Archive for January, 2012

I’ve been suspicious of the Florida polling because it didn’t reflect the big crowds that Newt was attracting. This morning, I wrote about a credible poll that showed Newt leading. Jim Hoft has just posted Greta’s interview with Florida AG Pam Bondi. It’s today’s must reading. Here’s the scary part of Greta’s interview:

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who’s fighting to repeal ObamaCare appeared on Greta, tonight, defending RomneyCare. She says Romney’s health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney’s plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she is all for it.

She went on to explain that she’s going to be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president!

It’s clear that Romneycare is what AG Bondi was talking about. It’s clear that she had her Romneycare chanting points. I didn’t hear her say, though, that Mitt wants the 50 states to implement Romneycare.

That said, it’s clear that Mitt’s defense of Romneycare isn’t just to save face. It’s clear that he truly believes in it.

It’s clear through this video, though, that Mitt isn’t interested in moving us that far away from O’Care. If that’s the case, we’re in serious trouble.

I’m predicting now that, barring something totally unforeseen happening, Mitt won’t win the Florida GOP primary. Romneycare is as unpopular as O’Care, meaning this interview will hurt Mitt’s chances Tuesday. I’d bet the proverbial ranch that the Gingrich campaign and Florida’s extensive TEA Party network will spread this information from the Panhandle to the Keys.

Couple this unexpected revelation with conservatives’ reaction to Wednesday’s attempt to destroy Newt’s campaign and you’ve got a potent argument that Mitt shouldn’t be our nominee.

Mitt’s gone too far in attacking his opponents. Mitt’s a Massachusetts liberal. Now he wants the states to implement Romneycare. Those aren’t the things that add up to a Florida primary victory.

PS- It’s worth noting that Ms. Bondi isn’t the first Mitt surrogate to hint that Mitt isn’t interested in getting rid of O’Care. Earlier this week, Norm Coleman said that they wouldn’t repeal all of O’Care, a statement that Mitt quickly distanced himself from.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

If this poll is right, then Mitt’s in trouble:

In the three days leading up to Thursday’s debate at the University of North Florida, First Coast News and St. Augustine-based Dixie Strategies commissioned the Dixie Strategies/First Coast News Public Opinion Survey, a poll of Republicans throughout the state who described themselves as “likely” voters in the Jan. 31 primary.

When asked, “If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, for whom would you vote?,” 35.46 percent of the 2,567 likely voters polled selected former House speaker Gingrich, and 35.08 percent selected Romney.

I’ve never heard of this polling company but 2,500 likely voters are 2,500 likely GOP primary voters. That’s a huge sample, one with a tiny MOE, possibly in the 2.5-3 range.

I think there’s a decent chance it is true. Wednesday, Mitt Romney and the GOP Establishment took aim at Newt. Thursday and Friday, 4 of conservatism’s biggest voices, Rush, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Michael Reagan, blasted Mitt’s team for their disgusting assault against Newt’s Reaganite credentials. Bloggers dispersed that message far and wide Thursday and Friday.

Most importantly, the message that Newt was a steadfast supporter of President Reagan’s policies and priorities, along with steadfast TEA Party support, certainly has the potential for being a game-changing force.

Mitt’s Alinskyite attacks, coupled with Sarah Palin’s and Mark Levin’s harsh criticism of Mitt and the GOP Establishment might well be all that’s needed to push Newt to victory in the Florida GOP Primary. If that happens, expect the Establishment’s long knives to get longer and sharper.

In their mind, this is an existential fight. They’re right about that. It’s time to get rid of their corruption, cronyism and appeasement.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ll readily admit that I’m late to comment on Sarah Palin’s Facebook post. A couple things she said need additional highlighting because this is bigger than Newt vs. Mitt.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future.

Mitt won’t hesitate to mangle his opponents because winning this nomination is all that matters to him. If making America better was his goal, he’d never employ these tactics.

And make no mistake about this: these are being done by the GOP Establishment on Mitt’s behalf because they aren’t conservatives. These aren’t limited government, TEA Party conservatives. They don’t hate spending. They just want the money to go to their cronies, not to the Democrats’ cronies.

To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history.

