Did Ted Cruz Really Win Every County in Maine?

The Boston Globe and 2 local papers didn't give him a chance. He didn't win a single county in Massachussetts 4 days earlier. Did Cruz really win EVERY county in Maine?

By Cruz Camp's Own Admission, Heidi Should Be Thoroughly Vetted

The head of the Ted Cruz campaign has said Heidi is Ted's closest adviser. The FEC violations involve her current employer. No personal attacks, just a necessary professional evaluation of Heidi Cruz's role in the Cruz Crew.

How Ted Cruz Can Stop Immigration Abuse NOW!

As a self-described "constitutional expert" Canadian born Cruz could do us all a great service to stop illegal immigration by simply answer 4 teeny weeny questions...

The Complete Concordance of Cruz Corruption, Deceptions and Lies

Reagan was attacked by the Establishment, but people LIKED him. Cruz on the other hand is despised by mild mannered Huckabee and "sealed lips" George W. There is a reason. Here is an (almost) complete compendium of Cruz lies.

Why Isn't Anyone Discussing the SCOTUS Ruling on Natural Born Citizen?

There is a lie being told that "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. That's True. What's Not True is that it is NOT settled by the Supreme Court. (It has)

Why I'm Happy To (Now) Be A Texan

In honor of @pmbasse, a descendant of one of the original 300 Texas settlers, I want to tell you WHY I LOVE TEXAS. As they say, I wasn't born here but I got here as soon as I could. And for me that was 3 times.

Ted Cruz Takes More Wall Street Money than Hillary Clinton

When you see who REALLY is running Ted's campaign, you realize how "inside" this pretend outsider is. The top CIA, Goldman Sachs executives are LITERALLY running his campaign.

The PolitiJim Twitter FF List

The most rewarding and frustrating experience on Twitter has to be the concept of Follow Friday. I have a solution. See where PolitiJim gets his news, and twinteraction from.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Is Malkin the Columnist of Corruption?


Dear Michelle:

I know you will likely need months of therapy after reading this, but I just have to say:

I am terribly disappointed in you.

CultureOfCorruptionBookCvr Ok.  Maybe it won’t upset you, or you won’t even read this.  But you sure upset me.  For a long time I pointed to you as one of the conservative pundits who didn’t let passion get in the way of precision, nor opinion in the way of objectivity.  You’re book, Culture of Corruption (click on pic to order) was nearly as well documented as any Aaron Klein book while helping us to see the underlying patterns predicting the future of these “corruptocrats.”  Frankly, you had risen to “heroine” status in my eyes by using the “Big Stick of Truth” like a laser.

But you’re piece on Santorum?  Not so much.

Of course, you’re entitled to have your “guy” in the race and put the best spin on him as possible.  If I thought Santorum would have even the remotest chance of inspiring the Tea Party to follow him (let alone the GOP and the general electorate) I would likely be spending much more time on promoting him myself. But you are showing the very dishonesty and lack of integrity of which you accuse Mr. Gringrich.

For example of Santorum you say,

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Wow.  Really?  Perhaps you missed this speech where he went all coal miner class warfare on Romney’s rump.  And is it ok for Santorum to use “Occupier rhetoric” to trash his “mentor” who swept SANTORUM into office on his reformer track record?  It would be funny how Santorum tried to downplay the greatest minority takeover since Benjamin Disraeli in the NH debate if we had an educated public.  But it was distorted and disrespectful.  How is that any better that what you are doing in your column?  Can’t you write how much you like little Ricky without completely distorting the facts on Newt?  (And there are many more issues of substance that are fair game than the dishonest ones you used.)

Worse, you have fallen into the trap now of having to not only defend crony capitalism that Romney and Bain engaged in buying government favor with cash, but also Obama’s 2012 strategy of promoting the false notion that Republicans defend the Enron’s and Bernie Madoff’s of the world worshiping the making of money over morality.   You’re charge that Gingrich is somehow akin to an “Occupier” alone is beneath you.  Remember, his famous response about OWS and the park the protests in?  It is Gingrich’s rhetoric that more closely mirrors Adams, de Tocqueville and Monroe, and yet you want to use this as a “wedge” to promote corrupt capitalism.

It is not like you to not do the research, so I’m especially shocked at your reprint of Gingrich’s very mature with the man who said, “You’re an embarrassment to the Republican party.”  Funny you don’t mention any FACTS of substance in trying to demean the former Speaker.  Forgive me but are you going all “Ann Coulter” on us now?  Now many have taken it as fact that Gingrich slammed Paul Ryan so you are not alone.  But it is beneath you to distort what really happened. Quoting myself from an earlier column:

  • David Gregory asked if Newt would buck public opposition to implementing Ryan’s plan IF IT WAS UNPOPULAR.
  • Newt was responding to FORCING the Ryan Plan on America the way ObamaCare was forced upon us.
  • Newt’s own newsletter PRAISED the Ryan plan 3 days before this interview.
  • Newt had praised Paul Ryan over and over again prior to this.
  • Newt was GENIUINELY shocked, people took it the way they did.
  • Listen ESPECIALLY to the end of the interview. He is concerned about how to educate Americans who think they are entitled to free services TO TAKE PERSONALY RESPONSIBILTY! The same subject as his course that the Democrats tried to lay the ethics charges on!

We all can be forgiven of our error if we don’t know the facts.  But now that you do, I am hoping that you retract the idea that Gingrich was somehow against the Ryan plan.  I admit – he failed big time on timing and clarification.  But at least unlike Romney and your candidate, Gingrich is quick to apologize for his mistakes.

You say you have no illusions about Santorum’s “big government” stances but oddly somehow nominate him for sainthood in comparison for Newt:

Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn.

This must be the same “Newt” who while Santorum and Bachmann were demeaning Herman Cain’s 999 which was acknowledged as FAR BETTER than Santorum’s program by none other than CATO and Art Laffer, was asking his fellow campaigners to quit tearing down each other. 

When baited to go AFTER Santorum and others in the early debate – it was Gingrich who asked us to get back on the issues.  Santorum?  He didn’t even have the grace of Mitt Romney to not try to score cheap political points off of Drudge and ABC’s false smear from his ex-wife who herself had been cheating on Gingrich.  But you go ahead and reorganize history in a way that makes you feel better ok pookie?

You go on to lie about Gingrich’s embrace of Dede Scozzafava going as far as to suggest a Gingrich cabinet would include her, Al Sharpton and Al Gore.  Never mind the fact that Gingrich didn’t even know who the GOP had asked him to endorse and when Dick Armey called to explain what she stood for – he immediately retracted the endorsement and supported Hoffman.  Never mind that it was Gingrich who gave an impassioned 2 hour defense AGAINST Al Gore as the keynote rebuttal during the Cap and Trade discussions on the Hill.  And, although he has admitted the Nancy Pelosi idea was one of his worst, you are like narrow minded Southern preachers who exhibit all of God’s fury and damnation without any of the grace. 

Except when it comes to your own candidate.  In that case you conveniently overlook his degradation of women, and HIS attack on other conservatives and conservative causes including that against Jim DeMint.  And your supposed paragon of virtue then lied about it in the debate.

Doesn’t that paycheck from FOXNews require you be even slightly “fair” and “balanced?” 

I suppose Santorum’s support of the most rapid pro-abortion legislator in Pennsylvania that has resulted in tax payer funded death to unborn children through Specter’s 60th vote on ObamaCare is MUCH more acceptable than Gingrich being too lazy to do his homework on an obscure New York congressional race.

