McCain Endorses Romney: What Does It Mean And What Effect Will It Have?


When the top elected official of your political Party who is also your country’s President, or past President, endorses a candidate to run for that high office, it means something!  It is not insignificant.  It represents a symbolic passing of the torch!  Not quite an anointing  with oil, but more than a mere casual nod of approval, it is kind of like the white smoke that rises from the Sistine Chapel, that signals the moment when the Cardinals of Vatican City have chosen their next Pope.  In the realm of politics it is the traditional signal that the ‘Establishment’ has selected its next leader!

But what does it mean when a renegade maverick, without clearly consistent principles, and totally undeserving of our Party’s nomination for President, but who received it anyway, and then failed to gain the necessary approval of a majority of American voters, only two years later endorses someone else to pick up the Party’s fallen mantle, and to be our country’s next leader?  What does it mean?…  Well, to me it means absolutely nothing!  It obviously doesn’t carry the same gravitas!  To me it doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot!  But to the liberal, mainstream news media, apparently it is worth at least a passing mention.

So for their sakes, I will briefly discuss exactly what it means to our Party, and to our country, the fact that John McCain has decided to grace Mitt Romney with his endorsement.  It means that the old two-timing renegade from the Grand Canyon State, is trying to keep his name, and his face alive in the news, and he is just trying to remain relevant!  However, beyond that it will take me just three more words to describe the entire impact that a McCain endorsement will have on the Republican Primary. Absolute Zero Impact!


What Conservatives have Won Big Time in New Hampshire


One of the most important indicators when studying primaries and elections is whether the candidates have exceeded, met, or underperformed according to expectations.

Romney’s victory in New Hampshire was a given and his performance therefore met, yet did not  exceed, expectations for a non-victory would’ve shocked the entire political world. His victory, although considerable, has not changed the script of how people assumed it would be from the start of this primary season.

Romney’s performance is contrary that of the New Hampshire primary in 2008 where expectations similarly originally expected for the then not-so-established Mitt Romney from the neighboring Massachusetts to win the primary. McCain, Romney’s opponent, had received several strong endorsements including that of Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman, The Boston Globe, and The New Hampshire Union Leader which swayed lots of Independents over to the McCain camp. Romney’s support slipped shortly before the primary, and he ended up coming in second behind the more established McCain. McCain’s victory was thus extremely significant since he exceeded expectations, and he ultimately ended up beating Romney as the Republican presidential candidate.

The script for the upcoming South Carolina election was very much that it’s up in the air. As a Southern and strongly Conservative state, it was assumed that the candidate who assumes the position of Not-Romney will probably be victorious. Since three candidates are still vying for that title thus splitting up the conservative vote, and because Romney won New Hampshire with a considerable margin, the dynamics have changed for South Carolina and it is now expected to go for Romney. The media and all political pundits have declared it so, and even Jim Demint, the Conservative Senator from South Carolina, had announced that he would be surprised if anyone but Romney wins the state next Saturday.

Romney is currently leading the pack in South Carolina with an RCP average of 29% while the two conservative contenders who can possibly create a change in the dynamics, Santorum and Gingrich, are both currently polling at the 20% range. Although the scene may appear bleak to conservatives, a Romney victory is not yet guaranteed.

The current high expectations for Romney in South Carolina will color anything less than a full-fledged Romney victory in a very negative light. These raised expectations are extremely beneficial for conservatives for with the new dynamics, if a conservative ends up beating Romney in South Carolina, their victory will carry far more weight than previously expected. It will be seen as a serious defeat of Romney and an incredible strength of the conservative, and will result in a greatly weakened Romney going forward.

In a sense, it can be compared to the Democratic primaries of 2008. Obama had all the momentum on his side prior to the primary in Pennsylvania after beating Hillary in a majority of the previous primaries. After Hillary’s surprise victory in Pennsylvania, though, Obama’s momentum had come to a halt and many questioned whether he would be able to regain the lead. Ultimately, since it was the end of April and a majority of the states had already held their primaries, there wasn’t enough leeway for Hillary to overcome the overwhelming majority of delegates Obama had already picked up prior to Pennsylvania and Obama became the nominee.

A South Carolina upset can similarly halt Romney in his tracks, and since it is only the third state, an unexpected Romney defeat can have a powerful enough effect to sway the ultimate outcome of the Republican primaries. If Romney isn’t dealt a significant blow early enough in the primary, it seems quite unlikely that the Republican nominee will be anyone but Romney.

Despite Romney’s lead in South Carolina, here are several factors to keep in mind, which can lead to contrary results.

Romney has sailed to victory Tuesday night in the purple New Hampshire, a state which identifies with his moderate positions, with 39% of the votes. If he hadn’t topped 40% in New Hampshire there is no way he can get too much more than 30% of the votes in the southern red state of South Carolina whose views are aligned further to the right than Romney’s. Thus, if a conservative can garner 40% or more of the South Carolinian vote, he will virtually be guaranteed to beat Romney.

