I’ve heard the critisism that Lugar is not perfect.  That is true.  While Lugar is more conservative than McCain, Brown, Snow, Collins and many other Senate Republicans, there are some times when Lugar does not vote exactly and perfectly down the tea-party line.  Lugar voted for the bridget to nowwhere — the same funding that Palin asked for and kept.  Lugar voted for the same earmarks that the vast majority of the GOP voted for and supported.  Lugar may be pro-life, he may have voted for all the Bush tax cuts, he may have voted to support our troops, and may be a consistant conservative, — but there are instances where he voted along with the vast majority of the Senate — rather than with Coburn.

That said, Mourdock — who is running against Lugar for the GOP nomination — is a far weaker candidate.  Obama will put Indiana in play and the Senate race will be close.  Polling data shows that Lugar is a sure-thing win to keep the Senate seat.  Mourdock, would require a fight to have a chance to win.  Lugar has 4 million in the bank; Mourdock 400k.  Should Mourdock win, he would need funding diverted from other races to help him compete.   Mourdock’s win would hurt the GOP effort to win the Senate, and would also be a worse person to run along side the GOP nominee.

Tea party purists should turn their focus on defeating Snow.  Snow is a consistant left-of-center vote.  She voted AGAINST the 2001 Bush tax cuts.  She voted for gays serving in the military.  She voted to support Roe v Wade.  Snow is the liberal the GOP should purge.  If the GOP wants to clean house, Brown would be another good target.  He voted for Romneycare, and is a consistant liberal voice and vote in the Senate.  He is a liberal democrat on almost every issue.  For some stupid reason, conservatives have given brown millions and millions of dollars. Brown has over 12 million in cash on-hand.  Money wasted defending a liberal, money that could be spent to help real conservatives win.

With military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan comming to an end, it is right and appropriate to re-size the Army and USMC back to their pre-surge levels.  Under Bush and Rumsfield these levels were considered appropriate for the long-term US troop levels.  It is right to reduce back down to these levels.  There is no national security risk to doing so.

However, Obama’s plans to provide lower military raises — as low as 0.05%, are a problem.  Just as with the pay freezes for civilian federal employees protecting our nation’s security, freezes to the men and women in uniform is also a risk to security.  As government downsizes, including the military, the number of promotions moves near 0; as cuts made to higher level possitions equal retierments and other seperations.  As this happens for military and civlian workers, the pressures of inflation can become significant if they are denied regular inflationary adustments.

By not providing inflationary adjustments, the buying power of the men and women fighting to protect and defend our freedom gets reduced.  As a result, people looking to support a family are detered from wanting to take these jobs in the future.  Increasingly, the effect of this is to lower the quality of recruits we will have in the military of tommorrow and to weaken our national security.

I urge folks who care about national security to consider that the real threat to our security is not reducing the number of active duty soldiers and marines that we have; it is cutting their pay.  Without the need to act as the police force for Afghanistan, we really do need about 25% fewer soldiers than we have today — and even with those 25% fewer soldiers — we could have a far stronger military.  Those soldiers are not needed to fight a war; and that level of an Army is only needed for one thing: nation building.  Without the need to nation build, the cuts are fine.  What is not fine, however, is that risk turning folks off towards serving our country by this long-term virtual pay freeze being proposed by Obama for the military.

Our military of the future will be increasingly high-tech, but smaller.  Special forces are becoming more importaint.  Air power is replacing the navy, and has been since WWII.  Cyber warfare, electronic warfare, and other high-tech warfare is the wave of the future.  Boots on the ground are only usefull now for nation building. 

It is time that we realize that we need a smaller, better military.  We need to focus less on size, and more on quality.

According to the 13th amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Simply put, the 13th amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude.  This means that no person or entity can require another to work or perform services for free.

Yet, the Obama administration wants to require insurers to provide for abortion and contraception services for free.  This requirement means that an insurance company would be required — for free — to provide or pay for coverage with nothing in return.

In cases of government mandates, these mandates apply to activities or products that eventually result in revenue, or to protect the property rights of others.  Revaluations designed to protect the environment protect the property rights of others to drink clean water, breath clean air, etc.  Laws against making dangerous toys, products, drugs, etc. both protect property rights against injury – no consumer would agree to a toy that would harm his child — and are made upon products sold for money.   Those laws may be debatable, but the protect property rights and none require that 1 person give someone else something for free.

Speed limits, highway laws, corporate laws, and a whole group of other laws may require activities or restrict them — but none require someone to give someone else something for free.

Minimum wage laws, laws requiring healthcare be provided to employees, and the like do not require something for nothing.  They simply set a minimum price for something, in their case, for labor.

The mandate to provide free contraception or abortions –without any remuneration being provided — (as opposed to being required as part of a package of selling a product) — is slavery.  It requires something for nothing.

Some may argue that this is a sort of tax.  That is not true for 2 reasons.  First, the bill passing healthcare was first passed by the Senate, and then by the House.  Thus, it could not be a tax bill.  Second, taxes are paid to a government and the person paying taxes has the benefits of the services provided by the government.  In this case, the services are provided directly to people who the insurance company has no financial relationship with regarding the provision of these services.

The effect of this regulation is the same as if the government would require all black citizens to give any white citizen who asks a free lawn mowing every week.  In other words, it requires something from someone to someone else in exchange for nothing.

