Last night was a huge night for Rick Santorum.

He has now won 4 primaries/caucuses (3 non binding) winning the most states out of any of the candidates.

Santorum has also not experienced the intense scrutiny of being a front runner that is not named Mitt Romney. He’s going to have a lot of the establishment on his tail, plus he’ll have the GOP Death Star aka Romney setting his sights on him.

Truth be told, Romney can’t afford to go as negative on Santorum as he did Gingrich. Should Romney do that he will look truly entitled to the nomination. Expect him to be more subtle with his attacks on Santorum.

Meanwhile Santorum doesn’t take well to criticism. He gets irritated rather easily and doesn’t like it when he’s challenged on things he believes in. Plus, expect Newt to point out, respectfully, Santorum’s support of the Progressive Income Tax, his support of earmarks (going as far as saying he’s proud of his earmarks), and his statist-ish views on manufacturing. Newt can also point out that while he took steps to reduce the federal budget in the 90s, Santorum voted for debt ceiling increases throughout the Bush administration.

Look for Newt to try and make a comeback while pointing all of this out and while Santorum dukes it out with Romney.

I think we can expect Newt to pick up a few states on Super Tuesday and if he gets to the magic number 5, he’ll keep his campaign alive, money or no money all the way to the convention. He wants Romney challenged.

Though the establishment will want to make sure no one else puts their name forward at the convention, expect some GOP outsiders to put their names forward. Expect Ann Coulter to write columns about how it’s Chris Christie’s duty to put his name in.

I still think Romney’s the likely nominee, but SMOD just got a little boost last night didn’t it?

When one looks at the current field of presidential candidates, one can’t help but wonder if former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is regretting her decision to not throw her hat into this nominating cycle. But chances are, Palin thought long and hard about a potential campaign, looked at all of the data and decided that it was not her time herself to be a candidate for president. Despite Palin’s views on polling (which I agree with by the way), her polling, no matter what way you slice it, was terrible. And I think the stat that probably really sat Palin down to think about it was the over 50% of people who said they would definitely never even consider voting for her for president. As great a potential candidate she was and is (and make no mistake about it, she would be incredible), when you’re running for president, you come under EXTRA scrutiny, sometimes that can make someone appear resilient and help them gain popularity as it did with Hillary Clinton, other times though it undo them as it has with Newt Gingrich, who will have to repair his great legacy in the conservative movement if he has to drop out of the presidential race.

While you would think that would have given Palin a lease on life to venture and try other things, it hasn’t really. She’s tried pitching other TV Series about her family, including one that would have followed her husband Todd during the Iron Dog Snow Machine race, only to get rejected. Her 2012 endorsement has been all but squandered as she’s offered three non-endorsement endorsements to Newt Gingrich to little fan-fare (I’m sure Newt is really happy about that). Palin was the hottest property for people to get their hands on prior to this year, her books sold like hot cakes and her endorsement gold to any candidate lucky to receive it.

So what happened? I think the breakdown in Palin’s career can be tied back to one word: abstinence. No, not THAT abstinence, but abstaining from leadership. When Palin spoke about the Tea Party, she would constantly note that the “tea party didn’t have a leader” and that she “didn’t need a title to make a difference.” But I would say to Palin that the success of any movement goes back to its leadership and if there is no leadership, what happens to the movement? The fact of the matter is this: the tea party is not the force it was in 2010, and part of that is because no one was willing to step up and lead it on a national level. Palin would have been the most natural fit. Even if she had not decided to run for president, had she decided to take leadership of a movement that was happy to give it to her, I guarantee you, tea party leaders would not be going around saying, “the tea party as we knew it is dead.” Secondly, on the business of “I don’t need a title to make a difference.” It’s true, she doesn’t, but I would point out that someone will get said title and WILL make a difference for better or for worse.

If the tea party has come to an end (and I have a hard time believing that), there is an opportunity for Palin to fulfill. You see whoever gets the nomination at this point, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, may be conservative in some ways and most may be sufficiently conservative, but none of them is a conservative in the spirit of Ronald Reagan. As people supporting the least conservative of the candidates love to point out, Reagan was not a purist in the sense that he always made conservative decisions. Reagan lived his life as a conservative.