In order for that to occur, the conservatives must unite under one candidate Unification will result in a combination of the twenty percent of support each of them are recipient of, and will total to a whopping forty percent.

Although it may appear as an impossible suggestion since supporters of each candidate desire for the other side to join them, it can occur in either of two scenarios.  The dream scenario would be if one of the candidates back out and endorse his rival conservative.  It is also possible though for both candidates to remain in the race, with one candidate imploding badly enough for a majority of his supporters to choose on their own to unite around the other viable who will be able to serve as the “Anyone but Romney” candidate. The race will thus downsize to a two-man race and will enable the conservative to win over Romney in South Carolina, gain momentum, and hopefully emerge victorious first from the primaries and ultimately from the general election.

The (multi) million dollar question is, of course, who, if anyone, should be the one to back out of the race in order to stop Romney?

Of course neither can be demanded to pull out of the race since everyone has the right to stay in for as long as they wish. Both of them have garnered far more than zero percent in Iowa and New Hampshire and even Perry who had faced a stunning loss in Iowa, had come in with less than 1% in New Hampshire, and is polling extremely low in South Carolina, has the right to continue campaigning.  Besides, a Perry retreat, although it would narrow the field a bit more, would probably not be enough to propel one of the others ahead of Romney.

There is one candidate though who is more likely to pull out, and to understand why, we’ve got to go back to our original explanation of expectations vs. performance in addition to some other details.

At an overall glance, it seems as though Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were recipients of equally not-too-great results last night in New Hampshire.

Santorum received 9.3 percent of the vote which landed him in fifth place and right behind Newt who received 9.4 percent – a little over two hundred votes more than Santorum. Neither of them received any delegates and both performed slightly worse than Huckabee in 2008, who had come in third with 11% of the votes and had been the recipient of one delegate. Their performances last night, though, are seen in very different lights since the expectations for their performances had been vastly different.

Expectations for Newt were sky high. In Iowa he had been crowned as the frontrunner and even in New Hampshire he was doing considerably well. Newt Gingrich had been the recipient of The New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement, the very same influential newspaper who had endorsed McCain and many other candidates who had then gone on to win the New Hampshire primary. End of November and December polls showed a surging Newt in New Hampshire who received the support of close to and often over twenty percent  of those polled. Some speculated that Newt will eventually top Romney, while all expected him to land in the second seat.

Despite the massive anti-Bain and anti-Romney bombardment Newt engaged in as retaliation, he was unable to keep Romney from rising and himself from dropping. Newt ended up barely clinging to the fourth spot and his inability to meet expectations has painted him once again as a candidate in decline.

Newt’s lackluster New Hampshire results came at the heels of his embarrassing performance in Iowa, where he came in fourth despite having been the frontrunner with a considerable percentage only weeks before the caucuses. Newt blamed the overwhelming number of negative ads Romney had run against him as the cause for his drastic drop. Immediately after Iowa, Newt retaliated and bombarded New Hampshire with negative ads against Romney and his job in Bain. His efforts, though, proved to be inadequate in stopping Romney’s momentum. At the contrary, the attacks over Romney’s pink slips had backfired and resulted in Newt having come under heavy fire from many prominent conservatives including Rush.

Newt’s decision to remain in the campaign, first after his loss in Iowa and then after his weak performance in New Hampshire, despite it being almost impossible for him to win South Carolina with Santorum in the race indicate that his goal has changed. His expansion of attacks against Bain via the airing of a 28 minute anti-Romney commercial in South Carolina despite the considerable damage it has already caused to his campaign further hints at Newt’s revised end-point.

Why else would a candidate who still hopes to win an election increase an action which has proven in the past to cause greater damage to his own campaign than his opponent’s? It is clear that Newt is aware of his slimmer than slim chances in South Carolina specifically and in the rest of the primary. Since the presidential nomination appears out of Newt’s reach, he has undertaken a new goal; to stop Romney from being the nominee. Newt’s first attempt to accomplish this is has proven unsuccessful and too remain in the race and continue this path despite his attacks being ineffective, may result in a fuming Newt after Romney wins South Carolina, Florida, and eventually the Republican nomination.

Instead of continuing with plan number one, there is another path for Newt to take which will seriously impede the Romney campaign. Newt can endorse another candidate, which will unite the conservative vote and enable for that candidate to overcome Romney in South Carolina. Newt can continue with his attacks against Romney if he so desires, which will keep Romney on the offensive without pulling down the conservative candidate. Since Perry had imploded and is polling in the Huntsman range, Santorum would be logical choice, and for several reasons in addition to polling.

