Re-posted from PJ Media

Nothing infuriates me more these days than when I hear a pundit on television talk about how a long Republican presidential primary, possibly even to June, will make the candidates stronger so that the eventual winner will be better primed to take on President Obama.

The example always given is 2008 when Obama battled Hillary until June. The reasoning is that their lengthy battle enhanced and refined their collective campaign skills so that one of them was able to be elected president in spite of the vicious battle.

Yes, that was true in 2008 but there is one huge factor, captured in one word, that renders those presidential primary circumstances completely different from what the GOP faces in 2012. That word is incumbent and incumbent presidents have all the advantages.

So instead of Republicans lulling themselves into a false sense of security with the “we are just like they were in 2008 and it turned out well” attitude, Republicans should look to 2004 for a more realistic assessment of what we will be up against should this primary drag on. Unfortunately the historical comparison is definitely not in our favor.

Consider 2004, when President George W. Bush was running for re-election. In early March 2004, his presidential performance rating was 49% approval with a 48% disapproval.

Then, on March 3, 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry became the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee after a decisive Super Tuesday victory, forcing North Carolina Senator John Edwards to drop out of the race.

Here is a transcript of what Gwen Ifill of PBS said that evening about Kerry’s victory.

“Kerry’s near-clean Super Tuesday sweep made him the Democrats’ presumptive nominee and set up an eight-month challenge to President George W. Bush. He spent last night and today rallying his troops and preparing for the campaign’s next phase.”

It is instructive to note here that John Kerry had eight full months of preparation time to run against a well-funded incumbent whose approval rating only stood in the high forties.

From this same transcript it, is also worth revisiting what John Kerry said on that victorious evening in early March 2004:

“Tonight, the message could not be clearer all across our country — Change is coming to America. (Cheers and applause) Before us lie long months of effort and of challenge, and we understand that. We have no illusions about the Republican attack machine and what our opponents have done in the past and what they may try to do in the future. But I know that together we are equal to this task. I am a fighter! (Cheers and applause)”

Yes, John Kerry was a fighter, but fighting against even a weak incumbent with an eight month start proved to be too much a fight for Kerry the Vietnam veteran.

Let’s shift back to 2012, where many Republican leaders and even more primary voters are deluding themselves into thinking a long drawn-out primary battle is good for the eventual nominee’s prospects against President Obama.

Obama, like President Bush in 2004, will be well-funded, super organized, and currently has virtually the same approval rating (48.9%) as Bush had when Kerry became the presumptive nominee in March of 2004.

But John Kerry, with a long lead time and a united party behind him, still lost to Bush in a close election. (The last Gallup poll before the election had Bush at 48% approval. However, just after the election he jumped to 53% approval.)

Now, in 2012, facing a polarizing incumbent, the GOP itself is dangerously divided, an issue that John Kerry never had to deal with.

The GOP candidates, as a result of inflicting damage upon each other with super PAC help, not even a factor in 2008, are becoming weaker by the day while Obama is gaining strength. The Real Clear Politics average has Obama defeating Romney by 5.7%, a huge increase over a few months ago when Obama and Romney were virtually tied. (Santorum runs even worse, losing to Obama by 8%.)

To make matters worse, the new Republican nominating rules for 2012 (with the objective of making the primary contest more competitive by changing the way delegates are allocated ) practically ensures that the primary fight will be dragged out until summer.

So now, every day that the GOP does not have a strong presumptive nominee is one less day to prepare against a president who flies around on Air Force One campaigning non-stop while taxpayers foot the bill.

Republicans need to think seriously about John Kerry’s eight months of prep time in 2004 as the example to be emulated, rather than being falsely comforted by the June 2008 battle of Obama vs. Hillary.

Ideally, if, starting in March, Mitt Romney were to become the official presumed nominee, and had eight months to gather momentum — it would be just enough time to help unite the party, improve his wounded image, and gear up for the general election.

Then, with such a timetable, Romney would have a decent shot at defeating our incumbent president — for I strongly believe he is the only GOP candidate this year who is capable of attracting enough independent and moderate voters to garner the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

But such a timetable at this stage of the primary game show is pure fantasy.