But of course – that wouldn’t fit with your bias, so let’s just go ahead and gloss over that, ok?

I suspect that like many women, you still personally don’t WANT to accept Gingrich’s philandering past although American Family Foundation, Moral Majority founders and his own children who actually KNOW him testify to the change God has done in him. 

But you tell me which candidate will be worse off in a general election?  One who has tried to reach to those who disagree (as he urged Reagan to do when he refused to accept an invitation to the NAACP), or one who will not renounce his own campaign suggesting that women are not worthy to lead.

Other than that of course I’m sure Santorum is as pure as the driven snow in comparison to Gingrich when it comes to “crazy.” Unless of course you include the whole “adultery is the gateway to bestiality” thing.  Or his still unexplained ability to get a home loan rate he didn’t qualify for.  Or why his charity doesn’t even pass the BBB criteria for use of their collected funds, much less the ECFA.

But as you point out, at least he isn’t like the “establishment” Gingrich ….whom the establishment is in a fury to deny any chance.  And whom Pete DuPont, Paul Weyrich, Michael Reagan, and Thomas Sowell (you know, huge conservative leaders who made the way for you to have a conservative column and job) all say is Gingrich’s best trait to tear down Washington as usual.  I noticed that you listed the major Romney conservatives you admire, but not those who endorsed Gingrich.  Now why would that be?

Surely you couldn’t be the Columnist of Corruption.

You are right to be concerned with Santorum’s “big government” core tendencies.

Ok, I’ve now had my fun at your expense.  Do you now see how easy the game is when you have a bias?  I feel you owe the man who gave Rick Santorum his start in politics, a GOP majority from which to govern (which was wasted after he resigned), and who helped Santorum over and over in his re-election efforts a bit of an apology.

I have (and remain) a big fan.  It is a crazy primary season no doubt.  But an appeal on my behalf to you.  Is it necessary to tear down one specific candidate (falsely) to promote your own?

And isn’t that what you accused Gingrich of by saying he used “Saul Alinksy" tactics?

This election will be won on nothing other than “the economy stupid.”  If you are so enamored of Rick Santorum, perhaps you could him to explain why he has the weakest economic plan of all the candidates.  At the end of the day, it is all the GOP voters and the general electorate will care about.

Beck, Gingrich and Big Government (Oh My)


I’m hearing from many that not only Romney, but Gingrich and Santorum are all “big government” Republicans.  I’m seeing especially a lot of Ron Paul-bearers with almost no sense of history (or perspective) publishing article after article that only they are the “true” conservatives.  The idea is that anyone proposing ANYTHING other than complete removal of all subsidies, entitlements, dismantling of EPA, DOC, DOE, DOE, TSA, and the US Forestry Service (Yogi’s been freeloading long enough!) is just not good enough for a “true conservative.”  I suspect a lot of this is coming from a Mr. Glenn Beck who no longer can be given the benefit of doubt on his views, no matter how much good he has done the conservative movement.

There is a predominantly Libertarian view that the collection of taxes should be confined to paying for the operation of the 3 branches, building and equipping an army that ONLY protects the shores of the United States and expects to do everything else with the exception of ensuring trade between the states.

The impression is that we don’t need a Federal Reserve AT ALL and we should simply privatize the Post Office.  Of course that thinking might be slightly challenged when they learn the early congress authorized the printing of Bibles.  Hardly seems like a function of a government of which Ron Paul would approve.

It will especially increase the desire for the decriminalization of marijuana and other hard drugs when they learn that the 9th bill passed by the US Congress established US Treasury funds to build a lighthouse for Chesapeake Bay.  Let’s call it the first earmark.  Now certainly private industry used the seaway and there must have been quite a few other areas that could use a nice lighthouse.  Why should the citizens of Georgia pay for a lighthouse for the Yankees?  (Of course the second question is, “when do we get ours?”)

ALFoundation header I’m not so sure George, John and Thomas would have approved however of the money, time and attention wasted on celebration of National Lighthouse Day, celebrating the expenditure of public funds for freaking lighthouse.  I’m not sure they would have laughed, cried or declared another revolution.

They DID ay for this lighthouse by raising taxes on ships entering the harbor until in 1801, after which the US Government (aka/ WE) just paid for it straight out of the Treasury.  I suppose you could argue National Security concerns although I can’t find reference to it.  By the second year our founders of the greatest representative democracy ever known began regulating fisheries.    That certainly had no national security interest.  So much for a clearly “free market,” as some of misguided libertarian friends might argue.

crazybeck In the insane rantings of Glenn Beck (the recent ones) he supposes Newt Gingrich is the second coming of Karl Marx because he praised FDR.  (Pssst.  Don’t tell him that was one of Ronald Reagan’s favorites also.)  But what Mr. Beck never seems to research is the incredible accomplishment of leadership.  Without a strong GOVERNMENT leader who understood not just WHAT to do – but HOW to approach it – we likely never would have defeated Germany in time.  It is still one of the greatest victories of the world that we mobilized an army, retrofitted an economy and culture, manufactured the necessary goods and equipped an army for two massive wars simultaneously.  And we won it in 4 years and put everyone back to work.  Even GOPAC founder Pete Dupont was posed this question in 1996.

Q: When Newt Gingrich starts talking about
Franklin D. Roosevelt as one of his most impressive heroes, does that make you a little nervous?

Du Pont: No, because Franklin Roosevelt was a President who had to govern at a time of crisis, so was Abraham Lincoln, so was Winston Churchill, the leader of the British, at a time of crisis. And if you're going to make fundamental changes in the way a nation thinks, you have to have the ability to take the crisis of the moment and use it to shape an agenda.

Franklin Roosevelt was very good at that. We don't particularly agree with the way his agenda turned out, though to tell you the truth, I think it was more Lyndon Johnson's fault than Franklin Roosevelt's. Nevertheless, he was a great leader. He saw how to use the levers of power to affect change. No wonder Newt appreciates that because that's what he sees too.

(It is worth noting that Dupont turned over GOPAC to Gingrich to run and thought Gingrich was the defender of the conservative movement.  More on that here.)

So is Gingrich in love with Government as Beck bellows?  The Georgia Congressman has been consistent in reciting the same story for 50 years:

newtOutoftheDark PBS: "I got active in this business of politics and self-government in 1958, when my father, who was serving in the U.S. Army, took us to the battlefield of Verdun." The boy stared at the bone pile left by the great battle, and "over the course of the weekend, it convinced me that civilizations live and die by, and that the ultimate margin in a free society of our fate is provided more by, elected political leadership than by any other group. That in the end it's the elected politicians that decide where we fight and when we fight and what the terms of engagement are, and what weapons systems are available." That awakening, he says, led to a 180-page term paper on the balance of world power. When he turned in the paper, he informed his teacher that his family was being transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, where he would become a Republican congressman.

In the last Florida debate, it was quite amazing “Mr. RomneyCare” tried to indicate that government couldn’t help create jobs.  As Gingrich explained in the transition from Carter to Reagan, lowering taxes and reducing regulation and bureaucracy DOES help entrepreneurs create jobs.  (Hmmm.  Is this lack of understanding why Romney was 47th out of 50 Governors in job creation in his single term as Governor?)  If you think about it, government helped ensure equality for blacks, protected intellectual property, made possible home ownership to QUALFIED home buyers in areas with no capital, and facilitated commerce, communications, and technology creation from nuclear energy to microwaves which would have been near impossible to develop in private enterprise.