Santorum had exceeded expectations in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He had gone from the very bottom of the polls to a tied victory with Romney in Iowa. In New Hampshire he came pretty much tied with Newt at over 9% despite having polled at 1 -2% in November and 3-4% in December. Since Santorum’s performance had twice topped what was expected, his national support is in an upward climb and his coffers have begun to sport a bulge. Even if Santorum comes in second, behind Romney, it will be seen as an impressive act and he will have the opportunity to attempt another overtake in Florida.

Santorum has no incentive to get out of the race. He has exceeded expectations in the first two states and will be remembered with respect and admiration for his Iowa surprise further down the line even if he comes in second or third in South Carolina and Florida. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been branded as the former frontrunner whose support had vanished and the longer he stays in and serves as a spoiler, the harsher people’s opinion will be of him down the line. And that Newt the historian wishes to be remembered fondly in history is a given.

Although a newly released Insider Advantage poll of South Carolina from this morning has Newt Gingrich at 21%, just two points behind Romney and 7 points ahead of Santorum, the current poll isn’t such great news and is actually a massive slide from the previous Insider Advantage poll from 12/18 where Newt polled far ahead of the rest having come in at 31%. The current Insider Advantage poll thus reflects a whopping 10 point drop for the former frontrunner while indicating a 4 point jump for Romney (from 19 to 23) and a surging 10 point gain for Santorum (from 4 to 14).

Newt tweeted the poll and his entire camp is touting the poll as proof that he can beat Romney, not realizing that he is once again setting himself up to extremely high expectations. A Newt victory in South Carolina will be seen as having finally met expectations. Anything below first spot though, won’t reflect too well for someone who had led the pack a month earlier with double digits and had failed to live up to expectations for the third time. A Santorum victory will cause a momentum many times stronger than his Iowa surprise had, and will propel him ahead across the country. Santorum coming in as a strong second or third will also reflect positively on him since he was never touted as the frontrunner and definite winner.

Another feather in the hat for Santorum is his being the only candidate who refused to attack Bain Capital for having engaged in free market principles such as firing unproductive employees. Newt, Perry, and Huntsman have attacked Romney for having lain off employees in companies Bain has managed, ignoring minor details such as that laying off unproductive workers benefits the business and that shrinking the staff of a failing business is often necessary in order for it to turn around and be able to generate a profit once again. Isn’t it better for a business and the economy for it to operate with fewer employees rather than it keeping the entire staff only to go bankrupt and close shop?  Besides, how do these candidates who attack firing employees plan to shrink the size of government and close entire agencies, as they promise they will, without handing out pink slips?

The accusation that Bain’s actions were wrong because they had received a federal bailout is similarly flawed, and in two accounts. Firstly, although the government shouldn’t be bailing out companies, companies that have been bailed out should use the money to make a profit, as Bain did, even if it includes the firing of employees. They shouldn’t waste the bailout money by keeping employees employed for as long as the money lasts and not attempting any positive reform, only to shut the doors when the money runs out. Secondly, it turned out that the bailout accusations were false and that Bain Capital hasn’t even received a government bailout.

Newt’s general criticism of a business who profits from flipping other businesses appeared foolish and contradictory when voters discovered that he conveniently forgot to share the fact that he invested in and served on the advisory board of Fortsman Little, a competitor of Bain in the leveraged-buyout industry.

Santorum’s strong defense of the free market was and is a stark contrast to the others and especially from Newt who had adapted the role of Attacker in Chief. This resulted in many renowned conservatives who have never previously admonished Newt or shown true support for Santorum, to suddenly do so. Newt had come under nuclear fire from Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives for his left-wing socialist style against Romney, while Santorum was praised for standing up for basic conservative principles.

If Rick Santorum can continue to build his momentum by citing his pro-free market principles and unite the conservative base in South Carolina, he will beat Romney in South Carolina. A defeated Romney will continue forward, albeit with a greatly weakened image and no surety for victory.

No longer will he be able to walk away with a victory simply because the crowded primary resulted in the conservative vote having been split in three. He will have to tout a record and a plan to convince voters that he’s the right guy and unlike Santorum, Romney’s record is filled with inconsistencies and discrepancies. While Romney will be busy explaining his anti/pro conservative record and Paul will explain his anti/pro earmarks amongst many other inconsistent statements, Santorum will be able to tout a consistent and steady record.

Santorum has received above average ratings as a staunch conservative despite his having run in the blue-purple state of Pennsylvania. Whether on social issues such as pro-life and traditional marriage, economic issues such as his sponsorship of BBA, anti-tax increases and a line veto, or foreign policy issues, such as facing reality and calling evil by its name, Rick had always been consistent with is positions for he chose them because he felt they were right. Shifting along with the wind or prior to an upcoming reelection were never serious options for a person who believed in the correctness of his positions.