I have had a chance to think about it.  I think the GOP would be better off without Brown and Snow in the Senate.  While they sometimes pretend to be moderates, most of the time they are liberals when it counts.  Some examples include:

• Both voted for the end of “don’t ask don’t tell”
• Olympia Snow voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts
• Brown voted for Romneycare
• Both are pro-abortion and anti-family and consistantly vote that way

I could go on, but the point would be the same.  Neither of them really helps the GOP brand.  They are both liberals.  Yes, on some votes, some of the time, they vote conservative.  However, I’m not actually sure of a single time when their 1 vote made a difference for the conservative side. 

Give the choice between a real race between a real conservative and a liberal, voters could vote for something.  As it is, voters have only a choice between 1 liberal and another.  Frankly, it is not clear that a liberal with an R by his or her name is that much better than a liberal with a D next to it.

No candidate draws a more stark contrast with Obama.  Let’s look at the difference between Obama, Romney, and Gingrich

1. On balancing the budget:  Obama has the biggest debt in History, Romney left a debt problem in Mass, Gingrich balanced the budget and made a surplus
2. On religious Freedom:  Obama requires coverage of abortion — even for Catholic employeers with a religious opposition to abortion, Romneycare had tax payers pay for abortion as part of Romneycare, Gingirch opposes it and talks about it
3. On creating jobs:  Obama has lost 19 million jobs, Romney was 47th in job creation, Gingrich created millions and millions of jobs while speaker and has a pro-growth, pro-jobs plan
4. Helping the Poor:  Obama wants the poor dependant on government; Romney wants to make the poor more dependant on government and expand the welfare system to make it even bigger than it is under Obama; Gingrich wants to provide job training programs and create jobs
5. On government: Obama has actually cut the size of government over the last couple years, but done a horrible job managing it; Romney damatically increased the size of government, which making it less effective; Gingrich when speaker shrunk government but improved the way it ran improving effeciviness and efficientcy.  Gingrich cut hundreds of thousands of government possitions, which raising the quality of our government and brining in better people into it. 
6. On Taxes:  Obama has actually cut taxes.  He passed extensions on all the Bush tax cuts, and added new payroll tax cuts.  He made some increases to fund his healthcare bill, but on the whole, he cut taxes.  The total tax rate — due mostly to the economic crisis — is now the lowest in over 50 years.  Romney increased taxes when he was governor.  Gingrich passed a tax cut as speaker and voted against Clinton’s tax increase and Bush’s tax increase.
7. On values.  Obama is pro-choice, pro government funding for abortion, and pro gay marriage.  Romney has everywhere on these issues and changes his views based on what office he is running for.  Newt has strongly been pro-life and pro-family from before the time of Reagan and from before the time when the GOP became the party of life and family.

The truth of the matter is that Romney actually has a worse record than Obama on many issues.  Romney really has no issue or area where he has a substancially stronger possition than does Obama.  On the other hand, Gingrich makes a strong contrast.  Whereas Romney made government bigger.  Gingrich made it not only smaller, but also better.  Wheras Romney raised taxes, Gingrich cut them.  Whereas Romneycare pays for abortions, Gingrich is opposed. 

When compared to Obama, Romney actually looks bad.  It is hard to tell — given their record — whether Romney or Obama is the Republican.  In my opinion, they both actually look like Democrats when we look at their record.  Romney hardly has a record that is more Republican than does Obama.  Romney may current say things that sound Republican — but that is only because he is running for the GOP nomination for President.  The SECOND he runs for the general election, he will start running to the left of Obama.

In a debate with Obama, Romney will talk about his Romneycare program and say he wants to replace Obamacare with Romneycare.  He will say that Romneycare does cover abortions, and say that he doesn’t want to let personal believes stop women from having the care they ‘need.”  he will flip-flop mid race.  Romney will come out for civil unions, and will start talking about how he actually supports raising taxes.

Just wait and see — Romney will run to the left of Obama — and have his record to support him.

Mitt Romney’s “I don’t care about the poor” moment was a blunder that makes Perry’s “heartless” and “oops” moments look blunder-free.  It made his $10,000 bet moment look fine in comparison.  Although not immediatly, this blunder has cost Romney any hope of winning the nomination or the office of the president.

There are 2 major problems with Romney’s comment that cause him grave harm:

1. The first, and this is actually the lesser of his problems, is that it feeds into the narrative that Romney is rich and does not care for helping the poor.  It feeds into Democratic attacks against Romney, and feeds into his pattern of making great wealth for himself at the expense of others.
2. The second, and far more grave problem with the comment, is what this means for Romney in the GOP primary and with the GOP voter.  The GOP voters do not believe that social welfare is the solution to help the poor.  Rather than just given a man a fish, social conservatives want to teach him how to fish.  Gingirch recieved a standing ovation talking about teaching the poor a good work ethic, creating jobs for them, and helping them to get better jobs and eventually to own those jobs.  Romney’s comment — when taken in full context — shows that Romney views the poor as a group to be taken care of and provided for by government without the need of focus or care to give them new oppertunities or to help them grow; but simply as folks who will now and always will be dependant on government.

This gaft is so bad — not just because of what he said — but also because of his handling of the mistake.  Romney continues to cite the context of his statement to show that he supports programs for the poor.  He supports the welfare system currently in place.  This is directly at odds with one of the centeral themes of Newt’s campaign — giving the poor oppertunities and helping them to get a job, get a better job, and own that job.  Newt want to raise people up; Romney to pay people off.  Romney’s efforts to provide damage controll are exclusivily focused on showing his interest in spending money to give to the poor to meet their needs for today; with no focus on getting them a job and raising them up so they can provide for themselves.