Many have pointed out that Palin is similar to Reagan in this way. She doesn’t always choose “conservative” policies, but she lives her life as a conservative, her instincts and her guts are conservative. The conservative movement is looking for a leader, someone who, like Reagan exudes conservatism. Regardless of what happens in this election, should Palin look for a place to get her groove back, why not take to YouTube and explain conservatism, explain the importance of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution. Explain the importance of American exceptionalism and what it means to be an American. We have a serious education problem in the conservative movement if this is all we’re left with.

Regardless of whether or not she ever becomes President, Palin can made a difference by taking leadership of a movement in desperate search of a leader.

I want you to know, as I did in my post when I asked when it’s time for a third party, that under normal circumstances my response is “get in line” but I have been rethinking this lately. Let’s look at the post-WWII GOP nomination list and their affiliation on the political spectrum.

1952 – Eisenhower – moderate

1956 – Eisenhower – moderate

1960 – Nixon – liberal

1964 – Goldwater – conservative

1968 – Nixon – liberal

1972 – Nixon – liberal

1976 – Ford – moderate

1980 – Reagan – conservative

1984 – Reagan – conservative

1988 – Bush – moderate

1992 – Bush – moderate

1996 – Dole – moderate

2000 – Bush – moderate

2004 – Bush – moderate

2008 – McCain – moderate

2012 – probably Romney – moderate

Out of 15 times, we’ve put forth a conservative candidate three times. We’re supposed to be the conservative party and yet the GOP never seems to want to nominate conservatives. Now, if we vote for Romney the best thing that could happen is that the conservative movement works to challenge him, a sitting president, for the nomination in 4 years time. A worse thing would be President Obama wins another four years because of a dispirited conservative base, but the absolute worst thing that could happen? The conservative movement lines up behind President Romney, just like conservatives did through the ’00′s with President Bush.

I’m ok with voting against President Obama by voting for Romney in the general election, but us conservatives have to make a commitment that we are not going to stand for this in the Republican party any more. We can not make excuses for him. If he says dumb things, we have to acknowledge it, and if he does things that are anti-conservative, we’ve got to fight him tooth and nail to defeat him, just like we did President Obama.

No more Presidents hiding behind the (R) that follows their name.

I’m thinking about going with Paul.

I live in California. And I’ll tell you why – as much as I don’t like Paul’s foreign policy, and I really don’t, I think it’s absolutely naive and reckless, he’s right on the money on a lot of his domestic policies. He understands liberty (I don’t know about conservatism) and I think that’s a hell of lot better than Mitt “I’m not very concerned about the very poor or very rich” Romney.

I also want to do everything we can from making Mitt the nominee, and if that means a brokered convention, then so be it.

I don’t know for sure, I may write someone in, but what do you guys think?

Generally, I believe that third parties ensure the re-election of Democrats. This was true in the 1990s when Ross Perot ran against George Bush and Bill Clinton, winning 20% of the votes and getting no electoral college votes.

And while I am still strongly opposed to a third party this round, I can’t help but think of a scenario where we might be able to get a more conservative independent to face off with Mitt Romney should he win the GOP nomination.

Let’s say a well known conservative, with adequate experience who could hold their own against Obama without Romney in the race were to jump in. How much support would they have to gain before you would support them?

Again, I’m completely against it, but it’s kind of a fantasy of mine to hold the GOP establishment accountable.

Talk about Astroturf.

According to this video, the Romney campaign may (and I stress MAY as this has not been independently verified) be paying fake supporters.

The video shows a Gingrich supporter and a Paul supporter admitting they are being paid by the Romney campaign to hold up campaign signs on a street corner.

The man guesses the campaign found them through unemployment records.

I don’t know if this is real, but it should be investigated and while there’s technically nothing illegal about it, it lends credence to the phoniness of the Romney campaign.

I am so SICK and TIRED of so-called “conservative” blogs and news sites pulling left-wing media tactics against a candidate whom they have an obvious PERSONAL dislike.

Is Newt Gingrich perfect? No. But for all intents and purposes where it counted, Newt Gingrich is a solid conservative. Mitt Romney is not.

Mitt Romney has spent all of the last 6 years trying to run away from his liberal record in Massachusettes!

Mitt Romney called himself a “progressive Republican”

Mitt Romney championed “fees” as a means of raising taxes without calling them “taxes”

Mitt Romney GRANDFATHERED ObamaCare with RomneyCare in Massachusetts!