 

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


3’rs and How Cognitive Bias May Have Us Reeling Come 2012


Disclaimer:

We have mistakenly given ourselves over to cognitive biases in this nomination process and we will inevitably come to gravely lament our foolishness come 2012. As many of you have likely done, I have found myself rather displeased and unsatisfied with the path that conservatives are in leaving New Hampshire. I have come to the conclusion that many of our frustrations can be attributed to a few common psychological and interrelated biases including the Availability Cascade and the Semmelweis Effect.  Please take a few minutes to Read, Reflect and eventually Rethink your opinion of Romney’s electability in the general election. I have used some merciless language throughout this essay, it reflects my own frustration in falling into these same biases and my aggravation in the seemingly futile attempt to change minds; however, I do believe that I have highlighted many intriguing viewpoints and a unique perspective on the current nomination situation.   

Lets Get Started:

Why is Mitt so electable? He couldn’t beat Ted Kennedy in the 1994 senate race, approval pole’s suggest he likely wouldn’t have been reelected for Governor in Massachusetts, and we chose John McCain instead in 2008. Why all of a sudden is Mitt the right guy for us now? Mitt hasn’t done anything to show us that he is any different or better of a candidate now than he was four years ago when he lost to John McCain! It seems the Republican Party is playing into the idea that he is the “default” candidate this time around and that he is least likely to create any bad waves with the far too coveted moderates. The idea that Mitt is most electable has undergone a self reinforcing process as this collective belief becomes more plausible through the repetition of commentary in public discourse regarding his appeal to moderates and lack of controversial stances that could be enumerated by the Obama Camp (Availability Cascade). I believe we have given Mitt a fairly effective, from his perspective, free pass up to this point. We have vetted all the other candidates and inspected them with great focus thus explaining the undulation of popularity for each of his competitors.

 The party just does not like or trust Mitt Romney and we have voiced our opinion week after week as we have seen each of his competitors shuffle ahead and subsequently fall in the polls. Our default opinion then has been to support Romney. We all constantly admit with reluctance and apprehension that we believe Mitt will eventually become the candidate even though there are a plethora of reasons we don’t like him, we cannot relate to him and there are many things about him that will make him most vulnerable to the inevitable strategy of the Obama Campaign (Semmelweis Effect). This is a MISTAKE. We are taking our hatred and disapproval of President Obama for granted. The establishment and the entire party, for that matter, believes the voters will eventually come on out and support Romney in droves because he will be the only alternate to Obama. We forget the passion and excitement that Obama can create and we forget just how infectious that passion was in 2008. It doesn’t take a political genius to see that Mitt is not exciting and that he seems disingenuous. He has changed his stances over and over again. We are told that he is great by the establishment because he can appeal to moderates and his views line up with moderates, but he isn’t even genuine with his moderate views. He has since reversed his own moderate opinions to satisfy everyone in hopes to gain more conservative acceptance. He is a patchwork politician doing and saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. At the end of the day he can’t be excited or passionate about his own views because, deep down, they are not his. We absolutely cannot afford to nominate a candidate that does not excite and inspire the party.

Furthermore I think that to dismiss the “King of Bain” film and the negativity surrounding his career at Bain Capital is naïve at best. We can all argue that this is a facet of capitalism, and it is! Dismissing the issue and claiming the American people will overlook this or that it will somehow backfire would be, and I hate to say it, overestimating the American people.  There is a large difference between starting your own business and stalking companies, slicing them up, purging them of their assets, and firing a majority of employees who poured their lives into their work and staked their livelihood on its success. It plays directly into the Democrats strategy. Mitt was a corporate raider. Remember the first Wall Street movie? Mitt Romney will become a real-life Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglass) remember the sentiment when he wanted to destroy Bud Fox’s (Charlie Sheen) father’s airplane company? Obama will draw on the same sentiments except with a billion dollars to do it in the real world. These issues were going to come up at some point. It is better that it came out now so that the Republican Party still has an opportunity to decide if we still think Mitt can survive attacks claiming he is an elitist and corporate vulture. The average person has less in common with Mitt than we would like to believe. Look, I believe in capitalism (I’m a financial statement auditor), but this film will destroy Mitt in the general election, and is the very reason the Democrats would LOVE to go up against Mitt Romney.


The Second Coming of John McCain


Objectively on the ground here, it is doggone cold. Also, it seems the Santorum surge has ended, or at least stalled. On CNN last night, Mary Matalin noted that a number of people unconnected to campaigns say the surge is stalled out.

Image descriptionThe caucuses will be tonight. For years the media has treated Iowa as the Super Bowl, but this year, with proportional delegates, it really is more the pre-season. This could go on a while. My guess is that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are first and second. Rick Santorum or Rick Perry will probably be third. Santorum because of his late surge. Perry because of organization.

If Iowans want to see the second coming of John McCain, they’ll support Rick Santorum like they supported Huckabee and we’ll get a moderate named Romney who won’t really fight in the general election.

As Dan McLaughlin notes, if Iowans hand third place to Rick Perry, they’ve not only given him a guaranteed life line (one he’d probably get in fourth place too), but they have also ensured he will be the GOP nominee.