It may take some time for voters to fully digest this gaft, but when they do they will come to see Romney for what he actually and really is.  Romney is someone who fundementally believes that he is better than the average American.  Gingrich’s campaign is focused on raising people up to be better.  To rise the poor to become middle class, and the middle class to become rich.  Romney’s is different.  The difference is a largely part of the difference in their world view.

Romney started his life rich.  He always taught that since he is better than others, he needs to help those less fortunate.  He gives to the poor because he thinks he is better than them and that they are dependent on him.

Gingrich’s life has been one where he rose up from a middle-class life to where he is today.  He was a military child and had a middle class upbrining.  He become a professor, then joined the house, and then became speaker of the house, and now is a business owner.  He does not believe he is fundementally better than others; rather, he believes that with hard work and ingenuity that others can become where he is.  He wants to raise people up and give them that chances that he largely made from himself.  His support for helping the poor is not to give them money, but to give them a job, have them learn a skill and get a better job, and then have them own the job.

Simply put, Romney believes in the intellectual viewpoint that was used to sell both social darwinism and communism.  The idea that some people are better than others and that these people are destined to be a permenent upperclass/rulling class.  Romney believes — in his heart — that the majority of people cannot make their own choices and that they need help from government.  They need Romneycare, social welfare, and someone to tell them what to do.

Gingrich believes that all people are created equal and that they can — through hard work — rise up beyond their situation in life and prosper.  He believes that government should help open doors for people and help them learn to open their own doors — not that government should create a permenent class of dependants.

The choice is clear between Romney and his liberal mindset; and Gingrich who believes in the American dream.  Romney’s blunder revealed that even more clearly, and will cost him the election.

I just heard Newt’s speech after Florida and I have come to realize that Newt is going to win the GOP nomination and be the next president.

I understand that most people think that Romney is most likely, but I do not agree.  First, Romney has never shown the ability to get the majority of the votes in any primary.  Second, Romney’s win in Florida took place with no actual consideration of Romney’s record or ideas — Romney’s entire campaign was based on the idea that Romney is the only person who can beat Obama.  His whole campaign in FL was on attacking Newt.  Third, the voting numbers showed Gingrich did very well in the Fl. panhandle, which votes like southern states.  This suggests that Gingrich will likely sweep the South.

Gingrich’s problems in FL were easy to fix.  Gingrich got off message.  Gingrich froze in the face of shock and awe from Romney’s attacks.  Finally, Gingrich faced the one state that only Romney had a strong campaign organization in.  The fact of the matter is that Romney had to compete in Iowa with almost everyone and lost.  Romney had to compete in NH with Huntsman and won.  Romney had to compete in SC with Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich and lost.  FL was always too big for anyone but Romney to have a strong organization and ad campaign in.  Gingrich had the momentum, but Romney had a uniquely large organization advantage for FL.

In future states Romney will continue to have an organization advantage, especially through Super Tuesday, but as the primary goes on, Romney’s advantage will drop as (1) later states even out since Romney is running a campaign like Clinton did in 2008 and his organization is strongest early, (2) as the race goes on voters will develop more solid opinions and organization will mater less, and (3) Gingrich will emerge as the alternative to Romney and will be better organized as people realize he is the only hope for conservatives in this race.

In terms of campaign focus, Gingrich is now developing a new contract with America and I expect he will use that to stay on message and contrast himself with Romney.  Gingrich held a vote on all items he promised to and did what he could to pass them for the original contract.  That was a promise kept for him.  He will have credibility for his new contract and this will contrast him with Romney who cannot be trusted and is not conservative.

In terms of Romney’s shock and awe attacks, it is hard to see Romney get much worse.  Romney’s negatives have already shot up, and it is almost impossible to think of what worse things Romney can attack Gingrich for.  Romney already used several lines of attack have had blow back, and if he picked those as ‘go,’ it is hard to think he has anything left to fire with.  The Romney smear campaign will need to let-up at some time or Romney will completely implode.  How long can a campaign be 99.9% negative?

What it comes down to is that Gingrich is a real candidate, and Romney is a pretender.  Gingrich has real conservative ideas to fix the problems we are in.  Romney has talking points.

At the time, Romney probably thought it was good news that only he and Paul qualified for Virginia:  he was wrong.  Because no write-ins are allowed and because only Romney and Paul are on the ballot in Virginia, and because Paul has no chance to win the nomination,– voters in Virginia’s GOP primary will face a clear choice:  vote for Mitt Romney or vote against him.  Simply put, the Virginia primary is a referendum on Mitt Romney, and a chance for all Virginia voters to make their voices heard.

Should Paul beat Romney in VA, it would be Paul’s only victory in any state.  And, of all states, in one of the states with the largest number of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in the country.  The state with the Pentagon and with the home port for all east-coast based air-craft carriers.  Virginia is not and never will be Paul country — except on Primary day this year.

The story of Paul’s win will play out as a major news story for the day and will send shock waves though the GOP and the country.  When voters are faced with the choice of Romney — or anyone else — they choose someone else.  The message will be clear:  Romney is not acceptable.

I have heard some say that Florida is an important state.  Clinton beat Obama in FL by a landslide…. how did that work for her?  FL never won the nomination for McCain, SC did.  Yes, every state is important and FL is no exception.  It would be great for Gingrich to win, but even if he does, Romney will still be the in the race and just as formidable an opponent.   If Romney wins, Gingrich will still lead national polls and still have support of conservatives.  FL matters, but it not-as-much as Virginia.

On the other hand, if Romney manages to win Virginia — it will send a very unfortunate message that primary voters are willing to accept Romney.  The message will be heard this year, 4 years from now, 8 years from now, and forever.  In the future, candidates and the establishment will continue to stick it to conservatives on the belief that conservatives will support anyone with an “R” next to their name.

