The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the “Gang of Seven” for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations – Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak.

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

Newt Gingrich has been strutting across town with an over-sized ego ever since his rise in the polls in December. He had declared himself the definite winner of  the GOP primary and the only one who can defeat Obama before the primaries had even begun! Despite having come in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich and his team have demanded conservatives to unite around his campaign since he was the only one who could beat Romney and Obama. This was prior to having won a single victory!

Here’s the question for Newt Gingrich; if he would truly want to promote conservatism, why hasn’t he acted upon his words after the first two states had voted, in which he came in below Santorum?

Hot Air has done a great job highlight the hollowness and falsehood of Gingrich for pretending to seek a united front for the sake of conservatism when he’s obviously demanding it solely to benefit himself:

Oddly, Gingrich didn’t appear as principled on the subject of conservative consolidation when Santorum won Iowa and Gingrich finished fourth, nor when Santorum narrowly edged Gingrich for fourth place in New Hampshire.  If he was concerned about a conservative sacrificing to make sure a conservative alternative had the strength to beat Mitt Romney at that time, Gingrich didn’t pull a muscle leaping out of his chair to volunteer.  Needless to say, neither has Santorum, who told Gingrich in response to run his own campaign.

After his desperately-needed victory in South Carolina, Newt sharply increased his descending tone to Rick Santorum despite Santorum having also won an equal number of states so far; 1. He then floated into Florida after his South Carolina victory promising a “final knockout.” We now know how that turned out, and who was the recipient of a “knockout.”

Newt though hasn’t acknowledged his own weaknesses which have led to his loss. Instead, he upped the heat against Santorum an additional notch higher and blamed Santorum for his own failure! Additionally, Newt couldn’t bring himself to congratulate Romney in his concession speech(repeating from actions in Iowa) while pretended Santorum was now out of the picture, although he couldn’t be any further than the truth.

“It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the conservative leader, Newt Gingrich, and the Massachusetts moderate, and the voters of Florida made that clear,” Gingrich said following his landslide loss in Florida. Gingrich ignored the fact that the other two candidates in the race – Ron Paul and Rick Santorum – chose not to run aggressive campaigns in the state.

Newt has also failed to recognize that while he has come out ahead of Santorum in Florida, Santorum came out ahead of Newt in New Hampshire. They’ve thus both won one state and come out higher than each other in one other state. Coming out stronger than Santorum in Florida has made Newt equal, not greater than, Santorum.

Although Newt is desperate for Santorum to back out of the race and for Santorum supporters to throw their support behind his campaign, neither of the above will happen in the near future, and his repeated aggressive requests for both won’t change the facts.

Firstly, Santorum has never made winning Florida a goal, as Newt had, since it’s a winner-take-all and knew he won’t win. Instead, he’s focusing on the upcoming elections where he’s polling extremely well. He’s already been to several states in the last few days and he’s got a full schedule today in Colorado.

Secondly, the claims that Santorum’s broke it utterly false; the Santorum campaign confirms it raised $4.2M in January and unlike the Newt campaign, has no debt. Additionally,  Foster Freiss is supporting Santorum and plans on giving him significant help moving forward. “I believe Rick Santorum will become one of the front-runners very soon,” Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, said during his interview with Bloomberg Television.

Furthermore, a new PPP poll had been released yesterday, and the results are quite astounding. Although Newt pretends that if Santorum backs out then Newt has got the nomination in his pocket, the results are pretty shaky. If Gigrich himself backs out though, the nomination does seem to go pretty strongly for Santorum. Santorum polls far  stronger against Romney in a two man race than does Newt solely against Romney. The reason this is so, is because Santorum is the second choice for an overwhelming majority of Newt supporters (and also for Romney supporters) while the reverse is not the case.

Here’s the info directly from the PPP poll.

In Missouri, held a week from today, Santorum has a 63-21 favorability spread to Gingrich’s 52-32, Romney’s 46-36, and Paul’s 28-57.  On the actual primary ballot, for which Gingrich did not qualify, Santorum leads with 45% to Romney’s 34% and Paul’s 13%.  In the caucus, in which Gingrich can compete, Santorum falls to second at 28% behind the former speaker’s 30% and ahead of Romney’s 24% and Paul’s 11%.   Head-to-head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37. That is because Santorum’s supporters only go for Gingrich by eight points over Romney, but Gingrich’s vote for Santorum by 28 points. In Ohio, which will be held on Super Tuesday (March 6th), Santorum’s favorability rating is 59-24, compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s 47-37 and Paul’s 31-52.  The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%.  Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

In other words, here’s how the two different two-man races would look like:

-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.

-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.

And remember that Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot in Missouri.

Can anyone remind me again which candidate is demanding the other to bow out of the race and which one says that everyone has a right to run?