I’ll be bringing you updates throughout the day from the ground in Des Moines, IA both here and on radio from 9am to 1:00 p.m. ET. You can listen here. Tonight, I’ll be on CNN starting at 6pm ET.

Let the games begin.


The Second Coming of John McCain


Objectively on the ground here, it is doggone cold. Also, it seems the Santorum surge has ended, or at least stalled. On CNN last night, Mary Matalin noted that a number of people unconnected to campaigns say the surge is stalled out.

Image descriptionThe caucuses will be tonight. For years the media has treated Iowa as the Super Bowl, but this year, with proportional delegates, it really is more the pre-season. This could go on a while. My guess is that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are first and second. Rick Santorum or Rick Perry will probably be third. Santorum because of his late surge. Perry because of organization.

If Iowans want to see the second coming of John McCain, they’ll support Rick Santorum like they supported Huckabee and we’ll get a moderate named Romney who won’t really fight in the general election.

As Dan McLaughlin notes, if Iowans hand third place to Rick Perry, they’ve not only given him a guaranteed life line (one he’d probably get in fourth place too), but they have also ensured he will be the GOP nominee.

I’ll be bringing you updates throughout the day from the ground in Des Moines, IA both here and on radio from 9am to 1:00 p.m. ET. You can listen here. Tonight, I’ll be on CNN starting at 6pm ET.

Let the games begin.


5 Steps to Success (Alternative to RNC’s McCain-Romney Moderates)


As far as I’m concerned, too many people believe the best indicator of electability is how well the candidates appeal to moderates rather than electrifying the base of their party. I want someone starkly different than Obama, not someone that is more appealing to independents or moderates. The tone at the top is to take the solid conservative base of the party for granted and then, when it comes to the nomination, throw the values and beliefs we each feel so passionately about to the wolves. We saw the fallout of this phenomenon in 2008 when John McCain got the nod. We are all too familiar with McCain’s ultimate failure to excite the conservative base of the party. The Republican conservative faithful likewise failed to turn out in support of him. We constantly overlook the exciting outspoken articulate conservatives and instead search for the John McCain and Mitt Romney pushovers in hopes that we just might get a couple of the ever important moderates.
Rather than forming a campaign that focuses on moderates, if we build a campaign that centers on the conservative base rather than sacrificing our ideals at the onset, we will inevitably gain some moderates as conservative ideas MAKE SENSE. We have consistently nominated “empty vessels” of candidates. The American public can see that these candidates aren’t individually excited about anything except maybe getting elected and they don’t stand for anything, except getting elected. The “establishment” believes that since these candidates don’t have any strong opinions or are willing to take whatever stance they think might get them the nomination, they will be the best candidate to “grab moderates.” This is why our party’s leadership forces them down our throats, but it is also the same exact reason that no one gets excited by them or particularly cares to vote for them. If the individual isn’t excited about anything themselves than how can you expect them to excite others. The RNC wants us to support Mitt because they believe that he is the candidate that can capture the independent vote, but this time around America is not buying it. As Mitt has hovered around 25% since the beginning of polling, he has watched each of his opponents surge much higher than him because of the same group of people: conservatives looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney. Let’s face it, Obama has passionate stances, the American public can feel that passion and it is infectious. Even though his ideas might just be the end of this country, people were refreshed by his passionate enthusiasm and therefore came out in droves to vote for him.
Obama’s nonsensical policies are obviously a real threat to our country. Our only hope and my expectation this year is to select a nominee that can clearly articulate the conservative ideas and policies that we feel so strongly about and then ultimately draw a stark distinction between those policies and the socialist concepts preached by the Obama administration. I believe that there is a clear and simple recipe for success in 2012:
Ingredients:
Strong Ardent and Articulate Conservative Nominee (Starkly Different Than Obama), Conservative Ideas, Ridiculous Obama Socialist Ideas, Common Sense.
Directions:
Step 1: Clearly communicate conservative ideas
Step 2: Identify and call out the Obama socialist ideas
Step 3: Identify the stark distinctions between the two aforementioned ingredients
Step 4: Articulate how and why conservative ideas made our country the great place it is today
Step 5: The party Nominee then explains how he will advance these ideas
Step 5: Mix in deeply buried yet inherent American common sense
Results:
The result will be an excitement of the conservative base and a reason for them to come out in droves for the election and moderates who will inevitably join as the conservative economic ideas make sense, stand on their own, and create excitement and opportunity.
How can we draw a stark distinction between our passionate conservative ideas and Obama’s if our candidate has literally been on every side on a majority of the issues that our base feels so passionately about? Romney has repeatedly stated that he is the strong conservative in the race and that he has the best chances against Obama. Romney cannot and will not be able to articulate these stark differences as he has literally held both sides of most of these important arguments. It would be political suicide for him to illuminate these arguments as he would just be highlighting areas he has been inconsistent:. Conservatives are being duped into thinking that Gingrich’s laundry is too “dirty” to be competitive with Obama when he is the clear he is the strong, ardent, and articulate conservative we need to satisfy the aforementioned recipe. Establishment republicans banter that Gingrich can’t be competitive with Obama as he supported the individual mandate and has openly met with Nancy Pelosi to discuss the environment when it is evident that their “chosen one” has clearly had many more controversial conflicting stances than Gingrich.