Every primary will matter, but Virginia will matter MORE, not less, because Gingrich and Santorum are not on the ballot and this makes is a simple choice between Romney and Not Romney.

I urge Virginia voters– and I never thought I would say this — to vote for Ron Paul and send a message to the GOP establishment that Romney does not have our blessing as the GOP nominee for President and we want a conservative now, 4 years from now, 8 years from now, and for every future election.

Sen. Rick Santorum has no viable path to victory and brings no new issues or ideas to the table.  He no longer serves a purpose, or has a justification to remain in the race.

Santorum has no viable claim that he is more conservative or more electable than Gingrich.  He has no viable claim that he will be better in raising money, in organization, or would do a better job as president.  There is simply no path for him.  Further — despite winning Iowa, Santorum lost badly in NH and SC, and has no means to complete in FL.  It is time for him to leave.

The Santorum campaign probably thought, prior to SC, that it had a chance to win values voters.  SC results show that those voters went to Gingrich over Santorum, despite an all-out values attack against Gingrich.  SC should have put an end to that thinking.  There simply is no path for Santorum.

It is time for him to drop out.  Hopefully to support Gingrich. It is best for Santorum to quit while he is in a respectable position.  Now is that time.

Newt Gingrich started his campaign in SC in earnest sitting in 3rd place behind Romney and Santorum.  His campaign surged when he started attacking Romney’s record in Bain and elsewhere.  He continued his surge by attacking unfair media questions, getting standing ovations.  It is hard to believe, but Gingrich got 2 standing ovations on a question about his 2nd wife and her claims that he wanted an “open marriage.”  Never in the history of politics has this ever happened before.

Newt  fought against, not only the Obama machine, and the media, but also against the GOP establishment — and he won.  He won because the American voters in SC, and across the nation are starting to see Newt Gingrich for what he is:  A fighter.  A person willing to stand-up and fight for the American people.

From the day Newt Left office until today, wages are down.  They are down for folks with college degrees and those without.  They are down for workers in the private sector, and workers in the public sector.  They are down for famility with children, young workers, middle-aged workers, and for every worker of every age.  From soon after Newt left office, the budget became unbalanced, and the debt grew.

In the 1990s, Newt fought and won and led the Republican Revolution.  He did this despite bitter opposition from the Democrats, the media, and the old guard in the GOP.  Newt changed congress to make it more combative and ended the good-old-boy system of getting along and going along.  As a result of his fight, he was able to reform welfare, balance the budget, and cut taxes.

Now we need a fighter again.  We need someone who can fight the old guard of the GOP establishment; fight the liberal media, and fight the Obama administration.   We need Newt Gingrich.

Newt’s win is also a big win for Rick Perry, for Palin, and for the American people.  I hope Santorum will drop out and join the team.  A 3rd place finish in SC is always a one-way ticket home.

Frankly, since 1980, a 2nd place ticket is also a ticket home.  Romney still has a huge money advantage, and a wealth of endorsements and the media solidly on his side.  The question today is if conservatives will continue to stand behind Newt Gingrich, and nominate a true fighter as the Republican Nominee for the President of the United States of America.  If we do, Newt will win the nomination, the White House, and the real battle will begin.  He will then fight to balance the budget and reform the country again, just like he did 15 years ago.

I have never had sex outside of or before marriage.  I think that is wrong.  That said the vast majority of people these days have had sex outside of marriage.  I am married, never got divorced, and have also never used contraception.  I am very much pro-life and pro-family in my personal life.  I encourge others to live do this also.  That said, most of my friends have had sex outside of marriage.  I had 2 groomsmen and 1 best man at my wedding.  One of them had been divorced.  Another had had an abortion to a child concieved outside marriage.  Those 2 men, however, had since made changes to their lives.  The one who was divorced had been in a marriage that neither one of them was really ready for.  In my opinion, they never really understood marriage and never were married.  The other, yes had made some mistakes.  He realized the abortion was wrong, and his choices on that were wrong.  He since changed his life.  He is happily married with 2 kids and a strong Christian.  I know a number of people who have made mistakes, but changed.  I love these people, and I trust them completely.  They are good Christians, honorable people, and are have grown and changed.  I believe in forgiveness, and in the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Speaker Newt Gingrich made some really bad mistakes in his life.  You know what — so have most people.  Like many of my friends, Speaker Gingrich appears to have changed.  As a Christian, I believe that I will be judged as I judge others.  I will be forgiven as I forgive others.  If I am to be a follower of Jesus, I must follow Jesus.  Jesus — a name which means “God saves,” is a saviour.  Jesus is our way, our truth, our live, and our salvation.  From what does he save us?  He saves us from our sins.  He forgives sins.  If we are to be like Jesus, we must forgive those who have sinned as well.

I’ve started to see some of these last-second attacks.  They attack Gingrich for having sinned.  Sins Gingrich has already admitted to, has already appologized for, and repents of.  These folks who are attacking Gingrich based on his personal failings of the past are not acting like Christians act.  They are acting like the the Pharisees of Jesus’s time.  They are today’s modern Pharisees, and they seek to use moral issues — not to change people’s souls and help move them closer to God — but to attack people and bring them down.  They seek to glue people to the sins of their past; whereas, Jesus frees people from their sins.  These folks who attack the repentant sinner who has changed and regrets his actions — they attack the centeral Christian believe that Jesus has come to save us for our sins and that He forgives our sins.  They reject repentance, they reject forgiveness, and they reject mercy.  They use the personal faults of someone’s past to attack that person.

