He has high unfavorability ratings in 1996 very bad:

And yet, his approval numbers while he was in charge of the House were dreadful. Gallup found his net favorable rating in negative territory by the early spring of 1995 (33 percent approve to 47 percent disapprove, or a 14 point net negative), and at the end of 1995 his net negatives would exceed 25 points, where they would remain for the rest of his tenure.

By the time of the 1996 election, Gingrich had become a drag on the nationwide Republican brand. Consider the following chart, which tracks Gingrich’s favorable rating in the 1996 exit poll, by two metrics. First, it looks at his approval rating among all voters, and among only Bob Dole voters. Second, it looks at his approval rating nationwide and in Georgia.

These are very weak numbers indeed. Obviously, his 32 percent national favorable rating shows that only the core GOP base was behind him, but even then Gingrich was viewed favorably by just 61 percent of Dole voters nationwide. And in Georgia – his home state where people knew him best – he could not even pull in three quarters from Dole voters.

Right now, favorability is low and his unfavorability is high. Newt Gingrich is simply unelectable and it would take a miracle for him to reverse that trend. In fact, Newt will probably not win the Florida primary but if he does, there will be a major effort to take him down before he does any more damage to the Republican party.

11. Due to Newt's high unfavorability ratings, he will also most definitely lose the crucial independent voter. The more independents learn about him or are reminded of who this man is, the less they will like him. Independent voters will not like the choices of choosing between Obama and Newt but they will select Obama over Gingrich at the end of the day.

12. Another byproduct of his high unfavorability ratings is that Newt Gingrich will reverse all our gains in the 2010 midterm elections. He will hurt the local, state and national Republican candidates who are seeking to ride a second wave the against the Democrats in public offices across this nation.

The facts are clear. Newt Gingrich may have won South Carolina and he may go on to win the Republican nomination. But he will never, ever be able to defeat Barak Obama.

Mitt Romney's South Carolina Speech

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:15:00 +0000

Mitt Romney gave one of the best speeches I've seen after he won the New Hampshire and he's given Americans another great speech tonight after coming in second in the South Carlina Primaries. Watch Mitt's speech below:

Reverend Rob Schenck Endorses Mitt Romney

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:50:00 +0000

Mitt Romney is the candidate that voters who are concerned about values are looking for. Romney has received support from two separate letters of endorsement from activist who were on the front lines of fighting for traditional marriage in Massachusetts. Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage. Mitt also had a broad array of conservative activist to publish a letter on explaining that Mitt Romney was a politician who fought for traditional marriage and abortion.

Now, a prominent pro-life and abortion activist named Reverend Rob Schenck, who is the president of the National Clergy Council, a nationwide network of conservative pastors from all Christian traditions, including Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox, and Protestant, has endorsed Mitt Romney:

Schenck, who has met all of the Republican candidates, said today about his endorsement, “I’ve talked face-to-face, at length, to Governor Romney about the issues of concern to Christian voters. When I asked Governor Romney pointedly about his personal view on abortion, he told me he believes every intentional abortion is an immoral end to a human life. He is clearly pro-life. He also unequivocally denounced same-sex marriage. When I asked, ‘Who is Jesus Christ to you?’ He said, ‘My personal Lord and Savior.’ There was nothing ambiguous about any of these things.”

Rev. Schenck said he believes Governor Romney is the best organized and the best financed to win a national election.

“Mitt Romney has the experience, the integrity, the intellect, and the leadership skills to go up against President Obama. No candidate will ever be perfect, but he must be as good as possible and he must be able to win. That’s why I support Mitt Romney.”

The evidence is clear. There is no stronger pro-life, pro-marriage candidate than Mitt Romney.

Rick Perry To Suspend His Campaign Soon

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:42:00 +0000

The GOP race is getting very small very quickly. Jon Huntsman dropped out a couple of days ago and now Rick Perry is dropping out too:

Rick Perry is telling supporters that he will drop his bid Thursday for the Republican presidential nomination, two sources familiar with his plans told CNN.

The Texas governor will make the announcement before the CNN debate in South Carolina, the sources said.

The official announcement is expected to be aired on television within the next hour. However, the big question is who will he endorse? Will it be Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich? Apparently he's set to endorse Newt:

Perry will also endorse former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who appears to be gaining momentum in South Carolina. The endorsement could give Gingrich a critical boost just two days ahead of the Palmetto state primary.

Rick Perry's suspending his campaign will affect the race. Newt Gingrich will get a bump in the polls but it will not be enough to catch up to Mitt Romney who has a significant lead in South Carolina.