Meanwhile, it’s back to the front lines of the primary battle with Republican base voters who correctly say that Romney will lose against Obama. Yes, if he wins the nomination, and then has four less months than John Kerry had in 2004 to prepare against an incumbent, Romney will more than likely lose the general election and it will be the Republican base that defeated him.

Re-posted from  PJ Media

Could Nevada be the new Florida in determining the winner of the 2012 presidential election?  If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee (and, yes, he is still is on track despite Rick Santorum’s surge) my hunch is Nevada will be the mother of all battleground states and here’s why.

Click on this map and you will see how Romney red wins with 272 electoral votes while Obama blue loses with 262.

However, the latest Real Clear Politics (RCP) average shows Obama leading Romney by 4.2%. This RCP poll average is growing in Obama’s favor. It was bumped up by two full points recently with the latest unemployment rate dipping to 8.3% which the Obama-loving press played up to sound like the rate had just dropped below 5%. Additionally, Obama’s growing lead could also be a signal how the GOP primary battle is hurting Romney’s chances. Unfortunately, this battle does not look like it will end anytime soon.

With all that in mind, click on this map to see how RCP views the national electoral landscape. It gives Obama a decisive 217 to 181 advantage right at the starting gate.

My Republican electoral victory theory with Nevada as the last grand prize is based on five important battleground states all turning to Romney. If any one of these five are won again by President Obama it’s game over, four more years.

The five, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana are what I fondly call the red rogue states. Together they account for 86 electoral votes.

In 2008 Obama swept them all, while in 2000 and 2004 they all went for Bush.

For the sake of my fantasy theory, assume Romney is successful in these five red rogue states. Then, add their 86 electoral totals to the 180 electoral votes from the 2008 McCain states. Fortunately for the Republicans, the 2008 McCain states gained a net of six electoral votes in 2012.

(Texas gained four, while Utah, Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina each gained one. Missouri and Louisiana each lost one.)

Add 86 to 180 and Romney is at 266. So close yet so far.

Enter Nevada with six electoral votes up from five in 2008.

In 2008 Obama won it, 55% to McCain’s 43%. Bush in 2004 barely won Nevada 51% to Kerry’s 48%. Then in 2000 Bush was stronger against Gore, 50% to 46%.

Those six electoral votes from Nevada bring Romney to 272 and a seat in the Oval office. (270 are needed to win)

Why do I think Nevada is winnable for Romney given Obama’s 12 point victory there in 2008?  Here are a few reasons.

First, Nevada’s Mormon population is 6.5%. If they vote in a block, which is most likely, that gives Romney a huge boost up front.

Second, Nevada has the nation’s highest unemployment rate at 12.6% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Will Obama’s 2008 hope and change leave Nevada voters hoping for another change in the Oval Office?

Third, are voter registration statistics.

According to the office of the Nevada Secretary of State in January 2012 there were 447,881 registered Democrats and 400,310 Republicans — roughly 10% more Democrats. Then factor in 172,463 non-partisan voters and 48,972 independents for a combined total of 221,435 “up for grabs” voters.

With Nevada’s high unemployment rate is it plausible that 65% of the 221,435 non-aligned voters could break for Romney, leaving 35% for Obama?

If so, that means Romney wins 544,242 to Obama’s 525,383. This assumes all the registered Republican and Democrat voters stay with their party, which of course will not happen, but just how much crossover to expect is difficult to predict at this time. However, you get the idea what it will take for Romney to win.

(Note: there are a total of 1,082,705 registered voters in Nevada. Green, Libertarian, and other comprise 13,079 which are not included in these totals mentioned above. However, if all 13,079 voted for Obama that would bring him to 538,462 compared to Romney’s 544,242.)

Any way you slice it, the general election in Nevada will be a nail biter, maybe even on the scale of Florida in 2000 without the hanging chads. But, considering these three factors Romney could be positioned to pull off a victory.

