Archive for the ‘Presidential Elections’ Category

This Politico article says that Chris Christie hurt his chances at becoming the GOP presidential nominee in 2016 because he’s expanding Medicaid. That’s being charitable.

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s reversal on accepting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion was a political no-brainer for a politician running for re-election in a blue state this year.

But the move has uncertain implications for Christie as a potential 2016 contender who is already taking darts from some conservatives over his bona fides.

Actually, this is exceptionally straightforward. Gov. Christie won’t be the GOP presidential nominee. Ever. The GOP rank-and-file, like the nation, despises the Affordable Care Act. Expanding Medicaid won’t make health care more affordable. It’s making health care more expensive. While there’s little doubt that Gov. Christie will cruise to re-election as governor of New Jersey, there’s no doubt that his thumbing his nose, again, at the GOP base on one of its core values has essentially ended his presidential aspirations.

Dandy Don Meredith put it best:

Ed’s post highlights how disrespectful Democrats are on the Constitution. Democrats are currently telling President Obama he should unilaterally raise the debt limit.

Democratic lawmakers are urging President Obama to force Republicans to take him to court over the controversial issue of raising the debt ceiling.

They believe the Supreme Court ultimately will have to resolve the battle over spending now raging between Republicans and the president.

But how the courts will rule is shrouded in uncertainty because little case law exists to serve as meaningful precedent, legal scholars say.

Democrats in Congress argue Obama should not feel constrained by the 1917 debt-limit law, which the federal government is projected to hit in late February, because it conflicts with other laws.

“The president, I think, has the authority under the Constitution and under the various statutes that are passed, if nothing is done, he must do something about paying the bills,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). “That issue may well go to the courts in our system.

It’s disgusting that a US senator would say something this deceitful. Ed excoriates Sen. Udall’s argument in a New York minute:

Supporters of this newfound presidential power over statute have been pointing to the 14th Amendment, specifically its fourth clause: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” However, that passage doesn’t give the executive branch authority to do anything, and in fact requires that the debt “be authorized by law.”

Who does the authorizing? The more directly relevant Constitutional reference comes in Article I, Section 8, which specifically assigns Congress the authority to borrow: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States[.]“ The debt limit itself is Congressional authorization for the executive branch (through the Treasury) to borrow what is needed.

If President Obama attempted to raise the debt limit through executive fiat, he’d be challenged in the courts before the announcement would be an hour old, most likely in the DC Circuit. One thing that might happen is that the court could grant a TRO prohibiting President Obama from enforcing this. The other option is that they’d rule against President Obama’s anti-constitutional action.

The clear language of the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. That means the executive branch is prohibited from taking this extraconstitutional action. Further, any ConLaw professor will quickly note that laws that conflict with the US Constitution are unconstitutional, meaning that they’re a moot point.

It isn’t likely that President Obama will take this action because it would clearly expose him as running an imperial presidency. That isn’t the type of thing he’d want as part of his legacy.

Tags: Power of the Purse, Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, Separation of Powers, Article I, Constitution, Tom Udall, President Obama, Democrats, Lawsuits, GOP, DC Circuit, SCOTUS

The first workshop I attended at this summer’s RightOnline Conference was about reaching out to minority communities. It was titled “Preaching Beyond the Choir: Growing the Ranks of the Free Market Movement,” which I wrote about in this article. The first featured speaker was Anita MonCrief. Here’s what Ms. MonCrief said that jumped out at me:

She said that the biggest mistake conservatives make is not fighting in every minority district. Part of that, she said, is understandable, acknowledging the fact that “people won’t trust us at first.” Ms. Moncrief said that it’s important to continue the efforts so that people find out that they’re since, not just out for their votes.

Another major point in Ms. Moncrief’s presentation was saying that “If we want to take America back, it has to be block-by-block. She said there’s no substitute for being there, staying committed and building relationships.”

Ms. Moncrief said that listening is essential. That means starting conversations rather than talking to people. Ms. Moncrief said that she enjoyed “talking to the people in their neighborhoods.” She said it doesn’t take a big budget to do that. It just takes effort.