Getting To Know Mitt Romney

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:57:00 +0000

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into each of the candidates in this election. A few months ago, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record. You can now read the entire series below:

Why The Attacks On Bain Have Backfired on Perry and Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:25:00 +0000

Sometime in the future when Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry will suspend their campaign, they will have no one to blame but themselves for losing to Mitt Romney and failing to win the Republican nomination. They could have turned their campaigns around but they didn't. Instead, they chose to attack Romney for his work in Bain with the hopes of hurting him but instead they have damaged themselves beyond repair.

Below are several reasons why their ship is sinking and will continue to sink until they bow out of the race:

How The Attacks Have Hurt Them

1. The biggest reason why Gingrich and Perry's attacks on Bain have blown up in their faces is because these candidates who are willing to break Reagan's 11th commandment of attacking another conservative and going on to commit the ultimate unpardonable sin of disparaging Capitalism. For many conservatives, their is no atonement that is sufficient to redeem them from their mistake of launching an assult on capitalism.

That's why a big supporter of Rick Perry has backed off from supporting him and is now supporting Romney precisely because of his leftist attacks on Mitt Romney's work with Bain. Another Rick Perry supporter named Roger Simon has also abandoned Rick Perry for his assault on capitalism.

2. It is impossible to believe their claims that they are not attacking capitalism but just attacking his record. Either they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how creative destruction works or that their knowledge of how free market economies work is getting in the way of their attempts to take Mitt down. These men are claiming that Romney's business was not capitalism but but a destructive, profit-driven perversion of it. Thanks to them, this is no longer a left-wing argument. They have now legitimized Obama's attacks on the free market which makes it harder for them to defeat Obama. Businesses know this and that's why they're rallying around Mitt. They know that they need someone who can defend capitalism and defeat Obama. Mitt's got both.

3. If Gingrich or Perry become President, their attacks on Romney will come to haunt them. Obama will essentially argue that their attacks on Romney is an agreement with Obama's perspective on wall street, free markets and capitalism. It will be hard for them to switch from being attackers of capitalism to defenders of capitalism. If they try to defend it, Obama will run attack ads against them using their own words. Mitt Romney has perfectly summed up the core issue of the 2012 election by saying that "Capitalism is on trial."

4. As a result of their attacks on Romney and his businesses, many businesses are choosing to rally around Mitt instead of the other GOP candidates. They've already had four years of Obama villifying businesses, they're not excited for enduring another four years from Obama. They're not excited to have a Republican in office who may or may not vilify them while in they're in office either. Hence, Mitt Romney is the smart choice for them. That's why it is no surprise that the chamber of commerce has told the two Republican candidates to shut up about their assault on capitalism.

5. Not only are business not lining up behind Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich but the assault on Mitt Romney's career as a venture capitalist makes the Occupy Wall Streeters happy because it plays right into their argument that the 99% deserve to attack are being taken advantage of by the wealthy 1%. However, this argument doesn't make the 53% of Americans happy. They're tired of class warfare. They're tired of anti-capitalism. They're extremely unhappy at Perry and Gingrich because they've been vilified by the President and they don't want another four years of attacks on them from Democrat or Republican. That's why they're rallying around Mitt. At least he defends the American economic way of life.

6. The attack on Bain are far left tactics. It doesn't matter that the attacks on Bain have are not true, they will still press the attack hoping that it will hurt Romney. That's what liberals do. They will attack even if its factually not true because they think the attack works or that it actually does work. That's what Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman are doing. That's why Gingrich is airing segments of an anti-capitalist movie he's purchased in his false attack ads on Mitt. He's now desperate enough that he's now willing to buy a movie that uses every trick in the liberal play book in order to take down Romney. Even Michael Moore admires this movie.

7. When people are desperate they either show their true colors or their weakness. This is true for both Perry and Gingrich in that they have shown both at the same time as they continue to attack Mitt. They have shown themselves to be disloyal to conservative principles and they demonstrate how they really feel about the free market. As a result, Mitt Romney will most likely win South Carolina.

How The Attacks Have Helped Mitt

8. The Bain Attacks has had the opposite effect of uniting conservatives of all stripes into defending and supporting Mitt Romney. Conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others are appalled at the leftist attacks from so-called conservatives.

9. Politicians like Rudy Guiliani, Jim DeMint, Tim Pawlenty, and others are disturbed by these class warfare attacks from these so-called conservatives. Conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and The Club for Growth have come to Mitt's defense.

10. These attacks have even got Mitt Romney's old Republican rivals like John McCain and Mike Huckabee to defend him. Moreover, they have gotten conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and Philip Klein, who are well known for their dislike of Romney, are now defending him.