Here is my favorite Republican victory equation for 2012:

McCain’s 2008 states with net six, plus five red rogue states, plus Nevada’s six with 65% independent vote  = 272

Now I know what some of you are thinking, “There is another way for this equation to work,” so here it is.

Let’s say Obama wins Nevada, or rather the unions and Senator Harry Reid “win Nevada” for Obama. Fortunately for Romney, there is another influential little state, where he has a vacation home that just happens to have the last four electoral vote pieces he needs to complete the White House puzzle.

So let’s try this equation once again…  McCain’s 2008 states with net six, plus five red rogue states, plus New Hampshire’s four electoral votes = 270.

Then you might imagine how “Live Free or Die” — New Hampshire’s famous Revolutionary War slogan, will be infused with new meaning on election night.

Sure Mitt Romney won a “landslide” in Florida tonight according to the Drudge Report headline at this moment, but was it really? Here are some numbers to consider: Romney won 46% of the vote BUT when 32% for Gingrich is combined with 13% for Santorum the total is 45% for the conservative team and suddenly Romney’s “landslide” disappears.

You can expect to hear Gingrich spout this line of thinking. He will use it as one of the reasons he will stay in the race, fight to the finish and why he thinks Santorum should drop out.

The 45% conservative vote vs. 46% for Romney proves once again just how polarized the GOP is in 2012.

When Romney eventually becomes the official nominee uniting the conservative wing will be his most difficult undertaking as the new party leader.

That is a problem Romney must successfully address if he is to prevail against Obama and one that Obama is counting on Romney to not solve.

Re-posted from PJ Media

The South Carolina primary results have made President Obama a very happy man.  He and his campaign high command know the longer the Republican nomination fight drags on, the less time the eventual nominee will have to turn his full attention and resources towards defeating Obama.

Some strategists believe that a prolonged battle strengthens the candidate and prepares that person for the general election. The Hillary/Obama primary fight of 2008 is often cited as an example how a bruising battle helped to hone campaign skills and otherwise prepare the victor.

However, in 2012, I disagree with this line of thinking. What is potentially shaping up to be a tough prolonged battle between Newt and Mitt will result in neither one emerging as a stronger candidate and the reasons why are as follows.

Unlike in 2008, we have a first-term president hovering above the fray with enormous advantages of incumbency and statistical odds of re-election.

As noted in this piece I co-wrote last January discussing Obama’s re-election prospects: “In the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term. Based on these historical odds, Obama has a better-than-67-percent chance of winning reelection.”

On January 24, when he gives his State of the Union message, Obama will stand above a joint session of Congress looking very presidential on a high prestigious platform. Contrast that scene with Mitt, Newt, and to a lesser extent Rick and Ron, continuing to sling mud at each other while the media chronicles their every attack. (Mitt is supposed to release his tax returns around that time so that might steal some of Obama’s thunder, but not in a positive way.)

Since Obama cannot run on his anemic economic record, he will instead wage a frontal assault against his future opponent. So what could be more perfect than stacks of great material provided by the candidates themselves?

Based on how successful Newt’s attacks are against Romney or Romney’s attacks on Newt, Team Obama will have the luxury of watching from the sidelines, gauging how well the attacks impacted voters and the level of media interest. Then they can pick and choose which lines of attack will be re-packaged and re-played for the general election. You can fully expect Mitt’s or Newt’s words to be cleverly used against them. Thus, the longer the battle, the higher the ammunition stock-pile to the delight of Obama.

Obama and the Democrats love the idea of a prolonged battle because the longer the GOP race is unsettled, the farther to the right the candidates will  be forced to run in order to please a base, which, by all accounts, is becoming more conservative and less representative of the center-right general electorate.

This will leave the eventual nominee with less time and room to drift back to the center where the candidate must move in order to attract more moderate and independent voters who will determine the election.

Then, consider how a stretched and vicious primary battle only increases the chances of voters becoming disgusted with all the Republican candidates.

My 86-year-old mother, a political observer, said just the other day, “The candidates are acting like they are in high school. I am so fed up with politics.” I hated reminding her that it’s only January!