What proof do we have that Mitt isn’t the liberal-loving man he was in the 90s and during his administration? More importantly, do we have proof that he’s changed? Let’s stipulate that talk isn’t proof.

One of the last things he did as governor was impose expensive CO2 emission regulations on power plants. What’s worse is that Mitt once claimed that power plants had killed people:

Romney dramatically limited emissions on six power plants, even going so far as to claim, with radical environmentalists at his side, that one power plant had killed 59 people. It was a myth perpetrated by the environmentalists since no one had died, but Romney had no problem adopting the hysterical language of the left.

Mitt Romney’s life is littered with his talking conservative and acting liberal. Here’s what the American Conservative said about Mitt’s regulations:

In other words, the Romney administration in 2005 essentially did what Barack Obama’s EPA wants to do now. He imposed CO2 emission caps, the “toughest in the nation”, in an effort to curtail traditional energy production. Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer. The outcome of the cap was Massachusetts’ electrical production it dropped 18% in four years, from over 46 billion megawatt hours to 38 billion. International imports, however, went from 697 million megawatt hours in 2006 to 4.177 billion megawatt hours two years later, and to almost 5 billion megawatt hours in 2009, more than twice the amount imported in any of the previous twenty years.

Remember that Mitt’s the man that’s sharpened his attacks on Newt by insisting that Newt Gingrich isn’t a Reaganite conservative.

It isn’t a stretch to argue that Mitt is just as adept at employing the nastiest of Alinsky’s tactics to distract attention from his liberal record as governor.

I come armed with verifiable facts. President Obama will come with alot more than this if Mitt’s the nominee. That’s why it’s vitally important to ask yourself this simple question: Why is the GOP Establishment willing to defend Mitt’s liberal actions?

The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that.

Getting Mitt elected might put a smile on the rich fat cats’ faces but it won’t effect the changes that America desperately needs. If we replace a far left radical with a moderate lefty who still thinks climate change is real, what have we gained?

I’d argue that Mitt isn’t the candidate we want going up against President Obama. In fact, I’d argue that it isn’t that difficult to see that.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left Sarah Palin- must reading
How Can We Trust Romney On Anything?
Newt Gingrich thrills supporters while visiting West Delray
Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt
Gingrich, Romney continue to spar over Reagan ties

Anyone thinking that John McCain’s dig at Newt was clever or funny doesn’t set the bar high for clever or funny.

John McCain just couldn’t resist.

“I think we ought to send Newt Gingrich to the moon and Mitt Romney to the White House,” the 2008 GOP presidential nominee is quoted as saying by ABC News and CBS News.

McCain’s remarks came today at a town hall meeting in Lakeland, Fla., ahead of Tuesday’s primary in the Sunshine State. Romney now has a nine-point lead over Gingrich.

John McCain used to be a man of integrity. By backing the backstabbing Mitt Romney, his integrity is questionable at best. Put another way, Sen. McCain’s integrity is situation-based. It isn’t a constant anymore.

Sen. McCain’s heroism during the Vietnam War is inspirational. His conduct as a politician falls substantially short of inspirational.

Let’s remember that McCain authored the bill that attempted to shred the First Amendment. Formally known as McCain-Feingold, it’s nickname was ‘The Incumbents Protection Act’ because it strangled free speech during campaigns.

It’s important that we realize that Sen. McCain said some nasty things about Mitt during the 2008 campaign. People will say ‘But that’s what all politicians do before endorsing them’. That’s true. Unfortunately, that isn’t what people living in the real world do.

Let’s remember, too that Sen. McCain talked about the inevitability of internet voting in the context of the HAVA debate. With ACORN’s prevalence, doesn’t internet voting seem highly questionable? What thinking person would justify such awful public policy because “it’s inevitable”?

More imporantly, let’s question Sen. McCain’s judgment on Mitt. Mitt’s run a scorched earth campaign in his win-at-all-costs bid for the nomination. Just like his own campaign, Mitt’s support amongst the GOP base is marginal at best.