11. Lets not overlook the fact that other GOP candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have refused to join in on these attacks on Romney. They're actually defending Romney.

12. They are helping Mitt Romney in the general election by inoculating the public against attacks on Romney that will surely come from Obama:

Tony Fratto, a former Bush official who now operates his own consulting and communications firm told me, “It’s best for Gov. Romney and the party that . . . [Gingrich] chose New Hampshire to blow up, so there’s no chance of the GOP being saddled with with a Gingrich candidacy. The additional benefit to Romney is that we’ll have the Bain/private equity debate now in January instead of in the late-summer and fall. By the time the Obama campaign tries to raise it, voters will wonder why the president is raising an old issue.”

13. They're helping Mitt Romney make the case that he's the you go to in order to save an organization from economic failure. After all, he's saved many businesses from going under. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics. He's turned Massachusetts around. America needs a president who knows how to reduce the size of government by consolidating, restructuring, or eliminating government programs and firing government employees.

As a result, the attacks on Romney's experience in the private sector has been a total flop. It may not even have any effect on the upcoming South Carolina Republican primary. It is pretty clear that these attacks on Mitt have backfired on them and it will lead to their demise in the South Carolina primaries or beyond if they choose to limp on to the next primary.

Fred Barnes: Mitt Romney Is More Conservative Than You Think

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:28:00 +0000

Fred Barnes, the executive editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, has printed an article about Mitt Romney that has gotten alot of people talking. Fred Barnes argues that despite what Mitt's rivals say about Romney's conservativism, the truth is that he's more conservative than people think.

Fred Barnes explains Mitt Romney's current campaign strategy of not diving into the details of his vision for America and just talking in broad terms about it:

One only has to think back to New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s campaign in 2009 to understand what Romney may be up to. Christie acted like a mushy moderate but has governed like a hell-for-leather conservative. He figured if he revealed his intention to cut spending and taxes and neutralize the teachers’ union, he wouldn’t get elected. I suspect Romney is doing something similar.

We won’t know for certain unless Romney is elected president. But in recent weeks, he’s begun to sound more conservative. Unlike most of his Republican opponents, Romney has declined to offer a specific plan for reforming the tax code. At a town hall gathering last week in Salem, however, he talked up the idea of simplifying the system, broadening the tax base, and slashing tax rates—alas, tax reform at the idea stage.

Mitt Romney knows that conservatives and Republicans aren't the only ones who are watching the primary elections. Moderates, independents and Reagan democrats are either participating in the primaries or watching from the sidelines and paying close attention to who can really defeat Obama. As a result, Mitt Romney is demonstrating that he can defeat Obama by showing everyone that he's got a long range plan of winning the White House by building a strong state and national campaign, raising funds, and reaching out to all voters now rather than during the general election because by then, it may be already too late to win their hearts and minds. That's why Mitt Romney is sticking with his plan of going light on the details and strong on his attacks on Obama.

Mitt Romney is running down the middle while other candidates are running down the right side of the field and are attacking Mitt for not being conservative enough because Romney likes to make a run down the center. Romney's rivals claim that his tendency to run down the field makes him a moderate and not a conservative. However, Fred Barnes refutes this claim by pointing out that while Romney sticks to the middle of the field, a close examination of his record reveals he's more conservative than he lets on:

On four of the biggest issues in 2012, Romney is anything but moderate—or timid. He gets no special credit for advocating repeal of Obamacare. That’s Republican dogma. But he’s been the most specific among the GOP presidential candidates in backing the Ryan budget in all its parts, including its remake of Medicare. It was House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s plan that Gingrich zinged as “right wing social engineering” before reversing himself under duress.

When Romney announced in November his own proposal for cutting spending and reforming Medicare and Social Security, Ryan was thrilled. “Look at what he put out!” he told Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. “This is a great development.” Ryan said Romney’s package of spending cuts “tracks perfectly with the House budget,” which Ryan had drafted.

Romney preceded Ryan in adding a twist to the overhaul of Medicare: Under a new “premium support” system in which seniors would choose among health insurance plans, one option would be the current Medicare program. In December, this was included in the bipartisan plan sponsored by Ryan and Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.

“On entitlements, I think Romney’s plan is easily the best one offered by a Republican candidate,” said Yuval Levin of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “It’s a very smart, very well-thought-out, and very conservative approach.”

When he raises “premium support” and Social Security reform in town hall appearances, Romney has a way of making bold changes sound like tweaks. But in Salem, he said, almost as an afterthought, his proposal would “save Medicare and Social Security . . . forever.”