Prolonged attacks by a Newt vs. Mitt race offer the potential of turning off general election voters who have turned against Obama and are thinking about voting for the Republican. Furthermore, the longer and dirtier the intra-party fight, the less time the nominee will have to focus exclusively on Obama and work to gain back lost respect from the voters.

At this point my hunch is that President Obama would much prefer to run against Newt Gingrich, with the RealClearPolitics (RCP) poll average showing Obama defeating Gingrich by 11%.  Compare that to Obama being in a virtual tie with Romney, defeating him by only 1.9%, well within the margin of error.

So now all eyes shift to Florida — where the next great battleground primary is on January 31st, but early voting has already started.

Voters who “think” Gingrich is still a stronger candidate despite RCP showing him losing to Obama by 11% need to “re-think” their position due to some inconvenient facts:

In 2008, Obama defeated McCain by 7.3%.  (52% to 45.6%)

With his 11% spread, Gingrich would fare much worse.

But for those stubborn voters who don’t believe polls, try this:

The last RCP average before the 2008 election had Obama at 52.1% vs. 44.5% for McCain, a 7.6% difference. Which means RCP was only off by 0.3%.

RCP poll averages tend to be reliable because they are an average of all the major polls combining likely voters/ registered voters/ and all adults.

Therefore, I highly recommend checking out the latest RCP general election match-up polls before you cast your primary vote for the sake of our nation’s future. Obama must be defeated, so carefully consider the odds of the candidate who currently loses to Obama by 1.9% vs. the one losing by 11%.

Finally, there is another factor that I find troubling this primary season and one that will work to further weaken our candidates.  The mainstream media is in favor of a prolonged nomination battle — the bloodier, the longer, the better.

After all, this leads to increased ratings, but also has the dual purpose of allowing Obama to remain untouched and presidential while the Republicans are engaged in political wrestle-mania for months to come.

In that case, you can fully expect President Obama to engage in his usual presidential behavior of lavish parties, vacations, and golf outings, while his team plans the biggest party of all, his second inaugural.

Re-posted from PJMedia

MITT ROMNEY ANNOUNCES SUPPORT OF VIRGINIA GOVERNOR BOB MCDONNELL

OK Red State fans, let’s have some fun and read between the lines of this press release.

Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today announced the support of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Some of you may remember that back in early November I predicted in this PJM piece that when McDonnell announced his support for Romney the presses would start rolling with Romney/McDonnell bumper stickers and yard signs.

Sure, Mitt Romney has had a bad week, but I stand firm that he will be the nominee and McDonnell his running mate.  This press release is glowing with praise for McDonnell, who is a popular governor of a very important battleground state that Romney must win in order to reach 270 electoral votes. McDonnell also has a conservative profile that perfectly fits into Romney’s campaign message machine.

“Governor McDonnell’s leadership in Virginia is an example for the rest of the nation,” said Mitt Romney. “Governor McDonnell has used the conservative principles of keeping taxes and spending low and creating a fair regulatory climate to make Virginia a top destination for job creators. These same principles can be used in Washington to fix our economy and make government accountable to the taxpayers. I am proud to have his support and look forward to working with Governor McDonnell.”

“As I have said throughout this primary process, we need a governor to serve as our next president,” said Governor McDonnell. “America needs leadership and that’s what governors do: they lead. Governors actually have to find solutions and bring all parties together in order to get results for their citizens – they can’t just sit back and cast votes. Mitt Romney has been an effective leader his entire life, in business, the Olympics and as governor. President Obama’s lack of leadership experience is now clear – he has failed to turn around the economy and end the gridlock in Washington. Mitt Romney used his leadership ability in a politically difficult environment to balance the budget every year, cut spending and taxes, and create jobs. He is a results-oriented conservative. This is the type of record that conservatives like me are honored to support – we need a leader like Mitt Romney in the White House to enact effective change that will put our country back on the right path and Americans back to work.”