That afternoon, I had the privilege of sitting down with Ms. MonCrief for a lengthy conversation about outreach programs. She’s a bright, articulate, quick-on-her-feet, no-nonsense lady. Most importantly, she knows what she’s talking about when she says that listening is essential to successful outreach efforts. She’s also right in saying “there’s no substitute for being there, staying committed and building relationships.”

The reason for highlighting those things now is because Kim Strassel’s article talks directly about what’s wrong with the GOP election model:

Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney’s better turnout.

In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama’s margin of victory there was 103,000.

This is the demographic argument that is getting so much attention, and properly so. The Republican Party can hope that a future Democratic candidate won’t equal Mr. Obama’s magnetism for minority voters. But the GOP would do far better by fighting aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate.

There’s no question that capitalism will lift minority families out of poverty. Similarly, there’s no question that that message won’t resonate if conservatives don’t devote tons of hours reaching out to every demographic group. PS- Progressive trust fund babies and elitists aren’t demographic groups.

Mitch Berg, one of the conservatives who gets it, has written eloquently about how the GOP can fight on the topics of charter schools and vouchers to win minority votes. Dan Severson has spent tons of hours doing outreach to various minority communities.

The point is that it’s time for conservatives to put together a well-funded outreach program. If we don’t do that on a national scale, presidential elections will become a night of misery for Republicans.

Conservatives aren’t victims so they shouldn’t spend time whining about what should or shouldn’t have happened. Conservatives are, by nature, solution-oriented opportunists. That’s why we’re entrepreneurial by nature.

Conservatives would win overwhelmingly if we fought as hard for every vote in every demographic group as we fight against tax increases.

Hispanics are pro-life, hard-working people. They’re a natural fit with conservatives. Churchgoing, middle class black families are a better fit with conservatives than with the Obama coalition. Why didn’t we do better with them? Here’s why:

Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romney’s failures and the party’s immigration platform—that’s fair enough. But equally important has been the party’s mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesn’t campaign in those communities, doesn’t register voters there, doesn’t knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard from—by email, at their door, on the phone—was the president’s.

Two cliches fit this situation perfectly. They are: People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care and You can’t beat something with nothing.

Right now, minority communities don’t know conservatives want them to live a life of prosperity because we aren’t there day after day telling them that. We aren’t there day after day earning their trust or building relationships.

That’s essential in building an appealing something that will defeat the Democrats’ unappealing pandering.

There’s an important message to the activists. The DC establishment hasn’t built this outreach program so it’s up to us. Let’s start building ASAP.

Tags: GOTV, Mitt Romney, GOP Establishment, Activists, AFP, RightOnline, Anita MonCrief, Charter Schools, School Choice, Prosperity, Entrepreneurship, Battleground States, GOP, Conservatism, Elections

The headline Drudge picked for this article should frighten the Obama campaign. Here’s Drudge’s headline:

Bad economy dampens enthusiasm among black voters

If there’s anything that President Obama would be frightened to read, it’s that minority voters aren’t as enthusiastic to vote this election as they were in 2008.

Last night, FNC aired a focus group of journalists. The focus group was led by Frank Luntz and included some of the highest profile journalists in the nation. One journalist, the WSJ’s James Taranto, nailed it in terms of what turnout means to the Obama campaign:

TARANTO: If you look at the numbers, according to exit polling, the black percentage of voters went up from 11% in 2004 to 13% of voters in 2008. John Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. Barack Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008.

Those don’t sound like big differences but they actually add up to a difference of about 5,000,000 votes. So the improvement in the black vote from 2004 to 2008 accounted for more than half of Obama’s margin of victory.

Factor that information into this scenario and it’s a recipe for disaster:

Polls have Obama winning more than 90 percent of the black vote against Mitt Romney, but there are signs that the high African-American turnout that fueled his 2008 victories in North Carolina and Virginia could dissipate after the hard realities of the president’s first term.

The chances for depressed turnout are increased by the bad economy, which at its worst drove the unemployment rate for blacks above 16 percent and led to some disillusionment with the candidate of “hope and change.