And frankly, reading Heritage Founder and Conservative Icon Paul Weyrich, state that Gingrich’s conservatism is based in limited government and government reform I now see Gingrich as closer to Ronald Reagan than what I remember living through the 80’s.  After his initial Department of Education vote (a professor thing, maybe?), he voted with Reagan’s agenda which resulted in the closing of 12 of 94 departments.  (Hopefully he learned his lesson on the SBA.  After cutting the budget by more than half, it ballooned to 10X it’s original size.  Got to kill ‘em dead or they come back stronger.)  You can’t fake votes.  A 90% ACU rating over 30 years makes you wonder how ANYONE could buy that lie much less propagate it.

NewtTeddyBecksmall Beck believes Calvin Coolidge to be the greatest conservative President who ever lived (after Washington I hope) but thinks Newt Gingrich is disqualified for office since he has said that Teddy Roosevelt was his favorite President.  (Beck considers the Buck Stop Here Prez a Progressive patriarch.)  I am not quite sure how Beck reconciles the fact that it was Coolidge who chose Theodore Roosevelt to be on Mt. Rushmore. And for all I know, maybe he considers Ronald Reagan a “progressive” because he went out of his way to make a special proclamation of “Theodore Roosevelt Day” to honor the founder of the Bull Moose party.  Maybe all those survival rations Glenn’s been eating are past expiration?  Enquiring minds…aw hell, we really don’t give a damn.

But “HOW BIG SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE” is very important question.  Many of us deplore SOPA wanting true freedom, while the Santorum-minded have legitimate concerns over child pornography. 

I have a feeling that since we have witnessed THIS administration ignore the law and abuse it’s power on China, ObamaCare, the offshore Gulf oil, business, Eric Holder’s refusal on Fast & Furious subpoena, etc, etc., we are not only going to want reform but also stronger guarantees government can’t grow without Constitutional authority.

KimJongUnMilitary Most of us agree that a strong defense is critical in the age of the terminal cancer of radical Islam, an increasingly arrogant China and the little crazy dictators from Hugo to “New North Ko.”  Santorum may be the strongest in this department closely followed by Gingrich and Romney.  Our Constitution provides a taxing authority best addressed by the tax reformation plans of Gingrich or Paul.  Strangely Santorum and Romney only tweak the system.  Entitlement reform certainly is only addressed by Gingrich and Santorum although Paul and Romney make obscure speeches without much detail.

Which leads us to one question: How in the name of Silence Dogood do you actually DO this?

There are probably less than 9 “true” conservatives  in the Senate (Jim DeMint being somewhat the gold standard) and 20 or 30 in the House.  Even supposed “real” conservatives like Paul Ryan and Alan West wouldn’t stand on the debt ceiling/budget fight to “hold the line” with Jim DeMint so that number is even squishy.

Why?  Leadership.

Reagan got his tax cuts and reforms through because he got the American people behind so much, the Democrats and liberal Republicans caved for fear of their own seats. (That is a bit simplistic.  Of course there were many more conservative Democrats back then who truly wanted to do the right thing for the country.)

Reagan used ALL of his political “goodwill” from the election to implement the “supply side” tax cuts.  It took 2½ years to kick in, and he could not get the same support as his personal approval ratings dove with the failing economy.  By the time the economy kicked in, it was reelection time and ideas like shutting down the Department of Education, welfare reform and the like often had to be traded for compromises on more pressing priorities.

PelosiReidObamaHonestLeadership The 2008-2010 Democrat Congress with Obama is another good study in leadership.  Al Capone style.  Obama also was able to use his initial political capital to pass STIMULUS and didn’t even attempt to get GOP support.  We forget that Congress passed all sorts of smaller legislation over objections of the GOP and we all cheered when Scott Brown (R-MA) got elected.  But threats, bribes (remember the $100 Million ObamaCare vote?) and Senate rule manipulations allowed the Democrats to pass the largest government boondoggle in history and they admit they didn’t even read it!)  How?  Leadership.

One then craters and stops all other desires of the ruling party – the other allows a second generation to continue.  In the case of Reagan, Gingrich’s Contract With America was the one to benefit and build on doing it in cooperation with American acceptance.  Thirty years of conservative ideas were implemented in a few years with a Democratic President leading Time magazine and others to define Gingrich as a de facto President – since he was the one setting the national governing agenda and not the President.  (Clinton went from bad to worse with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and HillaryCare – again trying to push things the American people weren’t sold on yet.)

It is interesting that the Ron Paul and “true conservatives” somehow think that a Presidential who wants to impose all of these extreme cuts and limitations to government will:

  • Somehow succeed in getting a majority of GOP voters to get nominated (although truly Big Government Romney is showing he is currently selling better),
  • Somehow succeed in convincing at least another 20% of Americans who AREN’T disposed to conservative principles to buy this plan,
  • Somehow convince a super majority of Senators and a majority of Congress to buy into ideas like withdrawing troops from around the world and closing the Federal Reserve when a large number of Republicans disagree with let alone a significantly higher number of Democrats.

At some point the public has to be SOLD.  Gingrich did a pretty damn good job, leaving with a 60% approval rating of the Congress he formed which registered only 20% when he took over as Speaker.  Why?  He EXPLAINED why these concepts would work.  (It also doesn’t hurt that he selected ideas already with a large approval.)

It explains why Heritage Founder Paul Weyrich pleaded with Gingrich NOT to run for President against Clinton in a second term.  Weyrich THOUGHT Gingrich would win and destroy any chance of keeping the complex and fine balance of 435 Congressmen and women under GOP influence.  That is a pretty high recommendation of someone’s leadership skills and a pretty damning commentary on the whole “he was kicked out” notion.

BushMedicareD I was guilty of being upset with Gingrich on being in favor of the Senior Medicare Drug program.  But Gingrich made two points these past two weeks that is causing me to reconsider.  First, he understood that in a prosperous time of our country, there wasn’t a receptivity to MAJOR Medicare reform and we taxpayers were paying $250,000 for open heart surgery when Lipitor costs $1,800 per year. (Don’t get me started on the ignorance of most people on chelation – a one time cost of as little as $2,000.)

Secondly, at the time he saw it as a way to start to migrate entitlements back to a free enterprise model with Health Savings Accounts.  Just read how upset liberals were with this component of the bill.  Some even SAID he would use it to dismantle Medicare (and kill off old people of course.  Liberals are only creative in Hollywood.)

It makes what Gingrich (and Clinton) did in the 90’s quite amazing.  It also should wake up conservatives we have a fine line.  Too moderate and like Bob Dole in ‘96 and John McCain in ‘08 and you’ll never draw a clear enough distinction from Democrats who will lie about anything.  Too wild and aggressive of a Libertarian approach and you’ll be the only engine on the track with no box cars and no caboose to follow.

It is necessary to understand that there is not just POLICY requisites in our candidate to remove Obama, but also POLITICAL STRATEGY beyond the campaign trail.  A leader is needed who can mobilize a national sweep of not just GOP Senate and Congressional wins, but conservative ones.

So who fits that mold?  The checklist:

  • A true conservative compass on economic, domestic, and foreign policy,
  • Someone who has a passion to reform government not just manage it,
  • Someone who has a passion to fight liberal ideology in the media and government,
  • An ability to coalesce the GOP,
  • An ability to inspire and not scare average Americans,
  • An ability to educate America on conservative principles,
  • An ability to engineer sweeping legislation that will not only pass both Houses of Congress, but will be supported by Americans,
  • An ability to create the recruiting, funding and messaging of conservatives nationwide to take conservative control in both houses
  • Someone who will do what they say, even if it is unpopular.