Translation: Since I am limited to only one 4 year term I will soon be looking for a new job and VP would be a very nice promotion. However, I will not provide the late night comics or You Tube with as much material as the current Vice-President. Please accept my apology for being boring, competent and presidential.

Background On Governor McDonnell:

Governor Bob McDonnell Was Elected In 2009.

McDonnell totally embarrassed Obama and the Democrats in November of 2009, with his landslide victory in a former red state that Obama turned blue in 2008.

Note to David Axelrod:  If McDonnell is on the GOP ticket, you just lost 13 electoral votes and a Senate seat.

Prior to his election, McDonnell served as Virginia’s Attorney General and as a Delegate representing Virginia’s 84th District in Virginia Beach. Governor McDonnell is an Army Veteran who served his country for 21 years. Governor McDonnell is the current Chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

As RGA Chairman, McDonnell has a natural platform to appear in the media blasting Obama and raising his national profile.  Army veteran too! What’s not to like?

Now PLEASE can we just wrap this whole thing up in Florida and get on with it.  Newt is driving us nuts.

Re-posted from PJMedia

Florida Senator Marco Rubio with 24 votes.

In second place was Florida Congressman Allen West with 19 votes.

Third was Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell with 10 votes.

Then, Former Ambassador John Bolton and Former Secretary of State Condi Rice were tied at 9 votes each.

Thanks to everyone who participated resulting in over 200 comments. Please note that only clearly-stated votes were counted. In comments where two or more potential VP’s were offered, only the first-named was accepted.

As mentioned in the original posting these results will be reported to the Romney campaign.

Now for my vote on Romney’s VP with some editorializing on the poll results.

Back in early November, I wrote this piece about why the selection of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was a “done deal” as Romney’s running mate.

Well, perhaps I exaggerated just a tad about the “done deal” part but, for all the reasons stated, I still believe McDonnell is Romney’s wisest choice.

Then, at a Christmas party I spoke to former Virginia Senator George Allen who is running this year to win back his old Senate seat. He told me he REALLY liked the idea of McDonnell for VP although Allen made a point of saying he has not endorsed Romney.

(Note: McDonnell as VP would practically ensure that Allen would win back his Senate seat but you have to read the piece for all the interesting background and national consequences of what will possibly be an epic Virginia battleground matchup of Obama/Kaine vs. Romney/McDonnell/Allen to understand the whole picture.)

Since Rubio was the winner of the poll contest, here is my take on him.

Senator Rubio, although a rising star in the Republican Party with a very bright future, is not ready yet to be Vice-President. Senator Rubio has only been in the US Senate since January 2011 and will be 41 years old in May. He needs to marinate awhile on the national stage, earn some stature, and build a record.

(OK, so we all know that Obama did not ‘marinate” but look at the trouble the county is in now as a result.)

Senator Rubio himself believes he needs more time because on numerous occasions he has stated that he will not be on any national ticket in 2012 and wants to focus on being a Senator from Florida.

For more explanation about why I believe Senator Marco Rubio is correct in his public declarations go back and please re-read my PJM piece from March of 2011 entitled “Why Rubio Should Resist 2012 Temptations.”

The second place poll contest winner, Congressman Allen West (FL-22) also is a rising star in the GOP.  Unfortunately West has a brutal battle ahead of him just to hang on to his Congressional seat due to re-districting and his outspoken pronouncements that do not sit well with all the moderate and independent voters in his swing district.  But, if Romney has strong coattails, West will most likely hang on to his seat. If he does manage to lose, and Romney wins, perhaps Romney will have a place for him in his administration. However, a new job as a national radio talk show host might be better suited to his personality.  Watch out Rush Limbaugh!  For more on Allen West and his difficult re-election ahead you can go back and re-read my PJM interview with him from October of 2011.

Finally, although off the VP topic, with the news that Ambassador Jon Huntsman will drop out of the presidential race and support Romney my bet is that Romney, if elected, will ask Huntsman to be his Secretary of State. (Sorry, John Bolton fans!)  Was there a deal? Would Huntsman make a good Secretary of State?