The only thing inevitable about Mitt is his embarassing defeat this November. If he thinks he can win this election without enthusiastic support from the GOP base, he’s an idiot.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

During my trip around the Rightosphere this morning, 2 things are abundantly clear: 1) Mitt and the RNC don’t see what’s about to hit them from President Obama and 2) Mitt and the RNC don’t see the seething anger building up against them from the activist base. Two posts highlight that second point brilliantly. Let’s start with Erick Erickson’s post first:

The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.

While I don’t agree that Newt doesn’t have a chance, I certainly agree that Mitt’s people are delusional.

Dan Riehl’s post has a harder bite to it:

For Romney to attack every conservative from the Right, when he is so obviously and so far to the Left of them, demonstrates a complete lack of character and integrity. But slash and burn is all he has, as he has no core conservative principles and can’t articulate them in an authentic manner. As much as I hate Obama’s politics, as an individual, I have more respect for him today, than I do Mitt Romney. And I am far from alone. If the GOP doesn’t realize what that will cost in soft support, or no support at all in the Fall, they are delusional.

With the advent of new media, too many people are seeing, talking and connecting today. The GOP in Washington is not the party of Reagan, it is a party on its way to the political wilderness for a decade or more without serious reform. The clearest sign of that is the support a Ron Paul pulls. It is 2 – 4 times what it should be and is a telling sign of just how many people have written, or are in the process of writing off the GOP establishment.

I agree with everything Dan said. The leadership at RNC HQ sucks. In fact, I’ll add to Dan’s thoughts with this:

1. When it comes to social media and the internet, Mitt’s team, like the RNC, moves at the speed of government. You could see Mitt’s surprise last night when, during the break, CNN checked on whose ad was running the disparaging remarks about Speaker Gingrich. In fact, if you watch the tape, you’ll see Mitt deflate immediately after that.
2. It’s been 28 years since Reagan won re-election and the RNC still hasn’t figured it out that you can’t win elections if the base isn’t enthusiastically behind the nominee. It just won’t happen. Each election cycle, the Establishment tells us that squishies like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney have a shot at winning.
Initially, I thought ‘you’d think that they would’ve figured out that that isn’t true, especially after last year’s midterm romp.’ Then it dawned on me: These Establishmentarians figured you can win with conservatives but that isn’t what they want. They’d rather have ‘compassionate conservatives’ than true conservatives.
3. When has Mitt fought for anything? Has Mitt fought for anything? I haven’t seen proof of it yet. In Massachusetts, Mitt certainly didn’t fight to keep Planned Parenthood off the MassHealth payment policy advisory board.
4. We know that Newt’s a fighter because he’s fought his own president on tax increases. He fought for 16 years to create a GOP House majority. He insisted that we balance the budget ASAP.
5. This is the most important of all. Mitt’s scorched earth campaign will kill him next fall when the TEA Party activists work to elect conservative congressmen, senators and state legislators but don’t lift a finger to get Mitt elected. That’s what happens when the nominee torches each of his opponents.
6. If you think that the TEA Party got riled up in August, 2009 through the midterms, you ain’t seen nothing yet. After Mitt loses, there’ll be a major housecleaning at the RNC. The worthless strategists that collect nice salaries but don’t have 2 brain cells rubbing together will be dispatched.

Squishie enablers like NRO’s editorial board, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Hugh Hewitt, Jennifer Rubin, S.E. Cupp and Ann Coulter will be political roadkill. Good riddance.

Don’t say the activists didn’t try warning you.

UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.

PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here’s the message that will bruise President Obama’s administration this morning:

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

The increase in real GDP in 2011 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

Put in Main Streetspeak, President Obama’s economic decisions have stunk. There’s no way a recovery in its third year should be growing at that anemic of a rate.

The main reason why GDP in 2010 was 3% is because stimulus spending artificially raised GDP, not because this administration has implemented a pro-growth economic strategy.

This administration has been a total disaster. No amount of spin will change that.

UPDATE: Apparently, Sen. Schumer hasn’t figured it out that the economy sucks:

Tags: , , , , ,

Bob Dole’s repetition of Mitt’s Chanting Points was perfectly recited. Still, the “NRO staff” explains that Dole went nuclear on Newt. That’s insulting. Dole isn’t capable of matching up with Newt in terms of intellectual heft. Bob Dole is a true war hero. He deserves, and has received, this nation’s gratitude for his service to this nation. That doesn’t mean he gets to get away with this crap:

I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.

Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when Newt could read the writing on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.

Bob Dole was the Senate Majority Leader but it was Newt that was the man who engineered the first GOP majority in the House in 40 years. Newt Gingrich had a vision and a plan for accomplishing that. Newt doggedly persisted in pushing that plan.

Part of that plan was using C-SPAN to broadcast conservative ideas after the day’s business had been completed. Night after night, Gingrich’s ideas were broadcast to the nation. Bit by bit, a seemingly impossible mission turned into reality.

Bob Dole didn’t lead that charge. Then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel didn’t help make it happen. Phase II of the Reagan Revolution was made possible because of Newt Gingrich’s persistence and Newt Gingrich’s intellectual heft. Without Newt’s vision and persistence, Republicans might still not have shattered that ‘political glass ceiling.’

Newt Gingrich put together a plan that triggered the biggest GOP landslide in ages. To this day, it’s only been topped once in the last century, that being in 2010.

During last night’s radio program, Mark Levin commented on Dole’s diatribe, saying that “of course Dole would speak out. He was part of the problem.” Bob Dole isn’t a visionary. That’s why he wouldn’t be my first choice to build a powerful election machine. I’m confident that he wouldn’t make it into my top 50 for that job.

Still, we’re supposed to take Tax Collector for the rich Bob Dole at his word that Newt would be a disaster for Republicans this election. I’ve had it with Mitt’s attack puppies telling us Newt’s an electoral disaster for Republicans.

Moderate McCain ran in 2008. How’d that turn out? Oh, that’s right. Because of that lackluster campaign, we got Obamacare and the stimulus and the bailouts shoved down our throats.

It’s time for the TEA Party to utterly abandon Mitt’s moderates. It’s time we shouted NO MORE!!! I’ve had it with these ‘only moderates can win’ types. If 2010, 1994 and 1984 should’ve taught us anything, it’s that bold and intelligent works.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I didn’t attempt to keep my allegiance to Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign a secret. I’ve disagreed a little, quietly, with Speaker Gingrich at times. I haven’t sat idly by while Mitt Romney attacked Newt with bald-faced lies. Apparently, I’m not alone. When Mark Levin saw Mitt’s attacks that Newt wasn’t a true Reaganite conservative, Levin used his radio show to interview Jeffrey Lords, a fellow Reagan administration employee. Here’s that interview:

To say that these gentlemen disagreed with Mitt is understatement. It’s fair to say that they questioned Mitt’s fidelity to conservative principles, both in the 1990’s and today.

Levin used his opening monologue to go after Mitt, Jennifer Rubin and Little Annie Coulter. Here’s that audio:

Mr. Levin pointed something out that had previously escaped me: that Mitt Romney used the same tactics against Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in 2008 that he’s using against Newt now.

There’s a reason for that, which I’ve said here before. Mitt can’t win by inspiring or persuading people. His only path to victory is by smearing his GOP opponents fiercely to the point that he’s dragged them down to his level.

If, God forbid, Mitt wins the GOP nomination, he won’t win in November. His Alinskyite tactics have turned off most of the GOP base. That’s right. He’ll have a difficult time getting votes from TEA Party activists and evangelical Christians to vote for him.

Mitt’s scorched earth campaign tactics have destroyed any goodwill he might’ve built with these important parts of the base.

Finally, I’m going on record with this because it must be said: Mitt Romney is a despicable person. I can’t trust him because of his disgusting, dishonest campaign tactics. I don’t have a problem with a candidate playing hardball politics.

Mitt isn’t using hardball tactics. He’s deployed the entire arsenal of the politics of personal destruction against Newt. As a Christian, I can’t sanction that. I’ll do everything in my power to defeat Mitt, preferably during the primaries.

UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.

PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Levin takes Romney to woodshed, Part I Mark Levin
Levin takes Romney to woodshed, Part II Mark Levin, Jeffrey Lords
Michael Reagan, Rush take Romney to the woodshed Jim Meyers Newsmax
Romney, Gingrich joust over ties to Reagan AP
Gingrich under fire from Establishment media AP