A lesson from the Florida Bar Exam for the Presidential candidates


...My worry centers on what I saw in 2008: John McCain won the primary by basically outlasting the other candidates and secured the nomination without having a majority of the Republican electorate behind him. The problem was exacerbated when the campaign was slow to reach out to the other candidates' supporters and the conservative base. While Obama's 2008 campaign (especially combined with the economy) was a juggernaut that was likely unstoppable, McCain's failure to reach out and bring everyone into the fold was a contributing factor in the fatal lack of enthusiasm that doomed his campaign. Now, this year, we have several of the frontrunners either ignoring or taking for granted major sections of Republican voters...

What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?


Note: The following article, which I’ve written, is cross-posted from American Thinker.

In the 2010 primaries, Charlie Christ, then-governor of Florida and Senate candidate, faced several serious contenders for his seat.  One of the most successful ads used against him by his staunchly conservative opponent, Marco Rubio, was an image of opportunist Charlie Christ hugging Obama at a rally where Charlie helped promote the stimulus package.  Rubio’s constant usage of the image, which reminded the Florida voters of Charlie’s support for the stimulus, was a key factor in ousting Charlie from his Senate seat.

In the few short years since Obama has become president, he’s caused unbelievable destruction for this country via the weakening of our global image, the wrecking of the economy, the heightened division between class and race, and other ruinous policies.  Any politician who had supported Obama in reaching any of his goals deserves to have his opponents harp upon it and to be thrown out of office, as happened to Charlie Christ.

It is now barely two years after we got rid of Charlie Christ, and I’m left to wonder what has occurred to conservatives’ demand for character.  If an image of Charlie hugging Obama was so powerful two short years ago, why doesn’t the image of one of our presidential candidates palling around with a different demagogue receive a similar outcry?  Yes, the rabble-rouser in this image hasn’t succeeded in dismantling the economy as Obama has, but that’s only because he had narrowly lost the Democratic primary several years back.  This individual has actually endorsed and directly participated in violence far more often and personally than Obama.  His actions of destruction haven’t occurred on a national platform only because he didn’t make it to the presidency, though the racial violence he’s incited in the past and continues to incite has led to the deaths of at least a dozen innocent individuals and destroyed the lives of many more.

Obama said that the police acted stupidly and then apologized via a beer summit.  This individual has led many rallies against police officers, including one at which cries of “kill the police” were heard.  This individual has never apologized  or admitted his wrongdoings in even a single one of his countless despicable acts.  Having been proven guilty in court meant the jury was wrong, and he never bothered paying back his buddies who’ve paid his remuneration to the innocent party.

For those of you who haven’t yet figured out who this disgraceful individual must be, I will no longer keep you in suspense.  This is none other than the rabble-rouser Al Sharpton, whose participation and incitatements at instances such as the Tawana Brawley hoax, the Crown Heights riot, the Central Park “wilding” case, and the Freddie’s Fashion Mart fire have led to the destruction of many lives and are too numerous to enumerate.

And the GOP presidential candidate who lavishes praise upon despicable Al?  That is Newt Gingrich, who has accepted the shields Sharpton has donned in an attempt to differentiate himself from the common thug sitting behind bars — intellectual superiority, racial healer, and education specialist.

Gingrich had teamed up with Al Sharpton on Obama’s behalf on an education stint during which Gingrich piled heaps of praise upon Obama for his wonderful stance on education.  Who in his right mind would choose Al Sharpton, from the entire country, as the “education professor” who will help reform the broken system?  Where was Al when Obama closed the voucher program in D.C. which had helped poor, struggling, mostly minority students get a better education at a cheaper cost?  Admittedly, there are some other education professionals such as terrorist Bill Ayers who are equally disqualified.  However, that is not reason enough to dismiss Sharpton’s acts of terror, which have NYC trembling in their boots from fear.

After the 2008 campaign, the majority of the conservative field was sorely disappointed to hear that the following McCain ad against Obama hadn’t been aired due to McCain’s objection in mentioning Obama’s pastor:

Narrator: Long before anyone knew who John McCain or Barack Obama were, one chose to honor his fellow soldiers by refusing to walk out of a prisoner of war camp.  The other chose not to even walk out of a church where a pastor was spewing hatred.

Rev. Wright: Not God bless America! God damn America!

Narrator: Character matters, especially when no one’s looking.