I wish I could say that I see some hope of Ron Paul becoming more inline with the foreign policy of John Bolton.

I wish I could see that Rick Santorum had some ability to get people in his own party to follow him so I’d know he could appeal to America.

I wish I could know that Mitt Romney would do what he now says he will do - when as Governor he didn’t when he could have.

And I wish I could believe that Newt Gingrich will see pure conservative boundaries in the ideas birthed from great brainstorms on solving this country’s problems.

Reagan Then I remember Reagan.  Who seemed to have all of the traits above.  And he still signed Simpson Mazzoli amnesty.  He still raised taxes.  He still allowed too much government growth.  And he wasn’t immune to scandals being accused of him and his administration.

And it still turned out pretty well.

Monday, January 30, 2012

What Did the GOPAC Founder Think of Newt?


I’ve been digging into the annals of internet archives to understand the truth about Newt. (Why does that sound so dirty?)  We learned that even before he was elected Speaker he was disliked and despised.  But his peers still elected him speaker.  We also learned that not only did our most respected conservative leaders consider him “conservative,” they thought he was indispensible to the Reagan Revolution and it’s derivatives.

Pete DuPont was a three term US Congressman and Governor of Delaware as well as being the founder of GOPAC.  As Governor, he so changed the political animus in a liberal state (Joe Biden’s state) that not only did he get two tax reductions and a constitutional amendment that limited government spending, he changed the way Democrats and Republicans worked together that impacts Delaware politics today.  In conservative circles he is known for his 1988 Presidential run against then Vice President Herbert Walker Bush and founding GOPAC.  His original intent was to build a fund for the conservative “farm team” in local and state races and was quite effective in the first years of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency.

What did Dupont think of young Georgia Gingrich?  Enough that he turned GOPAC entirely over to Newt.  (Are you younger conservatives stunned yet?)

From GOPAC’s Website: Newt Gingrich was frustrated by the Party's inability to capitalize on the Reagan Revolution at the state and local levels. Taking the helm of GOPAC, Gingrich emphasized spreading ideas and inspiring conservative, reform-minded citizens. Through countless campaign seminars, workbooks, audiotapes and years of grassroots organizing, GOPAC became the Republican Party's preeminent education and training center. The famous GOPAC tapes, in particular, galvanized Republican candidates and activists.

An Interview with Pete DuPont about Newt included:

  • Gingrich is the Thomas Paine of the Regan Revolution.
  • He would support a Gingrich candidacy for President.
  • Colin Powell was a “country club” Republican.  Newt is a “bowling alley” Republican and the GOP can not win without it.
  • Newt’s entire philosophical basis was to take on the establishment.
  • He still considered Gingrich an “outsider” even after being elected Speaker.
  • Newt terrorizes liberals because he won’t give into their plan.  Moderates warm up to him because they see he will be pragmatic.
  • Gingrich began designing the funding, education communication and strategy for a conservative takeover of Congress 6 years or more before Contract With America.
  • Newt set out to re-educate the moderate Republicans.
  • Gingrich was the conservative conscious of the party when George Bush (41) took office and drifted back to establishment failures.
  • The “100 ideas a day” is what makes him so effective in strategy. Like Edison, he becomes more sure what will NOT work.

Q: In the mid-1980s, you turned over GOPAC to Newt Gingrich. Why Newt Gingrich?

DuPont: When I began the presidential campaign in 1986, I recognized that GOPAC was helping the Republican Party but if it stayed hooked to me it would die because people would say that's part of Pete DuPont's presidential campaign. So we wanted to save it and we had to give it to somebody. We looked around and said who's got the energy? Who's got the ideas? Who would take this animal called GOPAC and carry on in the spirit that we had begun? Newt Gingrich stood out.

I took him to breakfast one morning and I said, 'Newt, I've got a proposition for you.' He said, 'What? You want to give this to me?' And I said, 'Yes.' And he said, 'I'll call you back.' Half an hour later he was on the phone and it was his. And he did a magnificent job with it.

Q: What sort of changes, if any, did he make in GOPAC, as opposed to your original conception?

DuPont: Our original idea was to help three or four hundred candidates in the first election run for the Ohio State legislature and the California legislature around the country. Newt said, 'We can do that, we can help young people, but why don't we put together some educational material and spread it widely through the country so that people will begin to understand the conservative message, the conservative philosophy?'

He took GOPAC from a somewhat narrowly-focused campaign vehicle to a broader vehicle to explain the Republican ideology and philosophy and he expanded it enormously.  …Newt has a long-range vision. He has an understanding of what's coming in the world that I think the rest of us lack.

Q: In terms of philosophy, you have advocated many things in your '88 campaign. You were known as a populist conservative. Newt, from his early campaign, was calling himself a populist conservative. Did you make that kind of connection in those early days?

DuPont: Yes. Our policies are very much alike. We're both for smaller government, lower taxes, allowing individuals to make choices -- less central planning, more individual decision-making. So, in that sense, we're very much on the same wavelength.

Q: You served in Congress. Newt says that when he first got there, the Republicans were so used to being a minority party that they had to kind of ''go along, get along " compromise on the edges. Describe the mood of the Republican leadership.

DuPont: The moderate Republican Party of the 1970s were basically eighty percenters. They said, 'Democrats, we're for everything you're for--but only 80% of it. Yes, we'd like federal aid education, but not so much. Yes, we can help people on welfare, but not in as expensive a way as you want to do it.' So, as [some wag] once said, 'There wasn't a dime worth of difference between the two parties' and that was true. We were just for a little bit cheaper welfare state.

Newt comes to town and says, 'We're not for the welfare state at all. It's not a question of steering a little to the right, it's a question of turning the whole organization around and going off towards opportunity and individualism as opposed to collective decisions by government.'

Q: Another problem that the Republicans had was that for a long time it was seen by many Americans as a country club party, a party for wealthy people in the United States, Wall Street, whatever, and not a party that would ever have any kind of majority following in the United States. What was your thinking about trying to change that?

DuPont: Well, Ronald Reagan was the person who changed it. There were these wonderful people called Reagan Democrats who are really conservatives like Newt Gingrich is, like I am. And for the first time Ronald Reagan gave our party a bowling alley image as opposed to a country club image. We were suddenly talking to the people who go bowling on Thursday night and they were understanding what we were saying.

One of the tragedies of the Bush administration is that we went back to business as usual, make a deal with the Democrats, let's all be friends in Washington philosophy. So, we needed Newt to come along, to stand up against the Bush tax increase and the Bush budget deal, and to say, 'No we are still for the working people of the country, and I hope that we can keep our focus on representing the people who fight the wars and build the industries and do the work in this country. Because if we do stick with them, we can be a majority party for a long while.'

Q: You must have offended some people along the way. I know George Bush, at one point, said he felt betrayed by Newt Gingrich on the budget deal. Newt deliberately came in with a plan to kind of upset the apple cart, go after the establishment, not only the Democratic Party but the Republican Party as well.

DuPont: And Newt Gingrich was right. George Bush paid with his presidency for a very bad decision that Newt was right about. The apple cart needed to be upset. I would have thought that Newt couldn't have done this--but he would have done better to just walk out of there with his House delegation and have nothing to do with the agreement. He did shoot it down once and it came back again and he couldn't stop it the second time. If we're going to be a party of populists who believe in individuals having power, we've got to turn that power over to them. We can't raise taxes and we can't regulate more and we can't create new departments. We've got to begin closing down the collective side of the government and opening up the individual opportunity side.