I heard some remarks by James Dobson, and am sure I will hear them from others.  What surprises me is that what I heard from Dobson.  Dobson has a whole section of his Focus on the Family website devoted to 2nd marriages, so clearly he must believe in some level of another chance for folks who made mistakes.  It also has a whole series of articles on affairs.  Including working through them, forgiving a spouse for them, etc. In fact, it advises when when you spouse has an affair to not demand a divorse, but to try to work through it.  Dobson has spent his life believing in forgiveness and giving 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 100th chances to people who sinned in the past.  He preaches a message of God’s mercy and love.  What he says about the Gingriches is completely different from the message he says about everyone else.

It takes alot more trust to be married to someone than to vote for them as president.  I am dissapointed that folks like Dobson, who really to believe in forgiveness, would gang up on attacking a man who made mistakes, sought forgiveness, and changed his life.  The GOP will not win in 2012 on the platform of “everyone who cheats on their spouse is a horrible person,” many people — like me — who are strongly pro-marriage — also believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ.

With all due respect, I ask that people see these last-second attacks against Gingrich as what they are. 

In regards to Gingrich’s flaws and the personal attacks, we have already been there, we have already done that: it is time to move forward and talk about solving America’s problems.  I sure hope that Gingrich can be as effective at turning this country around as he was in turning his life around.

The easy think for Gov. Perry to do would have been to wait until SC was over and then to endorse Romney.  That would have made his political life easier, and made it easier if he decided to leave politics and join K street.  It would be following a typical GOP pattern of dropping out and supporting the front-runner.

Gov. Perry — who I’ve attacked some this campaign — far exceeded my expectations by throwing his full support behind Gingrich.  This was a brave action to stand up against the vulture capitalist flipp-flopper Mitt Romney.  Few in politics are willing to stand up for the man they believe is the better to lead the country, and to fight against the political establishment to do this.  Rick Perry is doing it now, and I greatly respect a man who stands up for his beliefs like he has just now.  In many ways, this is a return to the Rick Perry that started the race and who has governed Texas for the last decade.

For all Perry’s imperfections, I have come to see in this one act that, at-heart, Perry cares more about his country than his personal political goals.  There is no other reason why he would take this action that was against his self-interest, but for his country.  I greatly respect this, and owe an appology to Perry and his people.  I now see that — at his core — Perry is a conservative, and a deeply rooted conservative at that. 

At this point the time has come for conservatives to now head Gov. Perry’s call and support Gingrich.  Gingrich is a deeply flawed candidate, but is better than Romney and better than Obama.  Based on Perry’s endorsement, I now feel Gingrich is the best hope for conservatives, and I ask Santorum to drop out and support Gingrich as well.

God Bless Gov. Perry for his courage, and I ask him and his supporters to forgive some of my more over-the-top attacks on Perry.  I never thought him the type who would put country over himself; which is something I believe he did in backing Gingrich over the establishment candidate of Romney.

The South Carolina polls are moving in a very clear direction.  Polls by Rasmussen, Insider Advantage, and PPP now all show Gingrich in 2nd place to Romney.  They show him behind by an average of about 5 points.  27% for Romney, 22% for Gingrich.  Santorum and Paul are tied for 3rd place with 15%.  Perry and Huntsman are fighting for 5th place with just under 6% of the vote.  Momentum is on the side of Gingrich, Huntsman, and Paul.  Romney and Santorum are falling.  Perry’s been staying about level, but due to Huntsman’s rise will likely finish in last place.

I have been wrong before and will be wrong again.  That said, I have said through-out the race that South Carolina is a must-win for anyone trying to beat Romney.  2nd place means game-over.  Even a loss by 1 point to Romney in a close 2nd place finish is game over.  Only a win will give anyone but Romney a chance.

Right now the polls show Gingrich as the best suited candidate to defeat Romney.  Gingrich’s rise is very impressive in several aspects:

• Unlike the rises of Santorum and Perry, Gingrich’s rise comes after his fall.  I have seen a number of Perry supporters talk about Perry as the rising from the dead; it appears that Perry is actually doing this.  To date, the only candidate to rise after a fall was Cain — and Cain’s rise weathered a lot of attacks the 2nd time.
• Gingrich is hungry.  If this were a sports match, he would play through, not only a twisted ankle, but a even a fractured one.
• Gingrich’s attacks continue to draw supporters to him, rather than away from him.  This is very unusual.  Typically in politics attacking someone increases the negatives for both candidates and drive voters away from both of them.  For Gingrich, his number started to rise in NH after he started attacking.  The same is showing true in SC.  In part it is because Christian conservatives despite Romney’s Bain record.  They view it as greed, and even as steeling.  They view it as anti-capitalist, and wrong.   No matter who (even Rush) who defends Romney, most people in SC despise what he did at Bain, and see Gingrich attacking it as a sign that Gingrich shares their values.   Perry had a small 1% uptick in his support when he started attacking Bain, and Santorum started his downfall around the time he chose not to attack Bain.  Bain is a losing issue in a GOP primary in SC, and in a general election.  Attacking Bain is good politics anywhere, especially in Christian SC.
• Palin — Gov. Palin is popular in SC, and an endorsement by her would serve to give Gingrich a significant boost.  This is already assumed given her husband’s support of Gingrich.

