Santorum Wins Big

What do yesterday's three wins mean for Santorum?  Nothing.  It might be the high point in his campaign or just the start.  Anyone who says any different is going to be wrong. This season, more than anytime before,  we have seen Perry, Bachman, Cain and others peak then retreat into oblivion.  

The great thing about the win is that it brings a new breath of life into a campaign that looked like was Romney's to lose and for Newt to throw bombs. Whether the former Massachusetts governor is the eventual winner, a lot will depend upon Super Tuesday which 

come up in early March.

By the way, Santorum is coming to the Detroit area next week and we are going to see him. We will report our impressions after the meeting.

Congratulations to Santorum, welcome to the race and now lets see how you withstand the scrutiny!

Conservative Tom

We Felt It Coming,' Santorum Says After Triple Win

By Susan Jones

February 8, 2012

Subscribe to Susan Jones's posts

    

Republican presidential candidate former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum gives a thumbs up before speaking during a primary night watch party Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012, in St. Charles, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

(CNSNews.com) - Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, on the morning after his triple win in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, said he "felt it coming."

"The last few weeks, while we weren't doing particularly well in the polls in Florida and Nevada, we were doing great in getting the kind of support that we needed to keep this campaign going. Our fundraising was maybe our best two weeks, the last two weeks," Santorum told Fox & Friends on Wednesday.

"So we felt it -- we felt it coming, we felt people understanding that we have the best record and the best vision to go up against President Obama. We will make him the issue in this race."

Santorum indicated that the nasty exchanges between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich may have helped him.

"[W]e saw the bickering between two candidates who weren't that different on the issues. Unfortunately, they're not that different from President Obama on a lot of the issues, and I think people are beginning to realize that now."

Santorum said the Americans "are looking for someone who has a positive, uplifting vision for the country."

Asked about Romney now going negative  on Santorum -- it's already happening: The negative mailings and robo-calls already have started, he said.

"But the bottom line is -- their attacks on me -- Mitt Romney is saying that I'm not a conservative. I mean, that's just -- that's almost laughable for a moderate Massachusetts governor who has been for big government programs."

Santorum laughed off Romney's charge that Santorum likes earmarks. Santorum said Romney supported "the biggest earmark in the history of the country" -- the Wall Street bailout.

"Look we've got the best record, and he's going to just have to live with that record, and we're going to make it part of this campaign."

Santorum also repeated his criticism of the Obama administration's requirement that Catholic-affiliated institutions offer their employees health plans that include contraceptive coverage.

"The issues I've been stressing are Obama care, the Wall Street bailout and cap and trade -- three issues where Barack Obama and unfortunately, Mitt Romney are right on the same position where they believe in the government managing the energy, manufacturing, health care and financial services sector of the economy -- that's what got us going across this country, and it's going to keep us going all the way to the fall."

Thomas Sowell on Newt

 

Newt is one of the leaders of the race for the Republican Party candidate, so as we find articles by respected commentators, we plan to post them. 

Thomas Sowell is a great writer and observer and we respect his opinion. Do you agree with him? Let us know.

Conservative Tom

Thomas Sowell: Knocks on Newt have little to do with his work as elected official

December 19, 2011
By Thomas Sowell



If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich’s “baggage” concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama’s broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: “We are going to change the United States of America.”

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus,” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big-time.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and syndicated columnist

New Republic Blasts Newt

I really do not like Newt as the Republican candidate for President. He is bright and innovative however, I think he has too much baggage (marriages/divorces, resignation from the House, Freddie Mac, staff quitting) to be an effective candidate.  The other leaders in the pack namely Romney and Paul, are hammering him and he is ignoring them. Is he out of money or willingness to compete? You tell me.

So when the New Republic publishes a piece which basically says, Newt would love to be President for the travel and entertainment but not for "being President,"  I think his campaign is quickly following the route of the 

other candidates whose stars rose, burned brightly for a moment and then guttered.

Which brings me back to my major concern this campaign season, why is the press so in love with Romney? We have not seen any anti pieces on him. No hate, only love! Do they know something that we do not know?  Is there a skeleton hidden in the Romney closet that will doom his campaign (and Republican chances to regain the Presidency) when it is released in October 2012? Are we Conservatives being set up?  Is the game really this staged?  Are we just pawns being manipulated by someone or some group?  

And while we are on the subject, why is Ron Paul ALWAYS painted as an out of touch flake. I don't agree all of his stands, but he does make good sense and a whole lot of others.  Yet, when you read the papers, there is NOTHING positive.

Please tell me because with each candidate whose campaign crashed on the Romney coast, I am getting more and more fearful.  Write and let us know and ask your friends also to comment on Conservative Musings!