This chart shows the significant dropoff of support for President Obama in the black community:

According to this chart, Sen. Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. President Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008. Today, President Obama’s support has eroded to 86% in the black community. While that’s certain to rebound somewhat, that’s a significant dropoff that President Obama can’t afford and still expect to get re-elected.

Earl Ofari-Hutchinson understands that:

African Americans “don’t have to vote for [Romney]” to help his campaign, said broadcaster and author Earl Ofari Hutchinson.

“An abstention from the polls is effectively a vote for Romney,” he said. “If there is only a minuscule drop-off [in turnout], it will spell trouble.”

A dropoff in turnout and support would be President Obama’s nightmare scenario.

The difference isn’t just in numbers. In 2004, President Bush focused his attention on black churches in Ohio. As a result, President Bush won 16% of the black vote in Ohio in 2004, essentially giving him his margin of victory in Ohio.

If President Obama can’t reverse the trend of waning support in the black community, it’s possible he’ll lose Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina as a direct result of that downturn in support. Losing those states plus Florida would drop President Obama’s electoral vote total to 264.

Couple those statistics with the distinct possibility that President Obama might lose Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan and it’s difficult to impossible to see a winning scenario for President Obama.

Tags: President Obama, John Kerry, Black Vote, Turnout, North Carolina, Ohio, Democrats, Mitt Romney, GOP, Election 2012

Earlier this weekend, ‘The Architect’ Karl Rove said that Indiana and North Carolina were gone for President Obama’s re-election. Based on Salena Zito’s article, it’s sounding like Ohio is slipping through President Obama’s fingers, too:

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — Dave Betras is known in “The Valley” for his colorful language and his political antics and drama. Last Wednesday, however, when Vice President Joe Biden visited a local industrial park, Betras was all about numbers.

“Oh, ‘The Valley’ is going to turn out big for Barack Obama this year, big!” he said, spreading his arms wide for emphasis. The chairman of Mahoning County’s Democrats pointed to local manufacturer M7 Technologies’ shipping warehouse filled with people waiting to hear Biden speak. “Turnout like today, a full room,” said Betras, 52.

If his job is to turn out Obama supporters on Election Day, he may want to check on their allegiances before he buses them to the polls. Many Youngstown attendees at Biden’s event do not support him or the president.

Bob McClain and his wife, Myra, came to M7 Technologies to support their friends’ family business. Neither supports the Obama-Biden ticket.

“We are friends of the owners — that is why we came, to show support for the Garvey family,” said Bob. At 71, he’s retired but volunteers full-time as a counselor for Mahoning Valley small-business owners.

“Our vote is going for who is best to lead on the economy. That is Romney, for us,” said Myra as her husband nodded.

Richard Furillo stood with his son Matthew at his son’s workplace; a lifelong Democrat, he voted for Obama in 2008 but won’t again. “I don’t know why I did it but I cannot stand any more ‘change,'” he said, referring to the president’s old campaign slogan.

Father and son both said they attended the event to support the company.

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a sitting vice president,” added Matthew, also a Democrat. He, too, said he will vote for Romney.

What Ms. Zito’s reporting indicates is that Mssrs. Axelrod and Plouffe have reason to worry that Ohio is slipping away from President Obama. Again, it’s still early but it’s apparent there’s no reservoir of good will from Ohioans towards President Obama. If he wins Ohio, it’ll have to be because of something substantive he does from this point forward.

In fact, the quotes in this article indicate that opinions are hardening each day. That’s trouble for the Obama campaign. Adding Ohio to Indiana and North Carolina spells trouble. It’s also 45 electoral votes. Subtract 45 electoral votes from 338 and you’re at 293. That means his path to re-election is tricky at best. At that point, President Obama has to keep Virginia’s 15 electoral votes in his column. It also means he can’t afford to lose Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado or Florida.

In fact, losing Florida, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina spells defeat for Team Obama. It’s that simple.

