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.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Romney Hates You and Thinks You're Stupid

Yes, Romney hates you, the Republican voter, especially if you are conservative. He doesn't want to get off of his elitist perch and try to actually campaign for your votes. He thinks he is entitled to them (thanks to his pedigree and the fact he has been campaigning for 6 years) already and wants the elitists that he bribed with cash and future positions to reach out to you for him. To make the attacks and to actually do the physican campaigning. Haven't you noticed how distant he is from actual voters at events and how few interviews he gives (and when he does give interviews he seems to resent some of the questions)? And his comments yesterday really drove home how much he despises us:

It's very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We've seen throughout the campaign that if you're willing to say really outrageous things that are accusatory and attacking President Obama that you're going to jump up in the polls. You know, I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am.

Basically, he is saying "oh that Republican base, they are like animals. They are just too stupid to get me, they want someone to entertain them and show them something shiny. Well, I'm not stooping to their level." He seems to have the same view of Republicans as the mainstream media, who think conservative Republicans are a mass of unevolved cretins. That we don't like him purely because of his style. That just proves that he really doesn't understand conservative Republicans at all. We don't like Romney because we have absolutely zero faith that he will govern as a conservative. He has a terrible record in Massachusetts and has already said he wants to increase the minimum wage and tax the rich as President. It's also pretty clear that he won't repeal Obamacare, which is based on his own universal healthcare plan. Also, it seems weird that Romney is unwilling to really go after Obama given the merciless attacks he has leveled against his own fellow Republicans.

Which brings me to the real evidence that he thinks Republican voters are stupid. The actual content of his attacks on fellow Republicans are 100% hypocritical and anyone with any memory can see through them. Romney savaged Newt for supporting an individual mandate in the past, despite being the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to actually pass an individual mandate in their state. Attacked Newt for his plan to combat illegal immigration while at the same time not being clear how his plan would actually be different. He even accused Newt of funding abortions despite the fact that Newt has a 98.6% lifetime rating from the National Right to Life Committee while Romney was pro-choice for years. Recently, he attacked Santorum for voting for earmarks that he himself received and voting for No Child Left Behind, which he himself supported!

He probably can't wait until the nomination fight is over so he can pivot to the left and never have to deal with the hated Republican base again.

Cross-posted from libertarian neocon's blog.

Monday, February 27, 2012

PolitiJim Paranoia Over Sudden Perry Pillory


A week or so ago I got an email from a Santorum supporter in Texas, complaining that Rick Perry was not spending very much time in office.  It was originally reported in the very liberal Dallas Morning News, and the emailer grumbled about planned campaigning around the state for Gingrich in the upcoming primaries.  (There was no corresponding reference however on Mitt Romney’s 220 days out of office his final year of Governor by either the emailer or the news article.)

I have also seen very legitimate complaints about Perry’s reluctance to do anything about the pro-Sharia, Muslims schools being paid for by Texas taxpayers, but no allowance for Christian ones.  There have been numerous reports by PolitiChix, Pam Gellar and others on Nover Grovequist, who has been fronting Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the CONSERVATIVE movement.  And Grover is a good friend of the Texas Governor as well.  (And also Rick Santorum, by the way.)

But a story Sunday morning by the New York Times put my Anti-Conservative Conspiracy Meter on high alert.  It is a legitimate story on a double dipping governmental perk, but the bad expression photo alone editorializes a need to paint Perry with a bad brush.

But why now?  Perry has dropped out of the race.  With the Santorum Surge and Mitt’s Michigan moves, what purpose does this serve a NATIONAL audience in a major paper, at this time, no less?  There are no coincidences.

So the PolitiJim Paranoia has some proposed pretexts for this suspicious political ploy.

  1. Mitt Romney is already at work on 2016.  It has been widely reported that Romney began to undermine Palin’s 2012 presidential hopes with a PR group to smear her directly after the 2008 elections.  Although Perry isn’t up for re-election until 2014, he would need to be in full campaign swing by next year.  By encouraging others to run against him, it would be two ex-Governor’s running instead of an active one and a liberal one who only served one term.
  2. This is a preemptive Gingrich strike.  Perry is to head up a 10th Amendment project with Gingrich.  Don’t forget how many other conservative Governor’s initially supported Perry (like Jindahl).  He has pull.  And whether it is Obama forces who fear real substantial resistance from a unified group of conservative Governors or whether it is a Romney, Paul or (less likely) Santorum strategy – bringing down Perry’s negatives will make him less effective campaigning for Newt.
  3. Obama forces are about to escalate their Texas state skirmish into a White House war.  It is shocking that Texas and this Administration have had major showdowns this past year including: Coal plant closing EPA restrictions, TSA replacements at Texas airports, border battles and the recent DOJ attack on the Voter ID law.  Obama needs a villain for his class war strategy and since Allen West and Herman Cain are strong Newt supporters, perhaps he feels tying Gingrich to Perry with his racial epithet rocks and Southern hick canards. 
  4. The Obama Crime Plan? Maybe he’ll force a national showdown with Perry over Voter ID over “racist” Perry to attempt to invalidate the election results.  I know it seems far fetched, but remember how many subpoena's he has ignored, laws he has broken and unConstitutional actions he has brazenly flaunted.  Most of us suspect he is planning vote fraud on a national scale the likes never even seen on the South Side of Chicago.