Like Ryan, Romney would not reduce defense spending. He wants to bolster the Army with 100,000 more troops and increase the Navy’s shipbuilding rate from 9 to 15 per year. In a speech at the Citadel in October, Romney promised to “prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system.” And in Iowa he said he would instruct the Pentagon to prepare “credible military options” to destroy Iran’s facilities for building nuclear weapons.

On immigration, Romney has made it a point in the nationally televised debates to criticize Gingrich’s idea of letting illegal immigrants stay in America if they’ve lived here for decades and Rick Perry’s support for allowing college students here unlawfully to pay tuition at the reduced rate for state residents. That, too, puts Romney in the conservative camp.

To sum up, he’s at least as conservative as his GOP rivals on jettisoning Obamacare and more conservative than some on entitlements, national security, and immigration. He’s no match for Gingrich on taxes, but that’s about it. Overall, he’s to the right of Gingrich.

That's why people like Mitt Romney. They know he's a conservative but he presents his conservativism in a way that people across the political spectrum can like and support. America is a center right country. Not a hard right one. Once Mitt Romney enters office as President, Mitt Romney will govern similar to the way Reagan did. Like Reagan who was well liked by almost everyone except the hard core left, who continually and loudly let everyone know how much they despised him. This is true of Governor Chris Christie. I suspect the same thing will happen to Romney.

In my opinion, the best kind of conservative is the conservative that win the support of all people, working with democrats in office and pushing through a conservative agenda. Ronald Reagan is the perfect example of this. He was a govenor of a liberal state who ran for President. While he was running, he was working to win support from people across the political spectrum and once he got in office, he was able to work with Democrats like Tip O'Neal to push a mostly conservative agenda through Congress. Mitt Romney is following the same exact playbook as Ronald Reagan is.

Jon Huntsman To Bow Out And Endorse Mitt Romney Tomorrow

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:13:00 +0000

After getting third place in the New Hampshire primaries and struggling to keep his campaign going in South Carolina, Jon Huntsman is finally throwing in the towel and calling its quits:

Jon M. Huntsman Jr. informed his advisers on Sunday that he intends to drop out of the Republican presidential race, ending his candidacy a week before he had hoped to revive his campaign in the South Carolina primary.

Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the soaring expectations of his candidacy, made plans to make an announcement as early as Monday. He had been set to participate in an evening debate in Myrtle Beach.

Matt David, campaign manager to Mr. Huntsman, confirmed the decision in an interview Sunday evening. “The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” Mr. David said. “That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”

Jon Huntsman will make his official announcement tomorrow:

Sources said there is an 11 a.m. endorsement expected tomorrow, followed a few hours later by a scheduled 2 p.m. meeting for all of Huntsman’s staff.

I'm sure this announcement will be a huge relief for Huntsman campaign staff because they wanted Jon to quit after the New Hampshire primary so that they could work for Romney's campaign:

Days after his third place finish in New Hampshire, some Huntsman for President staffers have already left the campaign, while others tell BuzzFeed they wish the former Utah governor would drop out so they could join Mitt Romney’s team.
One top volunteer told BuzzFeed that he was shocked Huntsman didn’t drop out on Tuesday. “I was hoping he would. I don’t want to be disloyal or anything, but he doesn’t have a chance anymore. Once he quits, then I can go work for a winning campaign.”
A current staffer echoed those sentiments, saying Huntsman should have gotten out after New Hampshire to allow those who’ve worked for him to find another job. “We’re not going to quit, but we don’t really want to keep going either.”

Jon Huntsman's endorsement may help Mitt Romney since it might get more liberal republicans, moderates and independents to rally around Romney. It will be interesting to see how his departure will impact the South Carolina primary and whether or not his endorsement will help Mitt on Saturday.

Mitt Romney Gets Major Lead In South Carolina

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:50:00 +0000

With less than a week away from when the voters go to the ballot in the South Carolina Primary, Mitt Romney has opened up a big lead in the Palmetto state:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has opened a wide lead over his rivals in the South Carolina primary election race, trouncing Newt Gingrich and gaining momentum in his march toward the party's nomination, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, could all but quash his rivals' presidential aspirations with a victory in South Carolina on Jan. 21 after winning the first state-by-state nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.Voters in South Carolina - who have favored Republicans in nine of the last 10 presidential elections - appear to have shrugged off attacks on Romney by rivals who accuse him of killing jobs as a private equity executive for Bain Capital in the 1990s.

The poll showed 37 percent of South Carolina Republican voters back Romney. Congressman Ron Paul and former Senator Rick Santorum tied for second place with 16 percent support.