Conservative Tom

Does Newt Really Want to Be President?

• Noam Scheiber

• December 15, 2011 | 1:37 pm

A few days ago I saw Rick Tyler, the ex-Gingrich spokesman who joined a mass resignation from the former speaker’s campaign this summer, on MSNBC looking positively repentant. He admitted that he’d misjudged Gingrich’s viability as a presidential candidate and enthused about him in a way that might embarrass an actual paid spokesman. 

But, reading Jonathan Martin’s excellent Politico piece about Newt this morning, I got the impression Tyler and his former colleagues were right the first time: 

Gingrich is getting pounded on Iowa TV by both a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC and Ron Paul’s campaign and is doing little to fight back against ads which take direct aim at him. Less than three weeks before the caucuses, the former speaker is airing a single commercial with little money behind it. ...

Gingrich’s response suggests a lack of urgency: on Wednesday he held a wonky seminar on brain science in this liberal college town. He had plans to return to Washington for a book-signing after Thursday’s debate in Sioux City, without scheduling any public events in the conservative-heavy northwest corner of the state.

Newt obviously doesn’t want to do the things you generally have to do if you want to become president. More to the point, I don’t think he even wants to be president—by which I mean, undertake the grueling, 24-7 challenge of running a country. It’s much more of a grind than his current lifestyle of book-hawking, seminar-giving, and extravagant vacationing. (I think he’d be happy to do a job where he gets called “Mr. President” but someone else takes care of the demanding stuff.)

My sense is that what’s motivated Newt these past few months is just ego—a determination to prove that he could be president if he really wanted to, that the idea isn’t patently absurd, the way most commentators and even his own staff concluded this summer. But having proved his point, I don’t think Newt has much more to play for. If he’s campaigning like a man who’s already done what he set out to do, that’s probably because he has. 

P.S. A colleague points out that Newt has actually suggested as much himself. Here's what he told our own Jason Zengerle back in 2006: 

"Nixon had this remarkably effective, deeply intense will to power," he says. "Reagan and I have a will to ideas." 

The whole piece is very much worth reading. It really gives lie to the idea of a "new Newt." The Newt you see there is pretty much the same Newt you see today. 

Newt Is Blasted

In the attached article, Bob Livingston very succinctly describes Newt, not as a conservative or small government advocate but just the opposite. He is all about big government. From his issues he had while Speaker to his "advice" to Fannie Mae, Newt has been about advancing his own agenda which is not conservative.

He is not a conservative and any conservative should not be looking to Newt to advance their agenda as it is not in his DNA.

Conservative Tom

Newt Is No RINO

December 7, 2011 by Bob Livingston

UPI

Newt Gingrich is leading the Republican pack and trying to paint himself as a conservative.

A few years ago, conservatives disappointed with the statist brand of Republicanism that was becoming ever more prevalent in Washington, D.C., developed the term “RINO” and began branding big-spending, big-government Republicans with the term. It’s an acronym for Republican In Name Only.

The term was heard often during the 2008 Republican Presidential primary campaign and was used to describe John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and others. The term was also used to describe a number of House and Senate candidates targeted by the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm elections.

But the term is a fallacy that arises from a false premise: that the Republican Party is the party of small government. The fallacy developed during the Barry Goldwater years and picked up again with Ronald Reagan. Since Reagan, the party propaganda machine has done its job well, convincing the masses of something that is not and never has been so.

Goldwater, never a darling of the Republican establishment, fought the liberal (or Rockefeller) wing of the Republican Party and tried to drive it to the right. But in truth, the Republican establishment has always been about growing government, and that’s why neither Goldwater nor Reagan was embraced by the Party elites.

In other words, the Republican Party is and always has been a statist party. Now, Newt Gingrich is leading the Republican pack and trying to paint himself as a conservative. But Gingrich is a big-government, anti-gun insider who gamed the system for millions of dollars in lobbying fees by playing the corporatist game once he left Congress. In other words, Newt is no RINO. He’s Republican through and through, just like Romney, McCain, Giuliani, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, et al.

So Newt is no RINO. Nor is he conservative.

Is Newt The Republican Savior?

My opinion to the question is no, however, I don't know who is or who could be.  Newt is not my cup of tea for a number of reasons. He resigned from the House under a cloud, he cheated on two wives, he sat with Nancy Pilosi and agreed that global warming is an issue, he took millions from Freddie Mac and  he is not a conservative.  I have always thought that he had too much baggage to make him a viable candidate and the aforementioned points are just some of them. However, he is better than Obama but in my opinion, but not by much.