Tags: President Obama, North Carolina, Ohio, Youngstown, Indiana, Virginia, Florida, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Colorado, Democrats, Election 2012

This afternoon, Ron Paul announced that he won’t contest the remaining GOP primaries:

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said Monday he will not compete in primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted, essentially confirming Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

This is a smart move from a political standpoint. This gesture will earn RP a measure of goodwill with the GOP ‘power structure’ such as it exists. Hoepfully, this sends the signal to his supporters that the time for acrimony is past and that the time to take the U.S. in a direction that puts it on firm financial footings.

Had he continued campaigning, he wouldn’t have gotten a good return on his investment. He might’ve won a few more delegates but he wouldn’t have won the goodwill that’ll be needed to help Rand Paul if he thinks about running for president.

Friday night, Ron Paul is scheduled to deliver a speech at the Republican Party State Convention here in St. Cloud, which I’ll be covering from inside the campaign hall. If he doesn’t reschedule, I plan on liveblogging and tweeting about Dr. Paul’s speech Friday night.

Tags: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Nomination, GOP, Conventions, Election 2012

Dick Morris is getting famous for making bold election predictions, then seeing those predictions turning into reality. This prediction faces an uphill fight if it’s to become reality:

If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by a landslide.

Anyone who’s read this blog knows that I was the first blogger to support Newt. I’ll believe that to my dying breath. That said, it isn’t difficult to picture Mitt defeating President Obama this November.

I’ve said that the GOP has a good chance of tipping a few Midwest blue states into the red column from the beginning. This polling is the first substantiation of that opinion:

Over the period of May 4-6, I completed a poll of 400 likely voters in Michigan and found Romney leading by 45-43! And Michigan is one of the most pro-Democrat of the swing states.

I also found that Obama’s personal favorability, which has usually run about 10 to 20 points higher than his job approval, is now equal to his job rating. In Michigan, his personal favorability among likely voters is 47-47, while his job rating is 50-48. Romney’s favorability is 49-42.

After the Indiana GOP primary, I’m picking that as the most likely of the Midwest states to go from blue in 2008 to red in 2012, followed by Wisconsin, then Michigan.

Throughout the last 5 years of Jennifer Granholm’s administration, Michigan led the nation in unemployment rates. Couple that with Kwame Fitzpatrick’s corruption in Detroit and you’ve got a perfect anti-Democrat storm brewing there.

At this point, I’m rating Michigan as a toss-up for the presidential election, with Indiana going strong GOP and with Wisconsin being somewhere between leans GOP and a toss-up.

Mssrs. Axelrod and Plouffe worst nightmare is President Obama fighting to win Michigan.

In 2008, North Carolina went Obama. This past Tuesday, African-American voters in North Carolina sent President Obama a clear message by voting for North Carolina’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

North Carolina, Virginia and Florida all flipped from red to blue in 2008. President Obama won’t repeat that feat this time. In fact, there’s a decent possibility that this trio of states flips those states back into the red column this time.

While I don’t agree with all of Morris’ predictions, I agree with him to the extent that there’s a decent possibility of an electoral romp by Mitt.

Tags: Polls, Dick Morris, Pundit, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Mitt Romney, GOP, President Obama, Democrats, Election 2012

Ed’s reporting that Mitt’s ‘surprisingly’ agreed to the Florida debates:

Mitt Romney may not look inevitable after tonight’s South Carolina primary results — and that’s why this decision was, well, inevitable:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) said during a visit to campaign headquarters here Saturday morning that he will participate in the debate scheduled for Monday in Tampa.

His chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, told reporters Romney would also participate in Thursday’s debate in Jacksonville.

“Yeah, yeah, I’ll be doing the debate on Monday,” Romney said in response to a reporter’s question as he worked the phones calling voters at his Greenville headquarters. “Yeah, I’m in.”

I predicted in this post that Mitt would participate in the Florida debates:

I won’t take Mr. Stevens’ comments seriously. Mitt will participate because to not participate will make him look like a wimp. Substantive accusations would fly that Mitt couldn’t stand the heat so he’s abandoned the kitchen.

It’s easy picturing Winning the Future buying ad time in Florida for an ad showing an empty podium with Mitt’s name on it, followed by video of a beaming Mitt talking about having broad shoulders. That type of ad would be devastating. Mitt’s inevitability factor would instantly plummet.