One reason why Mitt Romney is gaining ground in South Carolina is because Evangelicals want a candidate who can defeat Obama in the general election. As a result, Evangelicals overwhelmingly support Mitt Romney:

A Pew Research Center survey in November found that in a general election matchup, white evangelical GOP voters favor Romney over the president by a 91 percent to 6 percent margin. White evangelicals actually favored Romney over Mr. Obama by a wider margin that GOP voters overall.

The survey did show concerns among evangelicals about Romney's Mormon faith, but they are unlikely to have a serious impact in the general election. And any negative impact from less enthusiasm among the base will be blunted by the overwhelming urge that Republicans have to unseat Mr. Obama. The latest CBS News poll found that 86 percent of Republicans disapprove of the president's performance; the poll also showed that 41 percent of Republicans say they are more enthusiastic than in past elections, compared to 21 percent of Democrats and independents. There's no question that opposition to the president will be enough to motivate many Republicans no matter who ends up as their candidate.

People of all political stripes want Obama out of office. That is why Mitt Romney is getting a lot of support from Reagan Democrats, Independents, moderates and conservatives. Its also why he's getting strong support from people of all faiths such as Jews, Evangelicals, and Christians. Its is also not surprising that Romney is getting a lot of support from people of all economic backgrounds ranging from college students to wealthy businessmen.

In short, Mit Romney is America's candidate who will probably win in South Carolina, go on to secure the Republican nomination and unseat Obama in the general election. This is the man everyone wants to vote for.

Mitt Romney's Victory Makes History In New Hampshire

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:34:00 +0000

Although the results from the New Hampshire primary is still rolling in, Mitt Romney has been declared the winner. Mitt Romney has done what no Presidential candidate has ever done and that is to win Iowa and New Hampshire:

Seconds after the polls closed tonight Fox News called the New Hampshire Primary's winner as Mitt Romney. They also said that his victory would be substantial. This makes Romney the first non-incumbent to win both early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. No candidate has ever gotten the Republican nomination without winning one or the other. No other candidate, except a sitting president, has ever won both.

Romney gave a great and inspiring victory speech that I highly recommend everyone to read or watch. I had just come home from a very long day at work and when I sat down to eat dinner in front of the television, I was elated to find out that Mitt had won. I was expecting this to be a long and drawn out process. I was surprised that victory came so quickly.

Mitt Romney will now be heading down to South Carolina where eleven days from now, we will have our first southern primary. Some people think that Mitt Romney is in for a very long fight to win the Republican nomination. Others think that Romney that he will wrap up the presidential primaries pretty quickly and they make a compelling case for it:

But the Romney camp is making a fairly explicit argument this morning that the race will be over much sooner than that. In a memo this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul writes — complete with the chart below — that since many of Romney's GOP rivals have missed ballot deadlines in one or more states, they'll be unable to amass enough delegates to keep their campaigns going.

Whether or not Mitt Romney can end the nomination battle quickly may depends on how things shake out in South Carolina. For many of the Republican candidates, it will be the state that will determine whether or not they can stop Romney and see if they can find a way remain in the running for the GOP nomination. South Carolina will be where some of them will make their last stand:

South Carolina is the 2012 Republican GOP primary to watch this year because its the last chance for the anti-Romney candidates to take down Mitt Romney. Most of the 2012 candidates (except Jon Huntsman) knows this and they have been developing their campaign strategy based on this fact. This can be clearly seen with Rick Perry who flew directly to South Carolina and is skipping the New Hampshire Primary.

However, even if they one of the other Republican candidates win South Carolina, they'll still have to face Mitt in Florida and beyond. in the rest of the primary elections. Moreover, they'll have to overcome the fact that many of them failed or didn't complete the filing requirements for many of the state ballots. Mitt Romney has made sure he will fight for every delegate by making sure he's on the ballot in each and every state.

I think in the end, no matter what the other GOP candidates will do, Mitt Romney will be the Republican 2012 nominee who will boot Obama from the White House and become the next President of the United States.

Newt Gingrich Flip Flops on Mitt Romney's Job Record

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:24:00 +0000

Before Newt Gingrich went nuclear on Mitt Romney time working in the private sector, he praised his impressive record of creating jobs in the private and public sector during the 2010 CPAC Convention:

The Real Reason Why Newt Gingrich Is Throwing A Temper Tantrum

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:36:00 +0000

The reason why Newt Gingrich is extremely upset is that Romney ended his dreams of becoming President by beating Newt at his own game. Newt Gingrich, who has been in Washington D.C. as a politician since the 1970s, has been quietly building up his political muscles by setting up different advocacy and for-profit groups that helps advance his political agendas:

Mr. Gingrich began building his network of advocacy and for-profit groups after he left Congress. He will have to sever his ties to the groups if he jumps into the presidential race, but can still tap into their broad network of active supporters and donors.