Perhaps that question should be offered up for the next poll contest.

Watch this space!

Re-posted from PJ Media

If you are an “anyone but Romney” voter or an “I will stay home if Romney is the nominee” person, or in the “I will hold my nose and vote for him but won’t work for him” category, this has not been a good week for you.

In fact, this may be a bad month because Romney is leading in South Carolina and Florida.

And to make matters worse from your perspective, Intrade has Romney’s probability of winning the nomination at 86.7% , making his inevitability even more inevitable.

So what’s a “true conservative” to do?

Here are two suggestions: first, go back and  read my PJM piece  from May of 2011 about  “visiting a therapist” offering constructive suggestions about how to deal with Romney heading the ticket.

Second, you can participate in this poll and help select Romney’s vice-presidential running mate by offering names in the comments section. The results will be tallied and brought to the attention of the Romney campaign.

Perhaps a VP to your liking will help balance the ticket and raise your level of enthusiasm. My belief is Romney should announce his VP selection well before the August Republican Convention in Tampa, so weigh-in on that as well.

Now, here are the criteria for selecting Romney’s running mate:

The person must have enough stature and experience to be able to step in and become president if the awful-awful happens.

The person must not only “do no harm” which has been the traditional criterion for selecting a VP (which some believe McCain violated by selecting Sarah Palin) but in this poll the potential VP must help the ticket with one or more of these factors: (1) Help win a state that Obama won in 2008 and is now a must-win state for the GOP. (2) Help unite the GOP and excite the conservative base enough to work hard and elect the ticket. (3) A person who could be the nominee in 2020 after Romney’s two terms in office.

Romney’s running mate must also stand up to VP Joe Biden in a debate and blow him away on the campaign trail.

This VP candidate must perform well in the media and make general election voters comfortable with Romney’s selection.

Most important, Romney’s running mate is someone who would be an effective leader nationally and internationally.

So now Red State readers, start your engines and head on down to the comments section.

Re-posted from PJMedia.com

In 2011, the political, social, and economic fabric of our nation stretched a little too far. Will 2012 be the year the seams burst?

For starters, we have a broke, broken, polarized, and dysfunctional government, and that saga will play out on center stage in election year 2012. The people are polarized as well. However, one issue has upwards of 70% of Americans in total agreement — our nation is headed on the wrong track. Hard to argue: no nation or empire in the history of the world has ever been burdened with  $15 trillion in debt. I am known to be an optimist, but reviewing the statistics that reveal the sorry state of our nation, I find myself joining the chorus of voters who believe national decline can only be managed but not avoided.

Many Americans, especially Republicans, think the 2012 election is our last chance to turn our ship of state around, but it may already be too late. For exactly how to turn the ship around and who will be captain will cause more polarization, more dysfunction, and potential for upheaval. Per Bob Dylan: “When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.” Some facts supporting that statement:

Half of All Americans Are Poor or Low-Income

According to the latest census data, 146.4 million  Americans, or 48% of the population, either fall below the poverty line or are in the low-income category.

Of that number, 97.3 million are considered low-income, while 49.1 million are poor. But the fact that should be of greatest concern to all Americans in regards to our future economic well being: 57% of all children are either poor or low-income.

Unless there is some radical change, the national trend towards a have vs. have-not society is already set in stone. Expect class warfare to grow and government entitlement battles to become even more vicious. There is no escaping that income inequality, on a scale that we have never seen before, will have a profoundly negative effect on our traditional American way of life. A child born into poverty has fewer chances to move into the middle class given all the disadvantages poverty heaps on a young life, both mentally and physically.

Census data from 2010 reveals that Hispanics account for 73% of our nation’s poor, and they are the largest and  fastest growing minority demographic, comprising 16.3% of the population. Hispanic growth increased 43% from 2000 to 2010.

Therefore, a massive public/private initiative must be developed to help lift Hispanics into the middle class or the U.S. will eventually cease to be a top tier nation. Our standing in the world economy is directly tied to Hispanic upward mobility.