Why has Newt’s chumminess with the violence-inciting Al Sharpton been shoved to a corner?  Perhaps there is no image of an actual hug, though there are plenty of images of joint appearances at rallies across the country.  Are people simply oblivious to Al’s heinous acts and unaware of Newt’s chummy behavior and praise of Al, or does character no longer matter?

Yes, Newt is a brilliant individual with savvy debating skills, but is that a good enough excuse for conservatives to dump their values?  What was our reaction in 2008 of the Democrats’ support of Barack Obama?  Obama, too, was defended as a cool, audience-drawing intellectual with great oratory skills — and an African-American to boot!  Conservatives, though, were appalled at the left’s support of a long-time attendee at Wright’s church and a buddy to Tony Rezko and William Ayers.  Conservatives explained that they would oppose Obama’s lack of character whether he was white, brown, black, or yellow, yet we now have many respected conservatives who have chosen to support Newt, Sharpton’s buddy, out of all other primary candidates!

Fellow conservatives, we can and should do better than this.  Newt’s propping Sharpton obviously doesn’t cause Newt to be as undesirable as Obama, for he hasn’t sat himself and his kids in Sharpton’s church for twenty years, and this is just one tiny example about Obama.  However, we are now in something called primary season — a time where we’ve got to choose a candidate who represents both our values and our ideology.

Newt lacks both character and a conservative record.  He has embraced just about every liberal big-government idea you can think of at some point in his career.  He demanded government intervention to help control global warming, called for “Green Conservatism” and even co-sponsored an environmentalist bill with Nancy Pelosi, praised FDR in two of his books as “probably the greatest president of the twentieth century,” and much more.

One last thought.  The widespread picture where Charlie Christ shared a stage with Obama was taken shortly after Obama’s election, when Obama was still extremely popular.  Christ’s actions can thus be seen as opportunistic.  Newt Gingrich, however, caused damage to the conservative movement at its height of popularity.  Prior the 2010 midterm elections, when anti-Obama sentiments were rampant across the country and the Tea Party was extremely popular, Newt supported ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, liberal Scozzafava instead of Tea Party conservative Doug Hoffman.  When originally confronted for his odd pick, Newt defended his endorsement with the old “if you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority” defense, but this is non-applicable since NY-23 is a Republican district.

Shortly after many Tea Party candidates joined Congress after their victories in 2010, Paul Ryan presented a reasonable plan to reform Medicare for future retirees, and it passed the House with an overwhelming majority.  It was short just a few votes in the Senate and quite popular amongst the public when Newt emerged on the scene and used his superior oratorical skills to lash out against the bill.  Newt blasted it as “right-wing social engineering,” which led to its demise.

These are but two examples of Newt’s value to conservatism while conservatism was popular.  Never mind the Newt and his actions when anti-Republican emotions were at their peak.  That’s the Newt who sat on the couch with Pelosi.

The following question has therefore been haunting and plaguing me, and since I haven’t found a proper response, I will present it to Newt supporters: what must Newt have embraced in the past, or which line must he still cross, for you conservatives who support him to say, “That’s it! I will no longer support Newt!” beyond taking a gun and going on a shooting rampage or some similar ultra-violent act?

 

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


Overland Park, Kansas: 48% of all likely 2012 voters are conservative. 66% of Republicans are conservative.


To read more details from our extensive poll of likely 2012 voters in Overland Park, KS, go to StateandLocalEducation.org.  Below is a portion.

——————————–


Part 3 of results

Telephone survey among likely 2012 voters in Overland Park, KS.  Conducted Tuesday, August 9, and Wednesday, August 10, by the State and Local Educational Foundation of Kansas.  Margin of error +/- 5.4%.  Party breakdown:  51% Republican, 29% Unaffiliated, 20% and Democratic.  55% Female, and 45% Male.  50% over the age of 50, and 50% under the age of 50.

For detailed accompanying information for comparison and background purposes, click here.  To view part 1 of our results, click here.  To view part 2 of our results, click here.  More information about survey methodology can be found at the bottom of this page.

 

Summary:

- Overland Park:

Our results indicate that 48% of Overland Park’s voters are conservative (among likely November Overland Park voters).  This includes 16% who are “very conservative.”  Thirty-six percent (36%) are moderate, and 16% are either “somewhat liberal” or “very liberal.”

Given that Overland Park’s voters supported John McCain over Barack Obama by a 53-46% margin, when the nation voted for Obama by a 53-46% margin, our results are comparable to Gallup’s national numbers.  According to Gallup, 41% of United States adults are conservative.

Other comparisons:

- Our results show 66% of Republicans to be either “very” or “somewhat conservative.”  Gallup’s figure was 71%.

- Gallup found 24% of Republicans to be moderate.  Our number was 29%.

- Among Independents, Gallup found 35% to be conservative, and 44% to be moderate.  We found 34% of Unaffiliated voters to be conservative, and 45% to be moderate.