Even with ALL of that, it’s not what bothers me most about Romney. What really ticks me off about him is entitlement to this nomination. When he’s been challenged, he’s lashed out putting out pathetic attack ads, using information that was widely debunked from conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, establishment Washington fixture Byron York and even Nancy Pelosi’s OFFICE!

Meanwhile Drudge, Coulter, and the like go on attacking Newt Gingrich.

The man who did what even the greatest President in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, never did: balanced the federal budget for four straight years!

Newt lead the first Republican take over of the House of Representatives in 40 years.

Newt took a projected $2 Trillion deficit over 10 years and turned it into a projected $2 Trillion surplus over  10 years. And the yearly surpluses EXCEEDED CBO estimates, meaning there is a possibility we could have had a more than $2 Trillion surplus over 10 years.

Newt didn’t just talk about reforming entitlements, he actually did it! When President Clinton vetoed the legislation, he didn’t give up, he kept sending the legislation until he signed it.

Newt took on H.W. when he tried raising taxes.

Newt shut down the federal government when the Clinton administration was not being cooperative.

Newt is a conservative fighter.

Polls are meaningless, polls at this time showed John McCain beating Barack Obama. Look at how well that turned out. What voters need is a sharp contrast! They need to know the kind of America conservatives are for versus the kind of America Obama is for.

And I am so OVER all of these “conservatives” engaging in Saul Alinsky, left wing tactics to try and get their guy elected.

These “conservative” media outlets need to GROW UP.

I think he’s completely sincere and I would understand why, in Florida, he would want to highlight his plans on this, but in my opinion Newt shouldn’t make this a corner stone of his agenda or his platform.

The fact of the matter is the Chinese and the Russians are trying to figure out ways to weaponize space and it’s the core reason for much of their investment into space exploration.

There is a practical reason for us to go back into space with gusto, but in the midst of an economic crisis it sounds like a B-movie.

Stick to the economy Newt.

Newt Gingrich needs to go sing this from the roof tops.

Norm Coleman, a former Minnesota Senator and adviser to Mitt Romney, has declared that a Republican President will probably not completely repeal ObamaCare:

“You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president,” Coleman told BioCentury This Week television in an interview that aired on Sunday. “You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

The article does go on to say that Romney is distancing himself from Coleman:

“With all due respect to Sen. Coleman, he’s wrong,” campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said via e-mail. “Gov. Romney can and will repeal Obamacare and is committed to doing so.”

Good. But this is just another example of an adviser and surrogate Mitt Romney choosing to surround himself with making wimpy arguments. Let’s not forget that former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu blasted Gingrich for attempting to block former President George H. W. Bush’s tax increase. Sununu said Gingrich’s stand may have been a contribution to President Bush’s loss. (Memo to Sununu and other establishment GOP: your actions are the reason for your losses)

A Romney operative has said that if Romney looses Florida, the establishment will look for an alternative. Why don’t we speed that process up?

While Santorum’s commitment to conservatism and putting a conservative in the White House remain suspect at best in my opinion. I am going to go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he would rather Newt Gingrich be the nominee than Mitt Romney. While a close Romney victory could be laid at the feet of Santorum, there are reasons for him to stay in the race and drop out closer to the election or stay in the race if Newt is way out ahead:

1. If Newt implodes, Santorum remains a Romney alternative. I’m not sure who I would support in a Romney/Santorum match up to be honest with you. Santorum’s obsessive focus on social issues is not the future of the Republican Party. A Santorum nomination and subsequent victory could be terrible for the GOP in the long term. But Romney remains an absolute disaster. His “concession speech” in SC was an utter disgrace and his negative attempts to derail Gingrich has revealed his glass jaw and unlikable personality. Romney comes off like a misbehaved child who didn’t get his candy at the grocery store. As Newt hones his message and gets more on point, I think this becomes less likely, although you never know with Newt.

2. If Newt is way out ahead, Santorum keeps pressure on GOP to acknowledge social issues. Social issues should not be our focus and comparing gays to pedophiles and polygamists is disgusting at best, but still, social issues are important to GOP voters. I don’t think these issues are of particular importance to Newt (though I think he holds conservative positions on the issues) and especially Romney (who has changed his position on Pro-Life issues at least a few times) but Santorum being in the race keeps the pressure on both candidates to engage the voters on the subject.