Whatever the reason we must understand that this election is not only the most critical of our lifetime, but it will not be played by any conventional rules of politics past.  If I’m correct, there will be another major “hit” piece on Perry in the next two weeks.

And a final note about opportunistic Santorum supporters.  It is quite strange they are complaining about this now and not when it was clear to everyone he was in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa.  Most hypocritically is that they would not be passing any of this along if Perry had supported the PA Senator.  The Tea Party has a great many problems with Rick Perry.  He is NOT a strong willed, crusader against reform not even having helped to replace the RINO Texas Speaker who has sabotaged everything from banning sanctuary cities and the TSA to preempting the showdown with Eric Holder on holding up our Voter ID law during the critical 2012 election.  (Read how bad this guy is here.)  But as a successful Governor with 8 years of EXECUTIVE experience, charm and every bit as much conservative credentials as their boy Rick, they might show a bit more humility knowing Santorum would never have gotten the attention had Rick Perry still been in the race.

Can Santorum Win in Michigan?

I have to say I am relatively surprised by Santorum's resilience in the Michigan polls. After his rather unfortunate detour into the rabbit hole of his very social conservative views (attacking prenatal diagnostics, etc.), which even Pat Buchanan criticized, and his poor debate performance, I thought Santorum's bubble was going to pop. While it is certainly popping in Arizona and nationally, in Michigan he actually seems to be gaining some momentum in the last few days. In the latest PPP poll, he actually leads Romney by 39 to 34 amongst people who plan on voting on election day. It is only because of the 16% of people who have already voted, who break overwhelmingly for Romney, that Romney comes out with a 2% lead in that poll. It seems that if turnout is high, Santorum will win, if it is low, it will be Romney, who hasn't been doing himself any favors with his comments about his Cadillacs and just a general lack of excitement for his campaign.

The question is, why is Santorum continuing to do well in Michigan (and possibly giving Romney a loss in his home state) while he is doing poorly in Arizona, which also has a primary on the same day? I think the answer is just basic politics. He is physically campaigning in Michigan but is mostly skipping Arizona. Despite often coming across as very unlikeable to many, it seems that when people actually get to see him, as they did in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri & Colorado, and when he is not in Newt's shadow (who is campaigning with an almost identical platform), people really like him and come out to vote for him. Yes he has made compromises while in office, but unlike Romney, he admits his mistakes and rightly points out that he has a very conservative voting record considering he comes from a pretty blue state. He just comes across as honest, diligent and hard working. Sure, he isn't anywhere near as inspiring a speaker as Newt, nor as slick and prepared as Romney, but there is certainly some sort of x-factor with him that seems to be connecting. Romney's attempt at constant character assassination seems not to be working as well as in the past also. Perhaps people are used to it by now but also it could just be that Santorum is a pretty straight laced guy so slinging mud at him is particularly challenging. Unless you find that he did something obviously out of character for the image he constructed, like had a gay love affair, it's tough to get stuff to stick.

If Santorum does win in Michigan, all the pundits will have to eat so much crow that there will have to be a new addition to the endangered species list. His prior wins have either been in low turnout caucuses (IA, MN, CO) or in a non-binding primary where Newt wasn't even on the ballot (MO). To win a primary in a major state like Michigan, Romney's home state where his father was Governor, will show everyone that his base is far beyond just "bible beating" evangelicals. I would expect his national numbers to start to recover as they seem to be driven by momentum more than anything else. And a Michigan win for Santorum will be a big momentum swing in his favor. It would help him in Washington, which has a caucus on Sunday, March 3rd and then in quite a few states on Super Tuesday, March 6th. If he wins Michigan, he has a great shot at winning in Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee, leaving Romney with just Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia (where only he and Paul are on the ballot). Newt, unfortunately, even with a win in Georgia, would pretty much be crippled at that point.

I'm sure by this point many of you who have read more than a handful of my posts are wondering "hey, aren't you a Newt guy? What is up with the pro-Santorum post?" Yes, I am a Newt guy and have been very impressed with his campaign lately (just this weekend I watched him on Piers Morgan, at the CA GOP convention and at a Church in GA). He has found the right issues to focus on (like $2.50 gas and Obama's tasteless apology to the Afghan government) and I think is the most electable candidate in the field in the general election. Unfortunately, primaries are a lot about luck, momentum and scheduling and many factors can keep the best candidate from winning the nomination. I'm of the mind that if the 1980 electon were held today that George H.W. Bush would be the nominee. There was about 6 weeks back then between Iowa and New Hampshire and it took that long for Reagan to regain the momentum after losing Iowa. If NH was only one week later, he probably would have lost that one too and we might have actually ended up with a second term of Jimmy Carter in the end. So I am just being objective and realistic of what a victory in Michigan might mean for Santorum and to Newt.