A series of new South Carolina Polls taken after NH are showing several interesting trends:

• Very importantly, Huntsman is eating into Romney voters.
• Equally important, conservatives are starting to unit behind Gingrich

The latest Insider Advantage Poll — the only SC poll after NH — shows Huntsman surging up to 7%.  Meanwhile Santorum has fallen to 14%, and Romney has fallen to 23%.   Gingrich, meanwhile, has held at 21%.  Paul is at 13%; and at 6th place at 5% is Perry.  Clearly this is showing that Huntsman has momentum, and — very importaintly — that Huntsman supporters are being taken directly from Romney.  For this reason, the latest poll shows Romney actually down 6 points below his average. 

Santorum’s fall may easily continue as Santorum voters — more than any other — are largely supporting him based on the idea that he has the best chance to beat Romney.  It is very likely that 1/2 of Santorum supporters will eventually move to Gingrich if Gingrich remains substancially above Santorum in the polls.  Paul’s 13% and Perry’s 5% are likely to mostly stay with them and it is very unlikely either will see a substancial increase in support.

There are a few key factors that could potentially make a substancial difference:

1. Palin.  Her husband endorsed Gingrich.  If Palin does so also it would serve to precipitate the movement from Santorum voters to Gingrich, and increase that effect.  It may also take a small sliver from Perry, and from Paul.  Given the tightness of the race, that would make a substancial difference.
2. Cain – A Cain endorsement would also give a 1-2% boost for a candidate.  Small, but enough to make a difference in a close race.
3. Romney’s Surprise -  I expect that Romney has some cards left in his hand.  If the race looks close, I expect him to get 1 or more key endorsements that would help and maybe ensure a win for him.  Cain could be one of those, or not.  If the race is not close, I would not be surprised for Romney to hold them.
4. Bain – The Bain ads are highly effective and the GOP base does not agree with Romney’s activities at Bain.  I’ve heard a few — including Rush — defend Romney.  However, Romney’s actions are not defendable.  Free-market conservatives (like me) beliee that we need to tolerate/allow selfish activity.  It does not mean that we condone it or that we practice it.  There is a huge different between objecting to a government that is big enough to throw people like Romney in jail for what he did, and agreeing with the decisions Romney made.  Like most conservatives, I believe we need to allow free enterprise.  That includes allowing for the weeds to grow with the wheat.  That said, Romney is the weeds.  We doesn’t vote for the weeds as president.  We vote for honorable men who build companies and provided good and services.  Mitt Romney was never a model example of a good business man, and never will be.  His activities portray the free market in a bad way and hurt the cause of folks like myself who want a free market.  Many buisness leaders, many rich folks who actually did create jobs, many people who support free market are afraid of having a Mitt Romney represent them.  Mitt Romney makes the 1% look bad, when most of the 1% are job creaters, donors, and honorable men.  He is not the image that the rich want; and if he is the GOP nominee.  He will lose, and Obama will start talking about a tax on the top 1% of folks Like Mitt Romney.  Voters will support taxing Mitt Romney like people, and will group all the rich into the class of Mitt Romney.  That would be a disaster.  The Ads are highly-effective, and –along with Huntsman taking Romney voters — will serve to make SC a close election —assuming that conservatives follow the expected pattern of uniting behind Gingrich, or the less-expected pattern of uniting behind Santorum.

I do want to comment on what is unquestionably bad news for the Perry Campaign.  Perry just barely was determined as qualified for the SC debate.  This was a double-loss.  First, Perry faced a series of articles about how he would not qualify.  Then, Perry ends up qualified for the debate.  Perry would have been much better if he missed qualification.  He is in 6th place now; if he continues in these debates it is far more likely that Perry will end up hurting himself than it is that Perry will end up helping his cause.  If he didn’t qualify he could have argued media-bias and accused “washington insiders” and the “media” of conspiring against him.  Now, he is stuck at the debate and without the issue.  This is another set-back for his campaign.  The sad part of it is that Perry’s campaign things being invited is a good thing.  His team fails to remember the huge boost it gave Alan Keyes to not be invited, and that Keyes got more free press (and good press) from not being invited than Keyese would have gotten from the debate.  The same is true of Perry.  The debate will focus on the 5 folks ahead of Perry in SC, and Perry will get few questions and little time.  Had he not been invited, he’s be covered centeral to the story of the debate.

• August 8th, I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/08/08/2012-gop-primary-rankings/) a lot of positive about Perry and listed him as the MOST likely (#1) to win the GOP nomination
• August 15th, I poted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/08/15/ames-winners-and-losers/) that Perry could not have wished for better AMES results.
• August 16h, I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/08/16/gop-primary-rankings/) that Perry was most likely to win, and said SC was his must-win state.
• August 21st, I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/08/31/gop-presidential-primary-rankings/) again that Perry was most likely to win, and had 4 paragraphs of mostly good stuff about him and his chances
• Sept. 9th, I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/09/09/gop-primary-rankings-2/) again, Perry was #1
• Sept 13th, I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/09/13/2012-gop-presidential-nomination-rankings/) saying Perry was the presumptive Nominee
• Octo 7th I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/10/07/romney-re-takes-the-lead-in-gop-presidential-primary-rankings/) for the first time in a while that Perry had dropped to 2nd in the race.  At this point, I also shared my concern with his moderate immigration record, but defended him as more conservative than McCain or Bush on the issue.
• On Oct. 7th is also when I first shared the possibilities of a Santorum rise (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/10/07/the-case-for-sen-rick-santorum/)
• Nov 4th, I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/11/04/why-gov-mitt-romney-will-be-the-next-gop-presidential-nominee/) that Romney looked like he would win the nomination
• Nov. 8th, I posted ( http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/11/08/perry-remains-the-only-viable-alternative-to-romney/) that at-the-time, it appeared that Perry was the only alternative to Romney.
• By Nov. 30th, I endorsed Gingrich (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/11/30/endorcing-newt-gingrich-why-i-support-him-to-be-the-next-president/) and said that Perry had shown he could not defend his plans. 
• On December 1st I posted (http://www.redstate.com/chrysostom15/2011/12/01/why-i-do-not-support-rick-perry/) –for the first time, why I did not endorse Perry.