We still have nearly a month before the marathon starts toward the Republican convention. Newt and the remaining candidates will have to answer more questions and hopefully this vetting of them will make them better general election prospects.


Here is more on Newt:
Conservative Tom







Newt Stinks, But…, And Other Thoughts

December 5, 2011 by Bob Livingston
Newt Gingrich has been gaining popularity among voters.

A frightening scenario appears to be playing itself out as we march inexorably toward the time when real live voters begin casting meaningful votes to select the Republican candidate who will face President Barack Obama in 11 months: Newt Gingrich might win.

Many of our friends on the “right” seem OK with that. In fact, over the past two weeks in our own GOP Presidential poll, Gingrich has led Ron Paul. The latest results during that period:

Candidate                 Votes In Poll
Newt Gingrich              8,920
Ron Paul                       7,081
Herman Cain                 4,355
Mitt Romney                 2,004
Rick Perry                    1,280


Gingrich’s rise in the polls would make a fascinating psychological study. Here we have a man who cheated on (at least) two wives (once while excoriating President Bill Clinton for doing the same thing), who is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, who has attended the pagan ritual summit also known as Bohemian Grove, who slobbered all over Nancy Pelosi in a television commercial supporting Al Gore’s global warming claptrap, who lobbied (or gave history lessons) for Freddie Mac and earned himself $1.6 million, who has supported cap-and-trade legislation and individual healthcare mandates (just like Romney and Obama) and has proven himself to be a political chameleon and as big a corporatist as any who ever inhabited Washington, D.C. Despite all of those things, Gingrich is climbing to the top of the Republican beauty contest. And people who claim to be conservatives are hopping on his bus.

Gingrich should be anathema to conservatives. In fact, for all the reasons Romney hasn’t appealed to conservatives, Gingrich can go one (at least) better: flip-flops, crony capitalism, would have voted for TARP, supports ethanol subsidies and, as recently as this summer, said he supported Federal mandates on purchasing health insurance (which he first did while lobbying for the healthcare industry) and a lover of wars, wars and more wars — oh, yes, and he believes in stripping Americans of their citizenship if they oppose the government.

In reading comments posted to neocon-supporting websites, the message seems to be, “Newt stinks, but anything is better than Obama.”

Such a meme proves the left/right paradigm remains firmly locked in place. George W. Bush was bad, Democrats love to say, because of the wars, bailouts and budget deficits. Obama is bad, Republicans love to say, because of the wars, bailouts and budget deficits. Gingrich will be better than Obama, Republicans say, because even though Gingrich supports wars and bailouts and budget deficits, his name is followed by an “R” rather than a “D.”

If you are truly a conservative, then Newt stinks — that is true — and so does Romney. But how does placing an “R” after a candidate’s name make the stink any more tolerable than the one we’re getting from the current “D” stinker? The only difference will be which group of corporatists get richer over the next four years. Fascism and tyranny will continue unabated, and government will continue to grow.

Morris' View of the Republican Race

In yesterday's posting, Dick Morris sums up how he feels the race is currently. The only person that he completely leaves out of the race is Ron Paul (unless I missed his mention). We do not know if this is an oversight or his opinion, especially since Paul has out distanced several on his listing.  However, he does categorize Republican voters very interestingly.   Other than the oversight, it is interesting reading.

THE SHAPE OF THE PRES RACE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 27, 2011

Printer-Friendly Version

To understand the Republican Presidential race, grasp first that the party is one of ideas.  One is born into the Democratic Party.  If you are black or Latino or poor or gay or become a single mother, your partisan identity is often spoken for.  But you become a member of the Republican Party by agreeing with certain ideas.  So there are several distinct groupings within the Republican Party merged together by shared ideals but with sharply different priorities and perspectives.  Imagine that each sector of the party is like a division in the NFL or in Major League Baseball, with its own separate playoffs or pennant race and its own separate champion.  Then, the winners of the divisions meet in the primaries.  We are still in the pre-runoff phase.

Start with the Economic Conservative Division.  These folks are deeply committed to free market economics.  Often from big companies and corporations, they tend to be well off and to believe in capitalism and oppose redistribution of wealth.  In their division, the candidates were Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels.  Mitt is the only one left.  He is the champ of that division which guarantees him a berth in the runoffs.

Closely allied to them is the Establishment Republican Division.  This was the group that rallied to Bush-43 and impelled him to the nomination.  They have to choose between Romney, Perry, and Gingrich.  They can't back Cain or Bachmann because both are too much outsiders.  Perry has disappointed them so they are going largely for Mitt.  But some will probably end up for Newt.