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

One of the few things that most of us have agreed upon during this Presidential election cycle is the need to continue to improve Congress. We know that even if the best conservative candidate is elected he’ll need a solid conservative Congress to accomplish real reforms. And if we end up with a re-elected Obama, we’ll still need a solid conservative Congress to thwart his continued attempts to move us further down the road to European socialism.

To that end, I’d like to introduce to you a candidate for Colorado’s second district. But before I do, I’d like set the stage. Even though Colorado did not gain or lose seats, we still went through the process of redrawing the boundaries. Unfortunately what that means here is for the Democrat-controlled Legislature to do nothing and force the courts to do it. In the end, the congressional boundary changes weren’t as bad as they could’ve been. Scott Tipton in CO-3 will probably have an easier time with his re-election. Cory Gardner in CO-4 is set. So is Doug Lamborn in CO-5. The big loser could be Mike Coffman in CO-6. This was the goal of the Democrats. I still think Coffman has a decent chance to keep his seat. He did well in statewide elections, and is still popular in the state.

This diary is not about any of those districts. It is about Colorado’s 2nd congressional district, currently held by Jared Polis. The district contains all of The People’s Republic of Boulder™. It has always been a Democrat stronghold, but now with the addition of Larimer County (where I live), it has moved quite a bit towards the center. This presents and opportunity for Republicans to gain this seat later this year.

Kevin Lundberg currently represents the 15th Senate district in Colorado. Originally appointed in 2009 to fill the remaining two years in that district, he previously represented the 49th House district since 2002. He was re-elected in 2010 to another 4-year term. Kevin has won several awards, including Taxpayer Champion and Taxpayer Guardian from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers. For those of you that are now aware, we take tax control seriously in Colorado.

Kevin’s legislative accomplishments include:

* HB07-1208 and SB08-246, It took two bills get this done, eliminating legal prohibitions on generous gas and prescription drug programs – previous to the bills Colorado law prevented private businesses from offering any discounts “below cost.”

* HB04-1262 requiring clear signage identifying “red light” camera systems. These are the cameras at intersections that can automatically send traffic tickets. My bill let everyone know where the cameras are set up.

* Authorized people to copy and distribute Colorado statutes. Before the bill citizens were required by law to ask for permission from the Capitol to copy or distribute any state law.

* SB03-139, requiring jurisdictions to publicly disclose financial information before a bond election.

* HB04-1263 was a bill concerning the removal of the requirement under Colorado law for submission of a social security number on an application for a license issued by the Division of Wildlife (hunting and fishing licenses).

* SJR10-026 established the Sgt. Justin Bauer Memorial Highway

* HB0-1413 modifying the direct file laws for juveniles

* HB0-1259 conforming the annexation act of 1965 to the state constitution

Jared Polis has been a reliable vote for Barack Obama. When Lundberg was asked, Why run against Jared Polis, he states:

Votesmart.org lists 92 votes that Rep. Polis cast on the House Floor in 2011. 80% of the votes were either no, or did not vote. Among his no votes for 2011, which I would have supported are:

H.R. 2 – Repealing the Federal Health Care bill
H.R. 2021 – Cory Gardner’s bill providing timely processing of off-shore oil permits
H.R. 471 – Creating school vouchers for D.C. Schools
H.R. 1076 – Doug Lamborn’s bill cutting off Federal funds for NPR
H. amendment 95 – Prohibiting Federal funding for Planned Parenthood
H.R. 1633 – Limiting regulation of farm dust
H.R. 2560 – Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011

Kevin Lundberg currently has an exploratory committee to see if there is sufficient support to help him try to unseat Polis. He’s looking for 1500 people to sign up in support of his candidacy. I’ve already signed up to support him, and strongly encourage those of you inside and outside of Colorado to do that same. Let’s get that number to 1500 so Kevin will run. He is looking to make a decision by tomorrow (Jan 6th), so please don’t delay.

I know Kevin, and I’ve followed his efforts on behalf of Coloradans. He would be a great asset to the U.S. House of Representatives. Let’s send him to Washington to represent the consituents of the newly drawn 2nd district.

I am shocked at HotAir.com for publishing this article. I’m sure Michelle Malkin’s head would spin if she was still in charged of Hot Air.

The author asks the question “Is ‘Tebowing’ an attack on Christianity?” then he answers with a resounding “No” and then personally attacks Tim Tebow and his fans (bolding mine):

Read More →

From the office of Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach

Drafted by my office, the Kansas Secure and Fair Elections Act (SAFE Act) combines three elements to do just that – protect the franchise.  The new law (1) a requires voters to present photo IDs when voting in person; (2) requires absentee voters to present a full driver’s license number and have their signatures verified; and (3) requires all newly registered voters to prove citizenship.  Although other states have enacted one or two of these reforms, Kansas is the only state to enact all three.