Age and poltical views:

Among likely 2012 voters in Overland Park, 48% are over the age of 50, and 52% are under the age of 50.  We find that over-50 likely Overland Park voters are only slightly more conservative than under-50 Overland Park voters.  However, it is within the margin of error in our sub-sample (there was a sample size of 170 each of over-50 and under-50 voters, with a margin of error of 7.7% for each sub-sample).

Among over-50 voters in Overland Park, 49% are conservative; among than under-50 voters, 46% are conservative.  There are slightly fewer moderate voters among over-50 (35%) than with under-50 voters (37%).  Among over-50 voters, 15% self-identified as liberal; 17% of under-50 likely Overland Park voters are liberal.

Read More →


“We Are All Sarah Palin Now”


(This is from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show Friday July 29, 2011 and shamelessly borrowed from “The Right Scoop” because it bears repeating . . . over and over again)

I guess this is what you get when your president is “Enfant Terrible.”

I blame President Obama for the absolutely vicious attacks we are seeing upon the Tea Party and conservative independents.  It shows just how hysterical the ruling class elites have become that they are going full barrel at us for demanding our government cut its out-of-control spending.  It’s just shocking to most of us that this level of vitriol would be leveled at people simply saying cut spending.  It’s not like we’re demanding something outlandish.  We are just saying spending has to be cut.  We are running 1.5 trillion dollar deficits and the media seems to believe this is just the normal course of business.

From Thomas “Alarmist” Friedman, he writes, “If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.”  ‘Can’t we do this right?’ July 26, 2011, New York Times.  Huh?  So, are we to believe that cutting spending is now akin to being Hezbollah, a group that shoots rockets into Israel and demands genocide of the Jewish people?  Besides, why should Friedman care if the Tea Party takes ‘the GOP on a suicide mission?’   Friedman cannot stand Republicans just because they’re Republicans.  He’s nothing more than a hack Democratic Party shill without the brains or sense to know if you create too much dependent government spending, the productive sector will shrink, as we are witnessing with the .4% growth in the 1st quarter of this year.  We are watching a real time, real life demonstration of how huge government and huge regulation literally starve the economy to death.  It’s happening before our very eyes.

But we are extreme terrorists, oh and Sarah Palin because of those bullseyes which reached inside Jared Loughner’s brain and forced him to shot people.

In fact, the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was quoted in Politico as saying;

“Aren’t we at the point where the closer we get to chaos, the more concern that there should be about coming to the table and compromising with Democrats?” Wasserman Schultz asked. “This is not leadership. This is almost like dictatorship. I know they want to force the outcome that … their extremists would like to impose. But they are getting ready to spark panic and chaos, and they seem to be OK with that. And it’s just really disappointing, and potentially devastating.”

What a strange definition of dictatorship Ms.Schultz has.  So, if you are negotiating a deal, and you stand pat on an offer, now you are suddenly a dictator?  When I watch Pawn Stars and Rick tells someone pawning their Rolex that he can only give them two hundred dollars, puff, Rick has suddenly become a dictator according to her definition.  Well then, the Democrats haven’t even proposed a plan and yet in the Senate are just saying ‘nope.’  Are they dictators too?

As far as panic and chaos is concerned.  It is the president with his arbitrary pre-birthday drop dead date that is ratcheting up the panic.  It is their Party-run media that are constantly making it seem like it’s the Countdown to the Apocalypse.  To say the Republicans and Tea Party are demanding real cuts regardless of His Inadequacy’s birthday party plans is hardly chaotic.  It is simply that we don’t buy the hashish they are selling.

So, we are disingenuous alarmists now.  This is just like when Palin writes on her Facebook page.  All of a sudden, when she told the country about the Democratic Party death panels in Obamacare, she was spreading fear and panic in the elderly.  When she, correctly I might add, said that forcing doctors to give end of life diatribes to the elderly and that the Independent Payment Advisory Board would require rationing, the prog/soc wing of the Democratic Party accused her of fomenting lies.  Unfortunately, we now know that is exactly what the IPAB is doing, figuring out rationing schedules.

We are even battling the dummkopfs in our our movement, the Republican elites.  The Wall Street Journal decided to call us ‘hobbits’ because supposedly our plan is foolhardy and quixotic.  We are stupidly, to use a famous Obama term, trying to cut too much. We need to just settle back, win next year’s election, and when the overwhelming debt and outrageous spending drowns the economy, we will fix it.  Maybe.  Well, that’s the plan anyway.

Who in their right mind believes we can throw $2.7 trillion more on the gargantuan debt we already have and not face an economic morasse?  The elites apparently.

So, Sen. John McCain trots out to the Senate floor and reads the Wall Street Journal editorial in which they call us ‘hobbits’ and that the fruit of our efforts are Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell.  What a hoot.  Yosemite McCain, after running a lackluster campaign that refused to address Obama’s obvious socialistic tendencies, is now giving us a lecture on campaign tactics.  McCain had the courage to select Sarah Palin as his vice p