A longtime domestic-policy entrepreneur, he founded his Center for Health Transformation in 2003. The group now includes big drug makers such as AstraZeneca PLC and top insurers, such as BlueCross BlueShield Association, who pay as much as $200,000 in membership fees. In return, they get access to Mr. Gingrich, interaction with other group members, and marketing and research support.

In 2006, Mr. Gingrich started the group American Solutions for Winning the Future, with a $1 million donation from Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The group allowed Mr. Gingrich to broaden his ambitions. It was billed as a centrist policy shop that would train local candidates and promote an array of pet causes, among them Social Security privatization and what Mr. Gingrich called "patriotic education," including mandatory annual public-school instruction on the Declaration of Independence.

In early 2007, along with his third wife, Callista, he launched Gingrich Productions to publish books and movies. In March 2009, just weeks before converting to Catholicism, he formed Renewing American Leadership, a nonprofit group designed "to bring moral leadership back to our nation." Six months later he created the Americano to target conservative Hispanics.

But it took nearly two years for his flagship group, American Solutions, to find a rallying cry—and hit fund-raising pay dirt. Both happened almost by fluke.

With oil prices soaring in the spring of 2008 and Democrats opposing expanded offshore drilling, Mr. Gingrich tossed off a line in a paid speech that May in Las Vegas. "Someone in this room ought to simply have a bumper sticker that says, 'Drill more, pay less,'" he told the Money Show conference, to a smattering of applause.

Backstage afterward, Mr. Gingrich decided to run with the idea himself, aides say. American Solutions launched an online petition campaign under the title, "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less." It got 100,000 signatures in a week, and more than a million in a month. Sen. John McCain made the slogan a core plank of his presidential campaign, and at the Republican nominating convention that September, it morphed into "Drill, Baby, Drill."

With all these groups, Newt Gingrich was poised to win Iowa. But then, a single organization, The Restore Our Future super PAC, which is a political organization set up by friends and supporters of Mitt Romney and is unaffiliated with Mitt's campaign, took Newt Gingrich down. The ads put out by this group caught Newt Gingrich off guard and he was never able to recover from it. It also gave him a devastating loss in Iowa.

Hell Hath No Fury Like Newt Scorned

As a result of his loss, Newt Gingrich began to pout and whine about his loss. Then he got angry by throwing a temper tantrum over the way Romney's SuperPac ran powerful ads against him. It doesn't matter that Ron Paul's own campaign ran campaign ads that also significantly damaged Newt's chances of winning Iowa. It doesn't matter that Newt Gingrich has several organizations that are now unaffiliated with his campaign but work to ensure that he secures the GOP nomination. In fact, it is utter hypocrisy for Newt to complain about Romney's super PAC when he's got a few organizations working to help him out.

As a result, Newt Gingrich promises to tell the "truth" about Mitt Romney by using his own super Pac Winning The Future to promote an anti-capitalistic film about the former Governor of Massachusetts which will be played South Carolina and Florida thanks to a casino mogul who recently pumped $5 million into Winning The Future. Newt Gingrich has an attorney going after Romney for the Restore Our Future super Pac political advertisements.

Newt is so furious and unhappy with his loss in Iowa that several newspapers are starting to paint him as a crybaby.

Look at what Mitt Romney's hometown newspaper, the Boston Herald had to say about Gingrich:

Gingrich, despite sinking in the polls, is going nuclear on the former Massachusetts governor on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, and now it looks personal. Gingrich, dubbed “Crybaby” by the media for his ego-driven antics as House speaker in 1995, is now performing in “Crybaby, the Sequel.”

It’s fitting that Gingrich yesterday continued to attack Romney in a Manchester restaurant next door to the Obama campaign headquarters, because right now he’s the president’s best friend. His strategy of taking down Romney is right out of the Ted Kennedy and DNC playbook — casting Romney as a corporate villain who “looted” companies and laid off workers.

Peggy Noonan has called him an "angry little attack muffin" in an article in the Wall Street Journal. A PR specialist was more blunt in his description of Newt saying that he's pissed at Romney. Journalist Jennifer Reuben has described Newt's election strategy is no longer to win but seek revenge on Mitt Romney.

Newt's temper tantrum won't help him. The more he pouts about the super PAC that is supporting Mitt Romney and the more he attacks and the other anti-Romney candidates attack Mitt Romney about his time in the private sector working for Bain Capital, the more he drives people to support Mitt Romney rather than rally around him.