So, for folks who suggest or act like I never gave him a serious look, never leaned towards him, or was always negative towards him — that is not true.  There reasons I have moved towards not liking Perry are:

1. As I said in my posts linked above — Perry has moved away from the political center needed to win an election and towards the fringe, uneducated, emotional part of the party.  Perry has moved to the radical side on issues like the federal reserve.  Paul wants to audit the fed (resonable); Perry accused them of treason.  Perry has moved from being a fiscal moderate as governor to trying to pretend he is a tea partier and moving right of Paul on SOME spending issues.  Perry has called social security a ponzi scheme.  Partly true; but politically stupid and something that makes him a bad candidate in a general election.  Perry support freezing pay for critical defense and national security jobs until the budget is balanced.  Perry has move out of the zone of sanity on issue after issue.  That is a large part of what has caused me to withdraw support and find him unelectable.
2. Perry is the worst debater in the field.  Perry make a lot of mistakes.  “Oops,” “heartless,” 8 supreme court justices, federal employees cannot be fired, invading iraq, and so on and so forth.  Perry simply could not go up against Obama.  I really question his electability.
3. Perry keeps losing.  Perry was 1st in the polls for a while.  Then the more people got to know him the lower his poll numbers got.  Iowa is a good example.  Perry was winning.  Then continued to drop.  Even after Romey stopped attacking Perry and focused on Gingrich, Perry still dropped.  Later, Santorum was target, Perry still dropped.  Perry has had no-one saying anything bad about him, yet his numbers drop.  He has no chance and increasingly is fringe.
4. Perry’s team has made a series of poor strategic mistakes.  1st they tried to win Ron Paul voters by sounding exactly like Paul on fiscal issues.  Then, they issued an incomplete economic plan.  They promised to issue more, but never did.  Then, Perry tried to win social conservatives as a last effort.  That was strategically really stupid, given that Santorum, Bachmann, and Gingrich had campaigned for social conservatives the whole time; and that so did Cain, and even Paul.  Perry’s record on social issues was never anywhere close to Santorum’s and he put himself in the place of evantually completely abandoning his initial — winnable — strategy of jobs.

My comments on Perry are fair, honest, and not a hit job.  I believe him to have no chance to win the GOP nomination, and to be the worse candidate against Obama.  I believe that Perry has run one of the worst campaigns in recent history, and that he keeps getting worse.  From the moment he called me heartless, I think I have come to realize that he is not a conservative.  Conservatives do not feel it is heartless to not pay for someone else’s college education — especially someone here illegally.  The fact that Perry would use the term “heartless,” makes me think he is a bleeding heart liberal who thinks that having a heart means putting a gun to someone else’s head and making them pay taxes so that someone who is here illegally can get some free government money towards college.  Perry is a big-government, tax and spend, take and redistribute liberal by heart.  He plays a conservative on TV, and pretends to be a teapartier, running to the radical side of the GOP to try to pander to voters being who he is not.

After a 5th place Iowa Finish, Perry finishes 6th in NH.  Perry recieved 0.7% of the vote, edgeding out Buddy Roemer (who had 0.4% of the vote), and soundly beating Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain (who each had 0.1% of the vote respectivily).  Perry well under 1/10th of the vote that Santorum and Gingrich got.  Perry is well behind Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul in SC.  He is at 5% on all 3 polls on RCP.

Perry is now also behind Gingrich and Santorum in money.  Both Gingrich and Santorum have super PAC support + their own cash on hand that is now at-least double what Perry has on hand. 

Perry also lacks momentum.

Perry has not gotten a significant major endorsement since Iowa, and is bleeding supporters daily.

Finally, Gov. Perry continues hurt himself just about every time he speaks.  He has claimed there were 8, not 9, Supreme Court Justices.  He plans to move troops back into Iraq.  He plans to freeze pay for critical national security possitions where DOD has already reported difficulty recruting and retaining qualified personnel.  He has said that anyone who does not want to use government money to pay for college for illegals is heartless.  He could not remember the 3 departments he wanted to cut. 

And yet some Perry supporters fill 1/2 the blog with posts about how Perry has a chance.  A month ago these posts all cited wins in Iowa.  2 weeks ago, the posts cited a 3rd place finish.  Perry placed 5th in Iowa and 6th in NH.  For all intensive purposes he is now competing with Huntsman for 5th place in SC.  I have no doubt the Perry devotees –the very ones who long claimed Perry would win SC — will soon start spinning a 2nd, 3rd, or even 5th place finish as a momentum boosting win for Perry.  Perhaps, they will even go so far as to suggest that getting more than 0.7% of the vote suggests momentum.

Momentum for Huntsman, and the fact that Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and Romney will actually each individually outspend Perry in SC, and the current polling numbers suggest Perry could finish 6th in SC.

If Perry does place 5th or 6th in SC, his already hurt reputation would be destroyed.