Skipping Florida’s debates was never a plausible option for Mitt Romney. Not participating in the debates would’ve been seen as wimpy. Having Campaign Manager Eric Fehrnstrom whine about how the debates had turned into “bash Mitt exercises” is another sign of weakness.

The campaign’s wearing on Mitt and Mitt’s team. It’s something that I’ll track for the next 3 weeks.

To be fair, Mitt has a significant advantage in Florida because of early voting. Having alot of people vote for a candidate when he’s peaking is alot smarter than voting for him when he’s cratering.

That said, winning Florida now isn’t the big delegate cache that it would’ve been had it held when it was initially scheduled.

Tags: Debates, Mitt Romney, Early Voting, Florida, Newt Gingrich, GOP, Election 2012

I don’t know what sparked John Hinderaker’s latest anti-Newt statements. I might never know. What I do know is that John’s usually a thoughtful blogger, one of my favorite reads.

John’s statements about Newt Gingrich are perplexing. Here’s a sample of John’s statements:

Barack Obama is a terrible president and an unpopular one. He is ripe for defeat in November, but not by Newt Gingrich. It is painful to contemplate the extent of the GOP wipeout that would follow a Gingrich nomination. Would Newt carry a state? Wyoming, maybe? South Carolina? The Republican Party could kiss its hopes of retaking the Senate goodbye, and likely would lose control over the House, giving Obama carte blanche to devastate the country for another four years.

It’s common for lawyers to make hyperbolic statements to sell their case. John’s argument against Newt Gingrich borders on the ridiculous. Let’s hope that John’s just being sarcastic. If he isn’t, then he’s being intellectually dishonest.

Let’s look at John’s claims one at a time. First, let’s examine the case for and against Newt causing the GOP to lose their majority in the House. It’s a silly argument, especially after such a resounding victory in 2010. That’s before factoring in the gains that’ll happen through reapportionment and redistricting. Republicans hold the trifecta for redistricting in 15 states:

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control, meaning both chambers, of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting “trifecta”, both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship, in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina, probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats, Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

That’s before factoring in reapportionment. This map tells the tale on reapportionment:

According to the map, the GOP-friendly southeastern United States will gain 8 seats, including 4 in Texas, 2 in Florida and one each in Georgia and South Carolina.

That’s before factoring in the fact that Democrats currently need a net gain of 25 seats to regain control of the House before reapportionment and redistricting. They’ll be lucky to get 10 seats under the old configuration. After reapportionment, they’ll be lucky to gain seats this cycle.

The argument that Newt will cost Republicans the Senate assumes that Mitt Romney will inspire great voter turnout. That’s like expecting John McCain or Bob Dole to inspire great voter turnout. It’s one thing to wish for it. It’s another to expect it.

I’m not expecting it.

It isn’t coincidence that Mitt’s political hacks tried blaming Newt for Bob Dole’s defeat.

Finally, assuming that Mitt will unite the GOP, fight for conservative principles during the campaign and defeat President Obama during the debates isn’t a sure thing. All too often, Mitt was declared the winner of a debate because “nobody laid a glove on him.”

That’s hardly a stirring endorsement of Mitt’s debate skills.

Let’s be honest about Mitt’s debate performances. Mitt’s shown a propensity to get rattled when criticized. It isn’t likely that President Obama’s army of dirty campaign tricksters will sit idly by while Mitt waltzes through the general election campaign. It’s almost certain that Mitt will lose his cool in those situations just like he’s lost it this week.

What’s more is that Mitt isn’t a fighter for conservative principles. He’s a status quo politician. That’s clearly not what’s needed right now. It’s clear that we need a man with the ability and communications skills to make major changes.

There’s only one person with that resume and his name is Newt Gingrich. He put together the plan to end the Democrats’ 40 year majority in the House. He then passed all 8 legislative items on the Contract With America, then got them signed into law.

As a result of that work, the federal government ran surpluses 4 straight years, something that nobody thought possible at the time. Newt not only believed it was possible. He, along with John Kasich, insisted on it.

Together, they pushed it persistently and persuasively until Bill Clinton gave into their policies.