Q: Newt's staff tends to say, 'We have a hundred ideas a day,' and they put them in the 'Newt bad ideas/Newt good ideas'--and then he changes them a lot. Is that your experience?

DuPont: Newt is one of those people who has more ideas in the morning than I have in a month. Some of his ideas are not quite the ones you want to pursue in the interim. But that's the way it is with entrepreneurial people. You try one thing, it doesn't work, you try another. Didn't Thomas Edison once say that he knew eleven thousand ways not to do something and now he was going to get it right?

Well, Newt's a little bit the same way. He offers an idea, he tests it in the public opinion. It gets a bad reaction, it's over with. It gets a good reaction, he develops it further. So, he's the kind of creative thinker that the party needs in order to stay in the majority.

Q: A man who ran Newt Gingrich's first successful campaign was telling us that what Newt had to do, and GOPAC was a central part of this, was to create whole new structures to transform the Republican Party. Do you think that's accurate?

DuPont: It is because if you're going to try to win an election at either the local or the national level, you can't be 80%. You can't say I'm for what my Democratic opponent is for but not quite so much of it. People say, particularly if it's Democrat incumbents, 'Why shouldn't I vote for the real thing? Why should I vote for who's the pale copy?' So Newt had to get into the minds of Republican candidates that we didn't disagree with a little of the Democrats liberal program, we disagreed with all of it. We didn't think taxes ought to go up. They ought to go down. We didn't think the census ought to be weakened. We thought it ought to be strengthened. We didn't think it ought to be done in Washington. -- we ought to pass the responsibility back to do it at home.

So, that required an entire reeducating of the moderate Republican mindset. I think that is the primary thing that Newt accomplished for the Republican party. He changed the frame of reference of all of our candidates. That's why we won so big in 1994.

Q: Recently there have been some interesting stories about how effective he has been as an inside legislator political guide negotiating with people one on one, saying, 'You need this part of the bill, we've got to stay on track but I'm willing to be pragmatic. I'm not just an ideologue.' Do you see that side of Newt --when it comes to actually trying to pass big pieces of legislation?

DuPont: He has done an extraordinary job that shows a side of Newt Gingrich that a lot hadn't seen. He not only has the philosophy right but he has persuaded Republicans from the liberal and conservative camps to each give a little, to each move a little and he's welded that Republican majority, a very small majority, into a powerful political force. That's not one of the things we ever saw in Newt Gingrich but he's done a brilliant job.

Q: What would the effect be on Newt Gingrich and the conservative revolution if Colin Powell ran for president?

DuPont: I think the struggle that you see in the Republican Party today is once again the country club Republican versus the bowling alley Republican. Colin Powell brings us back to the country club image. He's an insider. He's a moderate. Newt is an outsider, bowling alley conservative. There is a real dichotomy there. What you're seeing played out in the Republican primary process, if General Powell runs, is this old struggle that has been going on since 1952 when Eisenhower and [Taft] began the argument.

Things move very slowly in politics. We seem to fight the same wars over and over again.

Q: Newt Gingrich, like Jack Kemp, has argued for quite some time that the Republican party should make more of an effort to attract black voters. Do you think that's a lost cause or is he on to something there?

DuPont: There's a very big gulf between the black civil rights leadership in America, and the black middle class in America. The black middle class are conservative people --They basically believe that the government takes too much of their money. They basically distrust remedies like buffing. I think many of those minorities can be persuaded to be members of the Republican Party. We run very strongly with the Asian community, very well with the Hispanic community, not as well yet with the Black community. I think that's coming. I think Newt and Jack Kemp are both right, if we put forward a program of individual opportunity that appeals to a black family just like it appeals to a white family.

Q: Someone we interviewed said, 'Liberals see Newt as the man who is taking away their cookies from the cookie jar and if they're afraid of him, they have reason to be afraid.' Should moderates be afraid of Newt Gingrich?

Du Pont: No, moderates shouldn't be nervous about Newt because he has a vision, he's laid it forward. If you don't agree with all of it, try and get him to change it a little bit. But he's fundamentally leading us in the way that middle class Americans want to go.

Liberals should be terrified of Newt Gingrich because he has an alternative vision. He's good at selling and he's now got enough of a majority that it's beginning to sell. And we may be seeing the death of liberalism, particularly if Republicans gain in the House and the Senate in '96.

Q: Newt is a master, it seems of getting everyone singing from the same page of the hymn book...

Du Pont: Well, Newt is a history major and he understands the importance of language. When he began the campaign with GOPAC, the serious part of building a majority, he said, 'The first thing we've got to do is, we've all got to use the same language. We've got to start talking about.' Newt said this hundreds of times, 'start talking about a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal welfare state.' And he'd say, 'Bang that language into you head. Use it every night. Use the same words and pretty soon it will permeate the American people.' And that was the right strategy. Language is important; messages are important; and Newt understands.

Q: You've been in politics a long time. How often does someone like a Newt Gingrich come along?

Du Pont: Very seldom. In my political lifetime we've had Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich in twenty-five years. Two people who really had a very different vision of the government of the country. Maybe two in twenty-five years is a lot but they don't come along very often.

Please read the entire interview here.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Paul Weyrich Warns Conservatives on Romney and Endorses Gingrich From the Grave


Q: Given his secular nature, given some of his personal difficulties in the past, is Newt Gingrich, in your view, suited to be President?

Weyrich: Well, a lot of people have failings. The real question is not whether he has failed in the past. There is no man who lives who does not sin. The question is whether he has acknowledged these failings and intends to do something about them. So I don't consider him unfit for office because of what he's done. A lot of people would be disqualified were that the case. I think it's unfortunate. I think he thinks it's unfortunate. I'm not sure that he would do the same thing today that he has done in the past.

Weyrich: Temperamentally, there is nothing that suggests that he wouldn't make a decent President. Contrary to all of the fol de rol of the sparks and fury that he creates, he is very pragmatic underneath and he does not do things that are terribly foolish. Most of what he does, he knows precisely what he's doing. Occasionally, he says something at the spur of the moment that he shouldn't say and as President he would have to curb that because he could cause an international crisis or bring a stock market crash or something by doing that. But he is even learning now as Speaker of the House to be more cautious with what he says. So I don't know anything about him temperamentally that suggests that he would make an erratic or foolish or impetuous decision that would endanger the country.

This is from a PBS Frontline Interview in the mid 90’s.  Weyrich died in 2008. And it is extremely revealing.  Weyrich and Gingrich first met in the 1970’s and his thoughts reveal some juicy tidbits including:

  • Weyrich was afraid Newt would run for President BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE WOULD WIN.  He felt Gingrich was the only person who keep the coalition of Republicans with such different persuasions together.
  • He is adamant that Gingrich’s conservatism is deeply based.
  • He is convinced “reform” is Newt’s primary objective as a conservative.
  • He was never completely comfortable (at the time of this interview) because Gingrich based his conservative values on history and not scripture.
  • Weyrich says although he realizes his (Weyrich’s) advice wasn’t always correct, that Gingrich fervently sought him out for advice, especially in his early years.
  • He agrees it was Gingrich’s leadership that bucked the establishment in taking the idea the GOP could become a majority.
  • Weyrich says Gingrich is defined by being “intellectually honest.”
  • Weyrich says Gingrich won't compromise what he believes for popularity.