3. If Santorum drops out too early, there’s a chance his voters could be dishonestly swayed to Romney. Look, Romney cheerleader Ann Coulter was the one who said Romney “tricked” liberals into voting for him. What’s to stop Romney from “tricking” conservatives into voting for him too? The fact of the matter is if Santorum drops out too early, Romney will go into overdrive to make sure he gets at least a portion of those votes and if his and his supporters past is any indication, they’ll go to dishonest lengths to do so. If Santorum were to drop out say, a day or two before the vote and endorse Gingrich it keeps his voters in the conservative camp and gives Romney less time to eat away.

It’s not a matter of if Santorum drops out, it’s a matter of when. Only time will tell. But the fact of the matter is, there are good reasons for him to stay in this race at least until we see things pan 0ut in the next few days.

Following Romney’s proverbial “hiding” (as the Brits would say) by Newt Gingrich, It’s curious to me that we’ve been getting a slew of columns about how unelectable Newt supposedly is.

But this is always the argument of the moderate wing of the party: conservatism is too extreme to win, they say.

But let’s look at years where we won big:

1980 – Reagan 50.7% to 40.9% – 44 states

1984 – Reagan 58.8% to 40.6% – 49 states.

1994 (House)  - GOP (Gingrich) – 51.5% to 44.7% – + 54 seats (first time in 40 years GOP took the House)

Let’s look at years where we nominated moderate candidates:

1976 – Carter 50.1% to 48.1%

1988 – Bush 53.4% to 45.7%

1992 – Clinton 43% to 37.5%

1996 – Clinton 49.2% to 40.7%

2000 – Gore 48.4% to 47.9%

2004 – Bush 50.7% to 48.3%

2008 – Obama 52.9% to 45.7%

President Geroge H.W. Bush was riding the coat tails of President Reagan. Presidnet George W. Bush ran as a conservative and won his first term on a technicality. He won his second term because he united conservatives around the war on terror.

So where do moderates get the idea that conservatives lose races?

Following Romney’s proverbial “hiding” (as the Brits would say) by Newt Gingrich, It’s curious to me that we’ve been getting a slew of columns about how unelectable Newt supposedly is.

But this is always the argument of the moderate wing of the party: conservatism is too extreme to win, they say.

But let’s look at years where we won big:

1980 – Reagan 50.7% to 40.9% – 44 states

1984 – Reagan 58.8% to 40.6% – 49 states.

1994 (House)  - GOP (Gingrich) – 51.5% to 44.7% – + 54 seats (first time in 40 years GOP took the House)

Let’s look at years where we nominated moderate candidates:

1976 – Carter 50.1% to 48.1%

1988 – Bush 53.4% to 45.7%

1992 – Clinton 43% to 37.5%

1996 – Clinton 49.2% to 40.7%

2000 – Gore 48.4% to 47.9%

2004 – Bush 50.7% to 48.3%

2008 – Obama 52.9% to 45.7%

President Geroge H.W. Bush was riding the coat tails of President Reagan. Presidnet George W. Bush ran as a conservative and won his first term on a technicality. He won his second term because he united conservatives around the war on terror.

So where do moderates get the idea that conservatives lose races?

Last night at the debate Senator Santorum had an opportunity to show leadership when asked about Speaker Gingrich’s past indiscretions. He was asked by John King what he thought about the allegations made by Marianne Gingrich and Rick Perry’s thoughts on forgiveness.

Santorum said:
“…I am a Christian [like Perry], and I thank God for forgiveness. But you know, these these are issues of our lives, and what we did in our lives are issues of character for people to consider. But the bottom line is, these are these are things for everyone in this audience to look at, and they’re to look at me, look at what I’ve done in my private life and personal life, unfortunately.

And what I say is that this country is a very forgiving country. This – this country understands that we are all fallen. And I’m very hopeful that we will be judged by that standard and not by – by a higher one on that ultimate day.”

Look up the video, Santorum was dripping with Sanctimony, almost like he was perfect. Well, as a non-perfect born again Evangelical Christian, my first thought is, “how would Jesus handle this?”