The American Workforce Is Shrinking

According to USA Today, in 2010 the share of the population that had a job fell to 45.4%, down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000 — the lowest percentage of workers since 1983. This downward percentage translates into 27 million more non-working adults. Looking at male workers only, 66.8% had jobs, the lowest on record. Obviously this downward trend must be reversed, or national decline is inevitable.

High-Skilled Jobs and Low-Skilled Workers

This is a problem — closer to a crisis — that few of our national leaders bother to discuss. Too many  high skilled-high paying jobs are going unfilled. Met any unemployed computer engineers lately? Not likely you will.

Jobs, jobs, jobs may be the battle cry of the 2012 election but it is skills, skills, skills that are the real problem. Moreover, the lack of high-tech skills in our working population is impeding our future economic growth.

When I graduated from high school in the early ’70s, men who did not go to college often became auto mechanics. That path is not as easy anymore. Today, mechanics are highly paid and sought after because they require extensive computer training and certification to work on cars that have become computers on wheels.

How does our economy create low-skilled but adequate wage jobs for the growing number of low-skilled or no-skilled American workers? Solving that dilemma is the key to lifting half of our population out of poverty.

Innovative programs must be developed to help create a new middle class to supplement the current one that is shrinking fast. If we are unable to do that, then continued decline is the economic forecast for 2012 and beyond.

Re-posted from PJMedia

Yesterday I received the following e-mail from a good friend.

Myra,
I love Santorum. He may be able to beat Romney. He clearly could beat Obama in my mind. What do you think? I think this campaign will not be won by money, but by ideas and programs. This will be the year of the bargain candidate becoming the most sought after product.

My response was this:

Dear Name Withheld,
Santorum = Barry Goldwater
He lost by 18 points when he ran for his Senate re-election in 2006 in PA. He is going nowhere but Iowa. Do not fool yourself into thinking he can win a national election just because he thinks like you. The objective is to defeat Obama. ONLY Romney can do that. He does not scare independents.

The only reason I am sharing this personal e-mail exchange is because base conservatives, like my friend, are grasping at the last conservative standing and that happens to be Rick Santorum.

My equation of Santorum = Goldwater is based on the fact that Rick Santorum got trounced 41% to 59% against Democrat Bob Casey when he ran for his third term in the Senate. Sure 2006 was a bad year for Republicans, but 18 points was a little excessive.

What really gets me is that when I heard Santorum speak on the presidential campaign trail twice in the last few months he NEVER mentioned his Senate loss.

He speaks like he is still a sitting U.S. senator. I found this very disingenuous.

Here is another reason why I am not a fan of Rick Santorum. I saw his true character in a casual conversation we had in January of 2008 at a small Heritage Foundation event in Washington DC.

This conversation was later chronicled on August 12, 2009, when Republican strategist Mark McKinnon was writing about Santorum’s 2012 presidential prospects in The Daily Beast.

Keep in mind, McKinnon, back in January of 2008, was a key advisor to Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign and he remembered how disturbed he was about the email I had sent him describing my exchange with Santorum. He wrote:

Early in 2008, Santorum claimed a John McCain presidency would be “very, very dangerous for Republicans.” OK, he was entitled to support the candidate of his choice, but launching vicious frontal attacks on McCain that continued well after he received the nomination did nothing but hurt the GOP and its chances.

But that’s not the worst of it.

Recalling that Santorum had once featured McCain at one of his fundraisers, my friend asked him how he squared his conscience if he thought McCain was so dangerous. His response?

“Because I wanted to win.”

For Santorum to throw John McCain under the bus in 2008 after McCain tried to help Santorum raise money for his 2006 re-elect tells me all I need to know about Rick Santorum. Who, by the way, endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008, and now says it was because he did not like John McCain.

After Tuesday’s Iowa “victory” it’s a new ball game for Rick Santorum and he can expect much greater scrutiny than what I am offering here.

It’s also payback time for Senator John McCain, the surprise winner of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, because yesterday McCain endorsed Mitt Romney and not the surprise “almost winner” of Iowa, Rick Santorum, who, by the way, in the latest Real Clear Politics average loses to Obama by 10 points.