Mitt talks about how he balanced Massachusetts’ budget each year he was governor. My reaction is simple: So what? There are 49 other governors each year who do the same thing. It’s mandated at the state level because states don’t have their own printing presses.

Newt worked with Kasich, Clinton and Santorum to get welfare reform passed. By comparison, Mitt’s signed Romneycare, which is nothing more than a major expansion of Medicaid.

What’s more impressive? Running surpluses at the federal level, welfare reform, which included a job training requirement, reducing regulations and cutting taxes while creating millions of jobs or signing Romneycare while imposing major major CO2 emission limits and price controls on power plants?

It’s time for Republicans to admit that “looks presidential” is worthless when paired against the Obama smear machine. It’s time Republicans admitted that Newt’s willingness to challenge President Obama’s and the media’s (ptr) false premises is what’ll be needed this fall.

UPDATE: Erick Erickson’s post nails it:

The buzz in Washington now is that the Republican Establishment fears Gingrich will cause them to lose the House and not get the Senate. Put another way, the current Republican leadership fears that the man who helped the GOP take back the House for the first time in 40 years and his allies in the tea party who helped take back the House in 2010 will cause the GOP to now lose.

That sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Tags: Tax Cuts, Welfare Reform, Federal Surpluses, Regulatory Relief, Newt Gingrich, Blogs, Mitt Romney, Romneycare, CO2 Emissions, Power Plants, Price Controls, Regulatory Overload, Regulatory Relief, Price Controls, GOP, Election 2012

Michael Reagan’s time as silent observer is over. This afternoon, Michael Reagan endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here’s Reagan’s endorsement statement:

I am endorsing Newt Gingrich for President and here’s why:

Newt understands that we must reject and fundamentally change the course that Barack Obama has set for America.

Newt is our only chance in 2012 to contrast a Reagan conservative with Obama’s European’ styled socialism. Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed. Strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government.

In the 90’s Newt’s leadership brought us the Contract with America which changed Washington. I’m confident Newt can do it again.

We cannot afford a candidate backed by the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.

It’s time to choose.

Do we go forward with bold ideas or continue with failed policies? So I ask my fellow Republicans and conservatives to join me in supporting Newt Gingrich for president.

What’s key, in my opinion, is that Michael Reagan took aim at “the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.” That’s clearly directed at Mitt.

It sounds like, in Michael Reagan’s mind, it’s 1980 all over again, with Mitt playing Bush the Elder and Newt is the man who most resembles his father.

Clearly, Newt’s leadership isn’t in question with Reagan. I suspect that’s because he’s looking at Newt’s accomplishments, including the passing of his father’s tax cuts, Newt’s plan that wiped out the Democratic majority in the House after 40 years in the majority and Newt’s helping pass the welfare reform.

This endorsement means something more than the usual endorsement because a) it’s Michael Reagan, heir to the Reagan legacy endorsing Newt and b) it’s from an anti-establishment outsider.

Couple that with Chuck Norris’s endorsement and you’ve got something that the casual observer will notice. Here’s what Chuck Norris said in his endorsement:

“I’m tired of watching our country being torn to shreds by those who think the answer is more government debt and control. I’m tired of being in bondage to a tax system that robs U.S. citizens like the King of England did before the Revolution,” Norris writes.”I’m tired of watching our sovereignty being sold by foreign loans and loose borders. And I will not sit back and merely watch this decay and degradation of the U.S. and then hand it over to my children and grandchildren to deal with.”

Norris continued, “That is why my wife Gena and I have committed the rest of our lives to help Old Glory rise again to her heights of splendor. And that is why we are endorsing and standing with Newt Gingrich, because we believe he can lead all of us who have committed to the same.”

There’s no question what the message behind these endorsements is: America was great under Reagan. We’ve stumbled since then. Now it’s time to right the ship and Newt’s leadership is what’s needed to straighten this ship out.

Tags: Endorsements, Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Chuck Norris, Reaganomics, Job Growth, Newt Gingrich, Conservatism, Bush the Elder, Mitt Romney, Establishment, GOP, Election 2012