John 8:1-11 is a perfect picture of Jesus’s response to people caught with their – er – pants down:

 1 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
 4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

 6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

 9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

 11 “No, Lord,” she said.

   And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Mel Gibson, a man who has had his fair share of public personal demons dramatized this beautifully in his film “The Passion of the Christ”, portraying the scene with no dialogue, a woman in the wrong is thrown onnthe ground, Jesus writes in the sand, rocks fall to the ground, and a loving hand is extended. She didn’t even ask for forgiveness! Yet Jesus, the savior of the world Sen. Santorum publicly professes to follow, extended a hand of grace anyway.

The ironic thing is that according to scripture, Jesus lived a life free of sin, meaning by his logic, he could have thrown the stone at this woman. But he did not. What an amazing picture of a loving God!

To those of you who keep hanging this over Newt’s head because it “offends your moral values.” If you profess to follow Jesus, you may look to his example and see that a hand of grace was extended. Governor Perry reflected Jesus in this way, let’s follow his example.

If I were Newt Gingrich, I’d ring up Rick Perry and have him cut an ad where he talks about the power of redemption and being reconciled to God and the need for bold, conservative leadership in Washington.

That was the absolute best, most genuine defense of Gingrich on his personal life I have heard. This would blunt ABC News’s interview with Marianne Gingrich.

I think Newt has handled the situation pretty well, but getting assurances from a prominent social conservative could soothe a lot of conservative’s fears about supporting a man with as sordid a past as Gingrich.

I should also add that Rick Perry’s 4% average in polling in SC  is not indicative of the level of support he has in SC. Many people like Rick Perry and I think his endorsement carries a lot of weight with not only his supporters, but Rick Santorum supporters.

Feigned outrage is not going to work on us.

Having some inaccuracies about Mitt Romney’s career is not as bad as suggesting Newt supports China’s one child policy. 

And Newt repudiating his Super PAC DOES show tremendous leadership, not disorder or implosion.

And I’m sorry, but conservative talk radio hosts blasting Perry and Gingrich or saying Gingrich has been making the arguments “King of Bain” was making have either not been paying attention to what Newt has been saying or have not watched “King of Bain” and should probably do a little more research before commenting on it. Gingrich and Perry were too broad and a bit over the top, but they were certainly not attacking capitalism.

We’re onto Romney, we’re beginning to take ground, we realize you (the Establishment) don’t like it, but get over it.

While I do not agree with using left-wing socialist arguments against Mitt Romney, there’s something Newt Gingrich brought up that I think is an absolutely valid question:

Not necessarily as conservative voters, but as Christian voters, do we really have to agree with and approve of some of what Mitt Romney did at Bain Capital? There are certainly instances and most of the instances where he was incredibly successful: Staples, Dominos, etc. But do we, as Christians first, capitalists second, have to agree with decisions made by Mitt Romney?

I don’t think Newt or Perry were ever talking about getting the government involved to regulate Bain, I think what they were talking about is character.

I think anyone running a small business would say making a profit is the most important thing they could do as a company and that is certainly true, but it’s also important to think about the livelihood of your employees and the people who work for you, no? It’s important to look at how your company serves the local economy and what would happen if you went out of business?

Please do not get me wrong: I’m not saying that the government should have regulated Bain so that Mitt COULDN’T do what we did, but should he have done what he did?

For all of you who are calling the race for Romney, let’s not forget that President Ford won 6 primary before President Reagan won 1. President Ford ended up winning in 1976 at a brokered convention, but it was very close.

Let’s not give up!

Also if polling out of SC is true, then it’s good news and if Perry and Santorum really care about this country, they’ll drop out after SC and endorse Newt for president going into Florida.

We can beat Romney.

So Ron Paul wants all the other conservatives in the race to drop out and endorse him to take on Mitt Romney.

I agree that conservatives need to coalesce around a candidate, but Ron Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions are just not palatable for me or most conservatives. But there’s no question that Ron Paul has the base of support, the money, and the passion in organization to continue far into this race.

At the same time, We’ve all been talking about a possible late entrant into this race to challenge Romney to the nomination.

So why don’t we split the difference with Dr. Paul? If he drops out and let’s his son, Sen. Rand Paul, who holds the views of his father conservatives like but is  more in line with main stream conservatism on foreign policy, run in his place, let’s rally around Sen Paul. The downside? He’d kind of be learning on the job. He’s only got a year of experience in the Senate. But it’s a hell of a lot better than having Obama or Romney in the White House.