This developing media narrative of Newt Gingrich's campaign won't help him. No body likes a whiner. What's even worse is that throwing a temper tantrum is unprofessional especially when the person is seeking the highest office of President.

Newt Gingrich got beat at his own game. He doesn't like that he was cut at the knees by a single super PAC and that none of his political organizations that he's created could save him. If he can't handle this, he won't be able to handle Obama in the general election because has more political organizations to help him win the election than Newt does.

My Predictions for the New Hampshire Primary

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:51:00 +0000

For New Hampshire, it easy to make a prediction about who will win. Mitt Romney will have done what no candidate has done and that is to win Iowa and New Hampshire. No other presidential candidate has ever done that. The tricky part is whether or not he can win South Carolina. That will be the key hurdle for Romney to overcome. For the other candidates, its a little more difficult to predict but I'm gonna try.

Here are my predictions for Tuesday:

Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Rick Perry

I don't see anybody dropping out. Not until all the candidates see how they perform in South Carolina. Jon Huntsman might drop out if actually comes out in 5th or 6th place. He's adopted the same strategy as Rick Santorum did for Iowa by spending lots of time and energy in New Hampshire. If he doesn't place in the top three, I can see him dropping out. But in all likelyhood, he'll hang by his fingernails until the South Carolina primaries.

Once we get the South Carolina primaries, expect Perry and Huntsman to drop out. Ron Paul isn't the kind of person to drop out even when all indicators suggest he should. Newt Gingrich will move on to Florida with the hopes of damaging Romney in that state. The problem is that he doesn't have the resources or organizational strength to carry on his war on Romney. At some point, he will tap out of the race. Florida will be the last stand for Newt. Rick Santorum will also stay in the race until Florida and go on to battle Romney in Super Tuesday but will ultimately lose.

Letter From Massachusetts Citzens Defend Mitt Romney's Record On Traditional Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:05:00 +0000

Mitt Romney's record on defending traditional marriage during his term as Governor of Massachusetts demonstrates that he is a staunch supporter of families and marriage. Last month, Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage.

Now a group of citizens of Massachusetts publicly released a letter about a week ago defending Romney's record on traditional marriage.

Read the whole letter below:

December 30, 2011

Dear conservative friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney served as the governor of our state from January 2, 2003 to January 3, 2007. During that time, we worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts. The following is not an endorsement of Governor Romney but our account of the facts to set the record straight.

·       Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the November 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

o   We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney had bogus Party A and Party B marriage licenses printed and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex “marriages” when asked or be fired. As May 17, 2004 (the SJC’s declaratory judgment date) approached, the Governor’s Office of Legal Counsel issued provisional advisory instructions to the justices of the peace and prepared revised license applications. These executive actions did not result in the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples before May 17. The new policies were carried out only after and as a direct result of the judiciary’s final action in Goodridge on May 17. They did not generate same-sex marriages; that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

o   We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The governor does not issue marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Only the town clerks can do that. But the governor can issue one-day justice of the peace authorizations to an individual who wants to perform a marriage ceremony but is not a licensed minister, town clerk or justice of the peace. The governor’s office issues thousands of those in a four year term with the only criteria being that the individual doing the ceremony is in good standing and the parties getting married have a valid marriage license.

·       Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with substantial results. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

·       Provided strong, active support for a record-setting citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The petition drive collected the largest number of signatures in Massachusetts history.

·       Rallied thousands of citizens around the state to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment. In November of 2006, Gov. Romney held the largest State House rally in Massachusetts history with over 7000 supporters of traditional marriage.

·       Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing the ultimate pressure on the legislators to vote. The SJC unanimously ruled that the Legislature must vote and the historic vote was taken on January 2, 2007 winning legislative support. This cleared a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

·       Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

·       Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

o   We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney is responsible for tax payer funded abortion under the Massachusetts health care system. That blame lies solely on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in 1981 that the Massachusetts Constitution required payment for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. In 1997, the Court reaffirmed its position that a state-subsidized plan must offer “medically necessary abortions.”

·       Stood for religious freedom. Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

·       Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, wrote that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney was right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.

Sincerely,

Rita Covelle

President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Gerald D. D’Avolio

Former Executive Director, Massachusetts Catholic Conference

Raymond L. Flynn

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See

Professor Mary Ann Glendon

Harvard Law School

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See

Kristian Mineau

President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda

COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James F. Morgan

Chairman, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly

Former Chairman of the Board, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields

Chairman, Coalition for Marriage and Family

__________________________

Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations. Organizational affiliations appear for identification purposes only.