Then go to the Evangelical Division. They are motivated by religious and social issues like abortion, gay marriage and such.  The candidates were Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry.  Huck didn't run.  First Bachmann surged, then Perry and then Cain.  But Cain fell back because of the sex harassment charges.  This block can't support Romney (although they will if he is nominated) because he is Mormon and flip flopped on abortion.  They are reluctant to back Gingrich because of his personal issues.  So they must choose among Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum.  They haven't chosen yet.  But they will.  One of these candidates has to be in the runoffs because this group has to have a candidate.

Then we go to the national security people.  They are focused on defense, support the war in Afghanistan and back tough protections against terrorism.  Their possible candidates are Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Romney, or Santorum.  They won't back Cain because of his inexperience and they disagree with Paul and Huntsman.  Gingrich's strong debate performance turned them on, but Romney is making a strong play for their votes.  Santorum could gain traction, but likely not.  Perry wants their votes, but he hurt himself by his lack of familiarity with the issues. They will probably split between Newt and Mitt.  Between their votes and those of the party establishment Newt can pick up, it virtually assures Gingrich of a runoff birth.

Then there are the Tea Party folks.  They focus on the federal deficit, the national debt, reining in spending, holding down taxes, opposing Obamacare, and reducing government regulation.  They had, initially, to choose among Daniels, Christie, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann.  They won't support Romney because of Romneycare in Massachusetts (although they would if he is the nominee).  With Christie and Daniels out, they first went Bachmann because of her battle in Congress to cut spending.  Then they were seduced by Perry but his immigration position turned them off so they went for Cain.  Now they are worried about Cain and are looking at Gingrich or Bachmann or maybe still Cain.

So that's the state of play.  Romney has an assured runoff berth but nobody else does.  If Newt doesn't stumble over his consulting practice or personal issues, he will likely make the runoff as the National Security candidate with good support from the Party Establishment and Tea Party Divisions.

But that would still leave the Evangelicals out there.  They can't back Romney due to his religion or Newt because of his personal issues.  So they will back someone else - Cain, Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum.  And a lot of Tea Party people - who overlap with the Evangelicals - will also be looking at these candidates.  One of these four is going to be in the final mix.

Then it will likely be a three way fight: Romney, Gingrich, and an Evangelical/Tea Party candidate to be named later.

This is the context of the Iowa caucuses.  It is first and foremost a way to sort out the Evangelical/Tea Party conundrum and come up with their candidate.  That's what January 3rd will be all about.

Newt On The Ropes

It was just released, the leaders of Newt's campaign for President have resigned.  What does this mean for his Presidential hopes?  Will he get new staff? What effect will this have on the others in the race?
All good questions and which  will play out over the next year and a half. However, as I have never been hesitant to predict the future, here are my ideas.
Until recently I have always thought that Newt was one of the most brilliant thinkers in the Conservative movement. His approach to the problems facing the United States have most of the time rung true with me.  However, since he has been running, there seems to be something amiss. His approach to the Ryan proposals was ham-handed and his comments on Sarah Palin are just plain weird. He seemed to want to make himself different, but it just came out wrong.

If  all these differences were his idea or his campaign management, I do not know but there was something strange going on.  Newt should have tried to differentiate himself from the rest of the crowd by the force of his ideas. He did not need to get into the mud, he just needed to present innovative conservative ideas which would make him different.  By trying to be something different than Newt, he (or his campaign managers) made a mistake.

However, he was never my candidate.  I thought and still do, that he has too much baggage.  Most people have heard about the marital issues and those who believe in family values are not impressed with the way in which he divorced his ex-wives. There is something missing when wives can be spun off with scarcely a sidewards glance.  Obviously Calista is concerned as she is by his side most of the time. Does she know something that we do not?

It is my belief that Newt will create another team of people to run his campaign, but my prediction is that the campaign will soon end as he will not get the support in the first primaries. He probably will be one of the first active candidates to bow out. On the other hand, if a new team could return to Newt being Newt, there is a chance he could be viable.  Unfortunately, that is a low percentage bet.

This is not to say that Newt cannot have a role in the campaign of the eventual Republican candidate, that is if he can go back into the visionary role that he so aptly showed in the 1992 elections. If he does that, he can and will be a valuable contributor to Conservative politics. Can he, is the question or will he be so hurt that he goes back to teach at a University?  I would hope we would not lose him.

It is obvious that Newt leaving the stage would help a number of candidates including Mitt Romney, the current front runner.  His name recognition made him  viable potential Presidential material. If and when he pulls out that vacuum has to go to the other "names" in the race.

In later posts, I will go over the cast of candidates who are placing their hats/bonnets in the ring and let you know who I think will be the eventual winner to be the Republican candidate.

As usual, if you disagree or agree, please give me your thoughts.
Tom