Paul WeyrichFor those who (shockingly) may not know, Paul Weyrich was the founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation – two of the most influential think tanks in the conservative movement.  Weyrich co-founded the Moral Majority and coined the phrase.  He was, arguably, the foremost social conservative leader and pretty damn effective as a straight up conservative with or without the evangelical stuff.  Who would have thought one of the chief leaders of politically attuned Southern Baptists got started with beer money?  Politics make strange bedfellows and bar buddies both.  One thing you need to know:

Weyrich endorsed Romney in 2008.
And deeply regretted it.

And begged McCain NOT to choose him for VP.

More on that at the end of this article. This summary does NOT give you full nuance and I urge you to read it in it’s entiretyKeep in mind this was before Gingrich’s own spiritual awakening and commitment to Christ and Catholic church.  Some highlights (any emphasis notated is mine):

Q: …do you believe that Newt has a guiding vision?

Weyrich: Yes, he has a guiding vision. But I think it is one which will ultimately prove to be a problem for him because it's not based in truth. It is very technologically oriented. …Newt is a very smart individual and if he finds that some of this experimentation doesn't work, he'll change. I mean, one good thing about him is he does not stick to error forever as some people do. He's willing to look at a different alternative.

Q: To what do you attribute this solidarity and loyalty in this freshman class to Newt?

Weyrich: Well, they believe that he was very much connected to their victory when all other political analysts and even Party officials were writing off the chance to win a majority in the House of Representatives. Newt Gingrich was there telling them, 'No, it can be done, and if you'll just push a little harder, and win your seat and the other guys win theirs. We're gonna do it.' He was the only one that was telling them that. And if you're out there and you're battling against odds, and you're 22 points behind and it's three weeks before the election and you're having trouble raising money because nobody thinks you can win and Newt Gingrich says, 'No, I think you can win. And furthermore I'll come to your district and I'll campaign for you and I'll try to help you and so on.' I mean, you can't buy that kind of loyalty.

Q: I was not suggesting that he was doing it for cynical reasons, but even if he was, it certainly paid off.

Weyrich: I don't think it was cynical. I mean, I think he is the one person who actually believed that this was going to happen. I have to confess to you, I did not. I mean, I thought they would gain significantly, and I thought that Newt would probably have operating control of the House, but I did not think the Republicans would get a majority in this election.

Q: And to some degree he has gotten to that fast lane on that freeway in part because of his association with you, hasn't he?

Weyrich: Well, he asked a lot of advice early on. I gave a lot of advice. Some of it he took and some of it he did not. He tells me that I was helpful to him, but, you know, we work with each other.

Q: You don't, I assume, hesitate to express your disappointment on those occasions when you feel it.

Weyrich: Oh, he has felt my wrath on many occasions, some justified, some not. But I never hesitate to let him know and I was very pleased recently when he called me about a matter and he said, 'I'm calling you because I know that you will tell me what I don't want to hear, if you know, if it's true.' And there's no higher compliment that you could pay me than that. And if I have that kind of relationship with him, then it can't go wrong. That doesn't mean, however, that he's going to listen to every piece of advice that I give him…  And by the way, every piece of advice I give isn't right because I don't have any infallibility connected to my views.


Q: You say one of the things you admire about Newt is that he is a conservative, that he is not hesitant to use power. What do you mean by that?

Weyrich: Well, most conservatives hate power so much that they don't use it even for the common good. And therefore if they get in a position where they can do something, they don't do it because they don't really want to use power and authority. Newt doesn't have that problem. He knows what he is capable of doing if he gets into a position. He uses that position and so he has become a very powerful speaker. Many other conservatives would be in that position and would not be powerful speakers because they would be trying to accommodate everyone and they would never remove somebody from a committee or they wouldn't reach down under the seniority system to pick a committee chairman. He's consolidated a lot of power onto himself and he has used it wisely. And not everybody's happy about it, but the fact is, he knows how to use power and he knows this because he has studied important historical figures who used power. Figures in British political history, figures in American political history like Teddy Roosevelt. He greatly admires Teddy Roosevelt. He has really studied how they did it and he emulates what they have done.

PolitiJim note: This is the 10th or 11th article or interview I’ve read about Newt’s admiration of FDR and Teddy Roosevelt. In EVERY case, it’s HOW they got things done – NOT their policies or philosophies.

Q: Is there another Newt out there sort of waiting to...?

Weyrich: No. I wish there were. I wish that we had lots to choose from, but we don't. He's very unique. And as a matter of fact, I've been very concerned that he might run for the Presidency because, while I admit that the people who are running are not my cup of tea, nevertheless, I think he plays a very unique role in keeping that very diverse group of Republicans together in the House and if he leaves, I think that they will not be together. I think that if he leaves, he runs the danger of not only not getting elected President, although he might get the nomination, but also of losing the House of Representatives. If that happens he will also get blamed for losing the House of Representatives and disturbing what I think will be a rightful place in history…

Q: You of course have no way of knowing whether he will, but I bet you don't have any doubt that he wants to.

Weyrich: Oh, I think he wants to in one sense. He learns a job very quickly and I think he's already intellectually a little bit bored with being Speaker of the House and therefore would welcome the higher challenge. On the other hand, I think he also recognizes the extraordinary risks to himself and to things that he does want to push were he to run. So, I'm not sure that it's a total burning desire to run. I think at times, when he looks at the existing field, and he hears how they handle issues, he thinks to himself, and very rightly so, 'Were I in that position, I could do a far superior job than what they're doing.' And you can't blame him for that because he could.

Q: Given his personal failings is Bill Clinton suited to be President, then?

Weyrich: Well, I think Bill Clinton is far more dysfunctional than Newt Gingrich. Newt has been able to translate much of what he believes into reality. I think Clinton has a disconnect between his very high intellect and his ability to absorb data and his ability to translate that into reality and then to stick with it. So, between the two of them, I personally think that Newt would make a better president.


How in the world are ANY conservatives choosing Santorum even, over Gingrich?  That man is a historic figure that has actually DONE what we all want. A take over of power by conservatives TO REFORM.  Perhaps the singular most defining aspect of this interview after the fact Weyrich felt Gingrich would make a good a President – was that he is all about reform.


And we know how it happens that time fades memories and blurs things that seem so clear cut.  Because IT HAPPENED TO WEYRICH in 2008, when he first endorsed Romney, then switched to Huckabee in the show down with McCain.  There is no better wisdom from a conservative who has seen the movement from it’s infancy.  Or from an elder who is able to be humble enough to see where he made mistakes.  From a left wing 2008 article citing CBN news and other sources – an outlet which has no vested interest in making Weyrich, Huckabee or Romney look good:

Weyrich appears to have done some soul-searching and has come to regret his support of Romney at the expense of Huckabee:

In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.

The extent of Weyrich’s remorse appears to be even deeper than anyone could have imagined, as he has now joined a group of former-Huckabee backers and other right-wing activists in warning McCain that picking Romney as a running mate would be “utterly unacceptable”

Conservative leader Paul Weyrich – who endorsed Mitt Romney’s presidential bid – has signed on to an open letter from more than two dozen movement activists to John McCain warning him not to select the former Massachusetts governor as his VP pick if he expects their support.

"If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down the ticket,” they write in a message posted online by a political action committee called “Government is Not God.”

The letter – topped by the headline “NO Mitt” — will run as a print ad in cities visited by McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, beginning with his Arizona stop this weekend.