Read More →

With a hat tip to Jim Geraghty we can see just how bad it is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats right now.

John Salazar, Congressman from Colorado, is being attacked for voting 97% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT.

His Republican challenger, Scott Tipton, is tied with Salazar in a race that two years ago Mr. Salazar walked away with.

So how does John Salazar interpret voting NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT of the time with Nancy Pelosi?

“I’ve never voted with Nancy Pelosi,” Mr. Salazar says, adding that “every vote I’ve taken” has been with and for his constituents.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

With a hat tip to Jim Geraghty we can see just how bad it is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats right now.

John Salazar, Congressman from Colorado, is being attacked for voting 97% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT.

His Republican challenger, Scott Tipton, is tied with Salazar in a race that two years ago Mr. Salazar walked away with.

So how does John Salazar interpret voting NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT of the time with Nancy Pelosi?

“I’ve never voted with Nancy Pelosi,” Mr. Salazar says, adding that “every vote I’ve taken” has been with and for his constituents.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I received my Colorado Primary ballot in the mail yesterday and on it is an interesting additional item from the City of Alamosa.

Question 2A:

Shall City of Alamosa Ordinance Number 4-2010, which authorized the execution and delivery of a lease purchase and sublease agreement and other documents and actions in connection with financing the City’s municipal complex project without raising taxes or instituting any new tax, become effective?

So, why should anyone outside of Alamosa care? Let me give you a little background.

The current city hall is also the local library and the main location for the Alamosa Fire Department. The building has a couple of problems. First of all, it’s too small for the needs of the city. Second, the city would like to expand the library but there isn’t room in the current building. Third, the city council chambers are too small to hold the crowds they get when controversial items are discussed and it’s not ADA compliant. (The chambers are on the second floor with no elevator in the building.) There is definitely a need for something to be done.

In fact, the city has several options. The first is to build a new municipal complex. Second, the city could use an building that has been vacant since K-Mart closed. Third, the city could take over one the elementary school building that are about to become obsolete with the completion of a new school complex. The city council choose the first option.

The city’s choice wasn’t especially popular but it wasn’t the choice itself as much as how it was financed. Here’s how the opposition group, Alamosa Has Options, describes the deal.

The City of Alamosa is using a “loophole” discovered by a very smart attorney some time back, to use Certificates of Participation (see bottom of document for actual definition) to fund items without having to ASK the people in a vote, if they want to incur the debt.

Basically what happens is the city sets up a DUMMY CORPORATION, which then borrows money to finance the project. The City has to pay back the corporation from money from the existing budget, resulting in cuts of city services. The corporation then has to repay the lenders or certificate holders who initially lent the money.

This violates the spirit, if not the text of TABOR and the $700,000 per year payments on the lease will certainly impact the city. That brings us back to the ballot question.

You see, when the citizens of Alamosa saw what the city council did, the exercised a rarely used provision in the city charter that allows a citizens to file a petition to bring the ordinance before the voters. The petition was certified and the question was put on the primary ballot.

So, why should anyone outside of Alamosa care? Simple. This is a perfect example of why legislation should be done as close to the people as possible and why Federalism works. When legislators at the city or county level pass legislation, the voters of those localities can overrule the legislature. That also true of most states. It provides a direct check on the governments. Any legislature that tries to legislate against the will of the people run the risk of that legislation being overruled by the people. That’s not an option at the Federal level.

There is nothing the people can do directly to overturn Federal legislation. At most, citizens can throw out the Congressmen who passed the legislation in the first place. That can be a relatively quick change in the House but it takes a long time to turn over the Presidency and the Senate. Even then, there’s no guarantee that those who were elected will overturn the law. That’s especially true if the offensive law gives the government more power and/or sets up a new entitlement.

Americans need to start electing legislators who will not just repeal ObamaCare; they need to elect people who will start repealing almost all Federal laws. If the people of a state want burdensome taxes to pay for an ever increasing welfare state, they are welcome to vote for one in their state. The rest of us will enjoy our prosperity.

Originally posted at PerlStalker’s Ramblings.

The results from Colorado’s U.S. House District 4 are representative of the nation as a whole in many ways.

• The voter demographic is approximately 1/3 each Democrat, Independent, and Republican.
• The less-populated rural areas voted for Republicans, while the heavily-populated urban areas voted for Democrats.
• An unpopular incumbent was replaced by someone from the opposing party, even though (s)he was quite liberal.

At first glance, this would lead one to believe that people no longer believe in the conservative cause of freedom and small government. There are certainly enough pundits, even so-called conservative ones that claim this is the case, and if we want to regain power we must move even farther to the left. The only problem with this is, based on a post-election survey of these same voters, it just isn’t true.

Read More →