As I e-mailed my friend that Santorum = Goldwater I prayed that other base conservatives will wake up fast and realize that Romney is the GOP’s only chance of defeating the most dangerous president in my lifetime, Barack Obama.

And if Romney is not “conservative enough” for the Santorum conservatives they should be reminded of the words of President Ronald Reagan:

I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want.

Base conservatives now need to think of Romney as the GOP “half loaf,” and we had better serve him up on our plates soon because we need to store up as much sustenance as possible, for the real Battle of the Bulge is only 10 months away.

Re-posted from PJ Media    By Myra Adams

Certainly Mitt Romney has the hair and the movie star looks, but more important is a new attitude of optimism a Romney presidential victory would usher in that should not be underestimated.

Small and large business owners alike would be breathing a sigh of relief once a businessman occupied the White House — someone who knows the stress of meeting a payroll and what it’s like to risk precious capital to expand, or invest in a new product or service for a greater reward, often years away (or maybe never).

As president, Romney would make business fashionable and profitable by injecting confidence into the marketplace, while stripping away all the unnecessary regulations and roadblocks that keep businesses large and small from starting, growing, and thriving.

Reagan made people feel good about business, about themselves, about American exceptionalism and maintaining our place at the center stage of the world.

Recently when I heard Romney speak at a gathering he reminded me of Reagan as he commanded the stage. He was likable, eloquent. and heartfelt in his explanation about the present state of America which he frames as the opportunity society vs. the entitlement society. Do Americans really have a choice but to go full throttle towards building a new opportunity society? Continuation of our present entitlement society will only hasten our decline as a top-tier nation with the ability to react to and/or shape world events.

With his background at the highest levels of business investment and then as a governor, Romney has the experience to direct and manage an enterprise that is currently a broken, unmanageable mess, and growing more broke by the day. That enterprise, known as the U.S. government, but more akin to a train wreck, is over $15 trillion in debt with $61.6 trillion in unfunded benefits for its aging population.

A serious course correction is needed.

Romney, more than any other Republican candidate, has the leadership potential and communication skills along with a steady, disciplined personal demeanor to make that course correction. He also has the capacity to be the leader of the free world, commanding respect from our allies and enemies alike.

Now if only the Republican base could realize this, they would come together, offer their support, and help deliver Romney to the White House with coattails strong enough to win the Senate and keep the House.

Then a President Romney could usher in an era that perhaps someday, 30 years from now, historians would call the Romney Revolution.  Maybe that future history would read something like this: A new conservative movement starting in 2013 won control of the White House and Congress. The movement brought optimism, stimulated business growth, promoted opportunity and spearheaded what was called the Great Expansion.  President Romney led this movement by rallying the private sector and lowering taxes, which resulted in more tax revenue filling the coffers of the U.S. Treasury and resuscitating a government that at the time was borrowing borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar it spent.

This rosy scenario could become reality because there is in fact billions in investment capital sitting on the sidelines with corporate CEOs just waiting to see who wins in 2012.

A Romney administration could provide the incentive to unleash those billions and, with it, millions of jobs could be created for the nation’s workers. This would serve as a sharp contrast to the former administration and a reminder that the business of America is business not government.

So Republicans need to stop whining, “If we only had another Reagan who could easily beat Obama like Reagan did Carter.”  But some forget that the Reagan of 1980 morphed into the Reagan we revere today,  just as Romney has the potential to morph into the Reagan conservative today’s conservatives are so desperately seeking.

And I believe he will, if elected.

Then a Romney Revolution will be our last chance to turn our ship of state around, securing our place as the greatest nation for good and the world’s leading economic engine.

“Let Reagan be Reagan” was a favorite line I recall from that era.  So now let Romney be Romney. Let him manage and lead the way.  Let him attract moderates and not repel them.  Let him rise above what in 2011 has been sometimes an embarrassing Republican reality show. Then, with the nomination secured, Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama and develop into that Reagansque leader Republicans are longing for and America needs.