Mitt Romney Won The 2012 GOP New Hampshire Debate

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 06:18:00 +0000

For those of you who missed tonight's debate, you didn't miss much. In fact, it was a good thing you didn't watch the debates tonight since Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, the moderators for the debate, were horrible. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both went after the moderators on two separate occasions.

George Stephanopoulos got ripped by Romney when he asked about whether or not he supports states banning contraception.Watch the clip below:

George's question is ridiculous for so many reasons. As Mitt Romney pointed out, no state is currently proposing to ban contraception and its not even an issue in this election. It may have been an issue in the 1960s when the United States Supreme Court made its landmark decision upholding individuals having a right to contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut but its not an issue in this election. Liberals like George Stephanopoulos thinks its an issue since a few states wanted to pass laws stating that life begins at conception but these laws were aimed at abortion not contraceptives. The audience rightly applauded Mitt Romney for stating how ridiculous the question was and booing George Stephanopoulos for asking the question.

Newt Gingrich also went after the moderators on the issue of gay marriage explaining that the media ignores the bigotry towards religion when it comes to issues of marriage, adoption and abortion:

I just want to raise -- since we’ve spent this much time on these issues -- I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?

The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.

The audience loved it. I loved it. He really stood up for all religions who are coerced by our government to provide services it opposes because it contradicts their deeply held religious views.

You're all probably wondering who I think won tonight's debate. I'll give you the break down:

1. Mitt Romney won the debate hands down. Every news outlet including the post-debate analysis on ABC stated that he won. The reason why he won tonights debate was that most of the candidates didn't attack Romney and when they did, Mitt Romney swatted the attacks away. Mitt Romney began the debates by going after Obama on his failure to create jobs in America. Mitt Romney also gave an exceptional speech about American exceptionalism that sounded very much like the kind of debate speech Ronald Reagan would have given. He also did well in attacking Jon Huntsman over China with regard to trade imbalances, currency manipulation and corporate espionage.

2. Rick Santorum did a good job tonight but he's in very distant second place. At one point, he tried to attack Romney for using the term "middle class" and called it class warfare rhetoric only to immediately attack wall street after making that comment. Moreover, that attack just came off as desperate and odd to many conservatives in the audience and at home. There were some moments when Rick Santorum did well tonight especially when he talked about how poorly Roe v. Wade was decided and his position on Iran and Afghanistan.

3. I think tonight was Newt Gingrich's best debate performance. However, it wasn't enough to help him regain old position as a frontrunner in the campaign. The only highlight for me was his defense of traditional marriage and his response about whether or not we should stay in Afghanistan. The worst part for him is when he cited the New York times in his attack on Mitt Romney which is not the newspaper to cite if you're trying to impress a conservative audience. He was also clearly upset with Ron Paul for attacking him on Newt's deferments from the military during the Vietnam war.

4. This debate was probably Rick Perry's best debate. The best moment for him was when he boldly stated that we should send our troops back into Iraq. I agree with that statement 100%. Rick Perry did a decent job in debating other issues. However, the biggest problem for Rick Perry a lot of people forgot that he was even at the debates until he spoke. That's bad news since Michelle Bachmann had the same problem and eventually dropped out of the race.

5. Ron Paul was himself as usual. He got asked about his racist newsletters and he dodged the question by saying that Martin Luther King was his hero. However, its worth pointing out that in his own newsletter, they called MLK a philanderer who beat up his paramours and accuses him of seducing underage girls and boys. I also wish to remind people Ron Paul never issued a retraction for any of the racist articles that were published in his names. Yet a few weeks ago, he admitted that he did write in his newsletter but claims that he only wrote about economic issues in his newsletter. Another bad moment for Ron Paul is when he refused to state whether or not he would run a third party candidate in this election. As usual, Ron Paul thinks Iran is not a threat to the security of America or the world community. Ron Paul's only good moment is when he chastised Rick Santorum for interrupting him and going after Newt Gingrich on the issue of his deferments since he ruffled Gingrich's feathers pretty good.

6. Jon Huntsman has never done well in any debates and I think tonight was his worst performance if you can believe that. Ever position he took was a liberal one whether it was same sex marriage, war or China which won't help him get any votes for Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary election.

Mitt Romney clearly won tonight's debate. Even though Mitt Romney is ahead in New Hampshire by a huge lead, tonight's debate will help him maintain his lead in that state. It will also help him maintain his huge lead in South Carolina. If Mitt Romney keeps up this momentum and wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, he'll wrap up the 2012 nomination early.