I know it would probably never happen, but one can only dream right?

Republican voters are not happy with their choices….

Who could possibly come in late to save the day?

(I believe it was) Bill Clinton’s checklist of things you need when running for president DOUBLY apply to a late entrant: 1) Money 2) Base of Support 3) Name Recognition

So who are some Republicans who fit this criteria? Who could quickly raise money, have an automatic base of support, and name recognition? Let’s go through some of the possibilities.

1) Swap Ron Paul for Rand Paul The younger Paul’s views align more naturally with the conservative base of the Republican Party, plus, he’d get his father’s passionate base of support as well. A Rand Paul candidacy could finally split the difference between conservatives and libertarians. The downside? Paul’s been in the senate for just one year, and some conservatives might not be 100% comfortable with some of Paul’s libertarian views. Why would Ron Paul do this? For Paul, the message is more important than the messenger and while his son may not share all of his views, they agree on the most important things.

2) Swap Newt Gingrich for Marco Rubio Newt is passionate about two things: As speaker, he pushed for accomplishing conservative goals (some of them he did) but before he was Speaker, he was chairman of GOPAC which trained young conservative leaders. Newt is passionate about the future of the Republican Party and what better way to illustrate that than putting up someone who is widely seen as a future leader of the conservative movement? The downside? Rubio’s been a senator for a year, the plus for him is he held a leadership position as Speaker of the Florida state Assembly, which is more than Obama held at this time.

3) Swap Rick Santorum for Allen West One thing that is sorely lacking in American political life is leadership, and one thing Allen West just exudes is leadership. Congressman West is on his way to higher office one way or another, but if he presents a compelling plan for America, why not just make him president right away?

4) Swap Rick Perry for Bobby Jindal He’s got the most experience out of all of these potential candidates AND he showed incredible leadership in the absence of leadership from the White House during the oil leak crisis. While he’s not as well known, those who know Jindal are excited by him.

5) Swap all the conservatives in the race for Sarah Palin Yes, I know some of you dread the idea of a Sarah Palin candidacy. But she’d have people willing to drop serious money on her, she has a passionate base of support, and she’s well known. He polling is bad, but that can change easily once she’s contrasted with Obama. She can articulately appeal to tea party Republicans and independents  who have been influenced by the Occupy movement. In many ways she’s the perfect opponent for Obama, the exact opposite of him in every way. She polls badly, but that can change once people see her contrasted with Obama.

We’ve got options people. It would just take people convincing one or more of these candidates to drop out in favor of another candidate.

Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s good that Mitt Romney’s career at Bain is being brought up…. I just don’t think it’s being done in the right way.

As an employer, Mitt Romney had every right to fire whomever he chooses. In fact, sometimes firing employees is the responsible thing for employers to do. No one has the right to a job, everyone should work hard and when someone isn’t up to the task of their job they deserve to be fired. Similarly, when the government imposes policies on people, they have no choice but to lay people off. Most employers don’t want to do this, but sometimes they have to.

The way Newt, Huntsman, and Perry, all principled fiscal conservatives, are going about attacking Romney on this is reprehensible. I am firmly in camp Newt, but I have to say I am sorely disappointed by his decision to take a line from the New York Times and run, I’m angered that a Pro-Newt SuperPAC is buying an anti-Romney documentary pushing left wing talking points.

There is a much smarter way to attack Romney using Bain without resorting to childish left-wing ideas about “fairness”. What is the one single strength, the one reason Romney is at the top of the polls? His electability. Period. End of story. The way the conservatives should have handled this is to say, “Look, I know Mitt Romney seems electable, but having a successful business career means making decisions that leave people on the chopping block, in an election year where the public is anti-Washington and anti-Wall Street, do we really need the personification of Wall Street with a trail of people left in the wake of his career ready to tell their stories be our nominee?

In the case of Newt, he could have found supporters who were once on welfare and are now successful because of welfare reform.

In the case of Perry , he could have stated the has millions of people ready to cut commercials for him regarding his job creation record.

They did not need to resort to this. I’m still firmly a Newt supporter, but count me bummed out.