How, in the course of just a few months, Weyrich went from citing Romney’s “experience, vision and values” as making him best-suited to be President to declaring that he is absolutely unqualified to serve as McCain’s running mate is utterly mind-boggling:

When a chief executive can violate multiple articles of the oldest functioning constitution in the world and disobey statutes he solemnly swore to defend and execute faithfully, then blame judges who never even asked him to intervene, he mocks the principle of limited government and the separation of powers. He robs Americans of their unalienable right to self-government, for which so many soldiers, sailors and airmen have died.

These are just two issues (there are more) that absolutely disqualify Mitt Romney as a viable Vice Presidential option. He would fatally harm your appeal to voters with deep constitutionalist and social conservative commitments.

If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down the ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur.

So to recap.  The FOUNDER of the Moral Majority and two of the most important conservative think tanks says:

  • It is a mistake to choose someone just on the basis of who seems “electable” versus reflecting your values. 
  • Voting for Mitt Romney is a repudiation of social conservative values.
  • Weyrich effectively felt Romney believed “Government is God”
  • Weyrich felt Romney “mocked” limited government and the separation of powers.
  • He believed Romney was harmful to the GOP.

Perhaps Paul Weyrich’s last part of the letter is the most important:

As citizens, activists, and leaders with our feet on the solid ground of real world Republican and Independent voters, it is our duty to alert you that the grassroots is nearing a point of breaking with Republican Party leadership on many issues, not the least of which is the relentless whitewashing of Mitt Romney as a so-called "conservative."

Friday, January 27, 2012

Top 10 Twitter PolitiJim Pet Peeves


Politijim has been a bit more than just a surly bird of late.  My new saying is “PolitiJim: Giving you the bird every day.  Of truth.” I lost a lot of Twitter followers who obviously thought I was unfairly targeting a good blogger and Tweeter for their inaccuracies.  Too bad. I wasn’t.  I just hate hypocrisy and ignorance.  Especially in myself.  So in an attempt to get back to the lighter side of PolitiJim, here are my Top Ten Twitter Pet Peeves.  And if you don’t like you go to …Twitter.

10.  People who get upset if you don’t automatically follow back.
(A sure way to get Blocked. Now if I only had a way to disintegrate them as well.)

9.  New Twitter. Sucks, Stinks, Smells and actually makes me want to use Twitter LESS.  I’m sticking with TweetDeck. It just sucks less.

8.  Old Twitter.  But now I forget why I bitched about so much.

7.  People who lob bombshell invectives, but then wimp out discussing their view. (Don’t Tweet What You Can’t Complete.)

6. Eggs.

5. Latvian pornographers passing as scantily clad Kansas farm girls.

4. Latvian pornographers passing as scantily clad Kansas farm boys.

3. People who spend 20 minutes between replies in a conversation. (They must be killed.)

2. Conservatives who block you only because they disagree with you. Or that you disagree with them.  #lame

(But Twitlonger is even worse.)

Feel free to list yours. 

(I’ll spot you the “Tweets from PolitiJim.”  And if you were thinking this add lack of creativity to my peeves.)

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Stats Comparing Conservative Accomplishments of Newt and Mitt


It is terrible that conservatives are out there distorting the records of each candidate.  Or worse passing along wrong information without checking facts.  All of them have qualifications and disqualifications.  But can we get away from what they SAY they will do and compare what they actually DID when they were afforded governing power?

I was talking to a nationally published conservative author and speaker today who had absolutely no clue that Newt Gingrich gave the “keynote” rebuttal AGAINST Al Gore on Cap and Trade legislation.  This is a travesty not just of conservative media, but those we surround ourselves with who will only hear it from us.

Sorry in advance to those supporting Santorum and Paul.  For Florida at least, this is a 2 man race.   My apologies in advance for the lack of objectivity.  The more I read about how wildly Romney lies about his record (and distorts Newt’s), I realize I simply can’t address this without showing emotion.  But I am trying to give an ACCURATE snapshot of anything that could be considered conservative or liberal on both. (Read why the Founder of the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority was ready to lead a revolt against the GOP in 2008 if McCain selected Romney as VP.)

What are their biggest accomplishments ACTUALLY governing?

Mitt Romney as MA Governor:

  • 4 years as governor – 220 days absent his last year.
  • Scored a 55 on CATO scorecard of Governors.
  • Had a Democrat Controlled Congress.
  • Promised no new taxes and raised them excessively.

      In 2003, Romney actually set the record for the most fee increases enacted by a state, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. In addition, he raised over $300 million dollars from businesses by “closing loopholes” on subchapter S corporations but this loophole closing actually resulted in doubling the tax rates. Indeed, as Peter Nicholas, chairman of Boston Scientific stated, “when Mitt Romney became governor in 2003, subchapter S corporations that were owned by Massachusetts business trusts were taxed at 5.3 percent…..By the time Romney left office, the tax rate on these corporations had climbed to 9.8 percent.” *

  • Was 47th out of 50 in job creation of all Governors. If Katrina had not hit he would have been lower.  (RomneyCare cost MA 18,000 jobs alone.)
  • State spending ended $5.2 billion dollars higher when he began office.
  • He left a $3 billion $2 billion deficit via RomneyCare in unfunded liability.  (Romney also claimed he turned $3 Billion deficit into $1 Billion surplus. Truth is it was only a $1.2 Billion deficit cut with gutting education and raising taxes.  The “rainy day” fund ended up only being $77 Million surplus NOT a $1 Billion surplus.)
  • He spent millions on pork projects such as buying new cars for welfare recipients.
  • Initiated most liberal progressive socialized health care of any state in history.  50% (2010 poll) dislike it, and costs are higher than other states.
  • Allowed Planned Parenthood to be incorporated into MA law by name as part of the oversight of parts of the program.
  • A key MIT Economist and architect of “RomneyCare” admits it’s “the same f'***ing bill” as ObamaCare, and gave Democrats a blueprint.
  • Used executive orders to implement gay marriage
  • Romney spent millions of state money pursuing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and although they dumped it, then created the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan
  • 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.
  • He continued to grant state aid to four “sanctuary cities” in Massachusetts with no effort made to restrict this assistance. Contrary to his campaign propaganda there was no bill or effort to give drivers licenses to illegals that he “fought.”
  • One of his own endorsers (Powerline) admit, “…there is no question that Governor Romney’s initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term…Note: Said another way, he couldn’t even be fiscally responsible for more than  2 years.
  • As Chairman of the Republican Governors Association lost 6 GOP seats in 2006 election and 20 of 36 races. *
  • As Governor Romney Massachusetts GOP lost seats and local media castigated him for speaking ill of the very liberal programs he himself tried to work on with Massachusetts Democrats trying to portray himself as a conservative outside of the state.  Romney lost a net of 2 GOP seats in the MA Senate over his term and 5 seats in the MA House.

    Conservative initiatives?
  • Romney closed a $1.2 billion deficit when he took over as Governor, and reinstated most of the initial salary cuts in 2006 as the economy grew.
  • He consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission.
  • Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch’s press positions, saving $1.2 million. (yes million, less than the office supply budget).
  • In May of 2004, he proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%. He failed. Three times.
  • He pushed for legislation that increased the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits.
  • He forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and for new state workers to increase contributions from 15% to 25%.
  • He changed the state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.
  • He vetoed a “card check” system for unions.
  • He vetoed a minimum wage law.
  • The Economist summation of his Governorship.

Romney left office without running for a second term with approval ratings under 35%. 