Jon Huntsman is now surging in the polls.  He is in 3rd place in NH, and has a shot at placing 2nd.  Should he surge into 2nd place it would have the following effects:

1. It would further destroy Ron Paul’s campaign.  Paul will have finished 3rd in Iowa and NH — both states where he was 2nd in the polls on election day; but will have moved to 3rd on election night.  Such a result would further show him a fring candidate unable to win any GOP primary.
2. It would give Huntsman a Santorum-like surge of momentum.
3. It would provide the first moderate alternative to Mitt Romney

Despite what Ron Paul and Rick Perry voters may say, Santorum and Gingrich are currently splitting the conservative vote right down the middle.  Romney has the liberal vote all to himself, and much of the moderate vote.  Paul has a sliver of the conservative vote and his Paulites.  Perry has his group of Perry devoties, but no support beyond this small base.   Jon Huntsman would be the first canidate who could seriousily challenge Romney for the liberal to moderate win of the GOP.  If Huntsman takes off, the support would come largely from Romney, and would act to split the smaller liberal/moderate wing of the GOP, allowing either Gingrich or Santorum (or even both) to mount realistic campaigns for SC and potentially even FL.

While a 2nd place finish by Gingrich or Santorum would give them a boost, it would give Romney a larger boost.  However, a 2nd place finish by Huntsman would actually mean that some SC voters who would otherwise vote for Romney, may switch to Huntsman.  The same is true in FL and beyond.   Ideally, Huntsman can make it through Super tuesday and beyond where he can eat into Romney and force Romney to move left and fight left, opening up more room on the right for Gingrich and/or Santorum.

The winner of the Gingrich/Santorum conservative primary will eventually face the winner of the Romney/Huntsman liberal primary….the longer the liberal primary goes on, the better for conservatives.  Of course the same is true on the conservative side.

Rick Perry talked about moving troops back into Iraq, if elected.  The question I would ask, is with what Army?  Rick Perry’s plans would result in the U.S. Army being unable to support troops in Iraq.

Let me start by briefly explaining what the U.S. did in order to field troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

• First, troops require food.  Food in Iraq and Afghanistan needs to be contracted for, monitored, and provided.  This is done by government contractors.  Contracts are written and monitored by civilians.  Folks from contracting agencies,  mainly overseas contingency contracting, DCMA, and others write and manage the contracts.  These contracts also needed to be audited by several organizations consisting of more civilians.  It takes several years for a government employee to be trained to manage contracts, several years to be trained to audit, several years to be trained to manage contracts.
• Second, the troops need body armor, helmets, personal gear.  These are produced by the private sector, but require a large number of civilian government workers to oversea testing, set testing requirements and procedures, determine requirements, and to adjust the gear based on changing conditions.  Body armor is a great example.  A soldier needs armor resistant to armor piercing weapons, and that is tested against — not only current and projected future threats, but that is updated as these threats change.  This requires constant testing, constant management.  And has saved lives.
• Of course, there are a whole host of base services: Security, energy, waste management, port-a-johns, gravel, etc that need to be built.  And again, these are built by private companies managed by and contracted to by government civilian contractors.
• At the same time government civilians in the CIA, DII, and even in DOD and other agencies play important roles in any war effort gathering intelligence, planing, organizing, etc.  The Iraq Green zone was filled with a literally a city of U.S. Federal civilian government workers, along with military and contractors.
• I could actually go on for hours, but the point here is that to manage a war, you actually need civilian federal government workers.

The U.S. Consitution is not the first governing document for this country.  We first lived by the Articles of Confederation.  This initial form a government was too weak.  For this reason, our founding fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States of America.  The Consitution actually was written to strengthen government, and to increase the powers of the federal government.  The term Federalist was coined for those supporters of the Consitution, and is defined clearly in the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Rick Santorum is consistantly a federalist who supports the Consitution.  He hold views very close to Justice Scalia, and other federalists.

Ron Paul is not a federalist, and neither is Rick Perry.  Both of them actually hold views closer to those of the anti-federalists.  They continue to support state rights to the extreme, and limited federal government to the extreme.  They support a type of government that is like that which we tried and failed.  One where the states have too much authority and where the federal government does not have the ability to collect sufficient taxes to run a meaningfull government.

It is a little-known facts that the U.S. Contenential Army was promised pay for its service.  However, under the Articles of Confederation, the newly formed government could not raise the money to pay them and so the troops with without pay for their service.  That problem, and the problem of forming an effective federal government is what caused the need to write the Consitution.  The Consitution was designed to:

1. Resolve issues of trade between the states (which had gotten in some cases close to state v state conflict
2. Resolve issues with each state printing its own money
3. Resolve issues of individual states negotiating treaties and such with foreign powers
4. Resolve problems in raising money to pay for government

The Consitution worked.  These problems were resolved.  Ron Paul, however, has not come to accept this.  He rails against the U.S. having a trade policy.  Rails against commerse laws that regulate medicine and outlaw illegal drugs.  He objects to the U.S. having a standing military.  He objects to the U.S. currency.

Read the anti-fedearlist papers and you will see the political playbook for Paul, and to a lesser-extent Perry.  Anti-fedearlist #13, for example rails against the overpayment to government workers.  Apparently, some government workers made $2,500 a year and went on to argue that politicians were overpaid and to say they should make 5,6, or 7 dollars a day for the House, Senate, and President.  Antifedearlist 17 argues and argues that federal power will triumpt over state authority — exactly what Paul and Perry keep saying. Read anti-federalist 25, for Ron Paul’s objections to a standing army.  I could go on all day.  The point is that Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent Rick perry and their supporters are calling Santorum a Statist — they really mean a Federalist.

Statist means federalist.  The slur used is attacking Santorum for supporting the Consitution.