Newt Gingrich as GA Congressman and Speaker of the House:

  • 33 years as Congressman including 4 as Speaker of the House
  • Lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 90%
    (most recent year was for 1998 at 100%)* **
  • He had a Democrat controlled Congress up until 1994, a Democrat President
  • Helped Reagan pass biggest tax cut in 50 years as Minority Whip, called out George Bush on breaking his promise and led (as a legislator) a Democrat President to do the same.
  • Art Laffer confirms Gingrich helped on a team that designed “Supply Side Economics.”
  • Supported/Championed policies that created 11 Million jobs.
  • National Taxpayers Union’s Annual Scorecard on reduced spending and taxes gave Gingrich an “A”, for his last four years in office, ranking him #1, #4, #2 and #11 and as one of the most conservative members in Congress.
  • Led a Balanced Budget initiative with a Democrat President. He did this AS A SPEAKER, not an Executive Branch Leader and not in control of the Senate or Executive Branch.  He balanced the budget 4 times creating the first SURPLUS in decades.
  • $400 billion in debt was paid off during time as Speaker, although Gingrich agreed with Reagan on deal that ended up running deficits until 1988.
  • Fought and defeated HillaryCare both in strategy, as well as political and legislative maneuvering.
  • On third try got a Democratic President and Senate to initiate Welfare Reform that put 60% of recipients to work.
  • Gingrich’s pro-life voting record is 98.6%, 70 out of 71 votes.
  • Brought two partial birth abortion bills to Clinton that served as the model for what was passed under George W. Bush.
  • He helped Reagan’s initiative to eliminate 12 of 94 programs and cut budgets of many others like the SBA more than 50%.  (Life Lesson: SBA grew afterward to over 10X it’s original budget. If you don’t eliminate a it, it will always grow bigger.)
  • He identified, recruited, campaigned for and helped organize the biggest minority opposition swing in US modern history getting 367 Congressional candidates to sign the Contract With AmericaThis resulted in a NET GOP pickup of 52 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate and 11 Governorships.  GOPAC founder Pete DuPont and Paul Weyrich both didn’t believe it could be done.
  • Multiple conservatives congressmen got their political start including:

      Jon Kyl
      Mike DeWine
      Jim Inhofe
      Fred Thompson
      Bill Frist
      Rick Santorum

  • Contract With America - (1995 Description): “…represented the culmination of 30 years of creative conservative thinking dealing with the basic social and economic problems of modern America. The ideas provided the background for the widest range of legislative initiatives, certainly since the 1930s, and possibly at any time in American political history.” 

    The ten items in the Contract were all acted upon in the first 100 days of the new Congress, which is what the signatories had pledged. Nine of the ten items in the Contract passed the House: Only the constitutional amendment on term limits (which required a two-thirds vote) was defeated. Out of a total of 302 roll call votes on issues related to the Contract With America, the conservatives prevailed on 299 of them. A balanced budget amendment passed in the House by a 300-123 margin but was subsequently defeated as it fell one vote short of the two-thirds needed for passage in the U.S. Senate. The overall margin by which the items in the Contract were passed averaged about 70 percent despite the fact that the Republicans only held a 12-seat margin over the Democrats (52-48 percent, the smallest House majority margin in 40 years). Given the notorious lack of party discipline in the American Congress, the passage by a large majority of nearly all of the items in the Contract was a remarkable achievement.

    I can’t adequately cover all 10 initiatives and their profundity but they include:
    • Congressional Reform including Congress being subject to the law they pass
    • Balanced Budget with Line Item Veto (failed Senate, passed Veto but declared unconstitutional)
    • Anti-crime package (truth in sentencing, more law enforcement help)
    • Personal Responsibility (ultimately became Welfare Reform)
    • Tax Package Including Child  Tax Credit, Elimination of Marriage Penalty, Savings Account, Middle Class Tax Relief
    • Disallow US Troops from serving under foreign authorites like the UN
    • Frivolous Litigation vetoed by Clinton but tort reform override veto.
    • Job Creation act included capital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

      Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance).

      The only bill that failed was Term Limits.
  • He is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint War Fighting course for Major Generals at Air University and taught officers from all five services as an honorary Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University. 

    His “Liberal” Legislation?
  • Voted for Department of Education with Carter in first term.
  • Supported Reagan in Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty Bill
  • Voted to raise taxes twice with Reagan.
  • Would vote for earmarks in exchange for conservative legislative votes.

When Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%.  When he resigned the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%.
(Now it is at 11%).


It is interesting how Romney is mostly lauded for conservative positions he never implemented, or was able to pass, when he was a governing leader and Gingrich is chastised for supposed liberal positions for which there is no voting record evidencing it.  When it comes down to what they accomplished when in power to govern – Gingrich acted more like a Conservative President, and Romney more like a Compromising Legislator.

Similarly, why there is no evidence that Gingrich ever voted against something he campaigned on, Romney broke numerous pledges to both liberals and conservatives in his state.

So I leave it up to you to conclude who is more likely to do what they say.

(If I have omitted any MAJOR legislation that was passed into law for either – please submit in CONTACT page so I can add it).

**Santorum lifetime ACU rating is only 83%, 84% for 1998 alone.   David Keene, who headed the organization during most of Gingrich’s 20 years in Congress, said Gingrich’s rating is high in part because the issues on which he deviated were not voted on in Congress, and votes determine the group’s scorecard.   While he’s not a conservative, he’s a partisan. He’s done a lot for conservatives. His speakership was basically conservative,” said Keene, who calls Gingrich a friend but is neutral in the 2012 race.  Keene gives no substantive fact for his assertion and doesn’t explain why Gingrich wouldn’t vote for non-conservative positions if indeed he wasn’t a conservative.  He similarly doesn’t comment on Santorum’s ideas that didn’t make it into law or Romney’s.

For more resources on Mitt Romney see:

KLSouth – The Romney Scorecard: RINO

CafeMom – The Dirty Little File on Mitt Romney

MassResistence – The Mitt Romney Deception

Obama’s False Docs Finally Entered in Court


After a terribly long journey by many who have since been smeared, ridiculed and even incarcerated – the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is both a usurper and a criminal has been entered as evidence into a United States court of law.  The country owes a debt of gratitude to attorney Orly Taitz for the persistence, tenacity and personal humiliation she has endured to succeed in this accomplishment.

On one hand, it’s only a tiny mustard seed on the scales of justice and in and of itself means nothing.  On the other hand, it is monumental not only in what it could mean to start to turn the tide of public opinion in the matter of his eligibility to be President, but in illuminating the light of truth in the midst of extreme corruption in media and government.

For those who didn’t know – Obama’s lawyers tried to get it kicked out, and then didn’t show.  Over the objection OF THE JUDGE.  I’m no lawyer, but I hear judges are funny when ANYONE questions their authority.

Taitz is the LEAST likely hero as is often the case in near-biblical tales, in her legal skill, reputation and even personal citizenship and pedigree.  But, she got entered into evidence today:

  • Expert testimony that the White House published a falsified government document (Hawaii Birth Certificate).
  • Expert testimony and evidence that by Obama’s own admission his father was not a US Citizen including INS documents
  • Expert legal testimony that the founders intended the President to be a natural born citizen by two US citizens and confirmed in Minor vs Happersett.
  • Private Investigation evidence that Obama currently uses a fraudulent Social Security Number
  • Evidence that the Democrat National Convention never certified the constitutional qualification for Obama to be President as the RNC did.

The most striking is the all for Hawaii to turn over the original birth certificate and if it is concluded that Obama is NOT a US Citizen, that he be deported immediately.

The full recount of the day here.

Partial excerpt follows:

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am  EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Continued here. It is a must read.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More