Newt still has a chance. It is small but nobody really thought his souffle could rise twice, so who is to say it can't rise a third time? If Santorum is routed in Arizona, Michigan and Washington and Newt keeps pounding away so well on Obama as he has been, conservative voters might wake up to the candidate who so clearly is voicing our frustrations with the current administration and its actions. But for something to happen, it probably has to happen by March 6th.

Cross-posted from libertarian neocon's blog.

WashExam: Santorum Throws Up On Message


Washington Examiner is a MUST subscribe for conservatives (and has quickly replaced my Erick Erickson RedState morning priority.   In fairness I must say that I’ve noticed we share the sentiment on Santorum, but they make a very good point.  Subscribe to them here.)  They comment on Santorum’s new economic plan, or should I say, his uncanny ability to make any interview controversial.

This continues the thought I have been saying for 2 months.  Santorum will kill any chance we have to build the conservative movement by putting his religious and social views before what is important to

Rick Santorum should be talking about his economic agenda today. He has an op-ed titled, “My Economic Freedom Agenda,” in today’s Wall Street Journal laying out a perfectly conservative 10-point plan.* But nobody is going to be talking about it.

Instead, people well be talking about Santorum’s appearance on ABC NewsThisWeek, where host George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum if he stood by comments he made just last October criticizing President Kennedy’s speech on religion on politics. In that College of Saint Mary Magdalena speech, Santorum said of Kennedy’s speech, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”

Asked specifically about his use of the phrase “throw up,” Santorum replied:

To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.

Gross. Is Santorum running for President of the United States or president of the fifth grade?

Whatever you think of Kennedy’s religion speech, or whether, as Santorum claims, it said people of faith may not participate in politics, his rhetorical attack on it is downright disgusting. But more importantly Santorum is letting himself, again, be distracted by his culture warrior instincts. Here is how Kennedy actually began his speech: “While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election.” Kennedy then went on to list eight other issues before returning to the religion topic. Santorum should learn to do the same.

* Santorum makes no mention in his WSJ op-ed of his Obama-like manufacturing corporate tax loophole.

For those who have not read an objective, track-record based comparison of the candidates ELECTABILITY, CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT BUILDING and GOVERNING PROSPECTS, please click on the caps.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Can Mandated Pre-Abortion Ultrasounds WEAKEN the Pro-Life Movement?


I don’t know if I’ve ever had as many simultaneous conflicting thoughts and feelings as I had in learning that conservative hero Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has vetoed a bill requiring women to get an ultrasound if considering an abortion.

First feeling: REPULSION

My feelings for McDonnell began with a CBN 700 Club segment where I realized how radically he had changed the state of Virginia’s financial problems enacting conservative principles like tax cuts and severe curtailment of government spending.  Since McDonnell was a graduate of Pat Robertson’s REGENT UNIVERSITY I had assumed he was on the “social conservative” side as well and was already feeling a bit of “Nikki Haley betrayal” when he endorsed Romney.  When I first read the headline I was repulsed that another conservative had turned to the dark side and betrayed us.


My first read on this subject was a Libertarian Republican article that stated a typical libertarian view:

We, at Libertarian Republican, are officially agnostic on where this line should be drawn. We think of ourselves as both pro-life and pro-privacy. Indeed, we think the purpose of government is to protect us in all of our rights; although we recognize, in practice, that there are gray areas and conflicts, and we suspect there will never be a final reconciliation of these conflicts in this or other such matters.

Being open minded and wanting facts – not feelings or preconceived conclusions – to be my basis of judgment, I understood the point of privacy but my strong anti-abortion roots were firm and reinforced with this FIRST comment:


“What is the big deal to give people information,” I thought?  Surely this isn’t too much to ask in a society.  But, I was knocked off my social conservative stool with the third comment:



I really hadn’t considered this point before.  If we conservatives are for personal responsibility, doesn’t that include not using the force of government to mandate EVEN WHAT PEOPLE KNOW?  I thought of the great idea of how helpful it would be for smokers to have a visible wake up call to the difference between a healthy and tar stained lung which caused me to becoming a lifelong non-smoker in grade school and how that had kept me from the devil tabacky. (At least the cigarette kind – I was still a Beechnut and Skoal man in High School and College).

It occurred to me that the government could then require us to go beyond warning labels to whole indoctrination classes for whatever propaganda was in vogue for the party in power.  I further waivered with the next comment.



This question had a profound impact on me.

  • Wasn’t the use of EXECUTIVE ORDERS pretty much a second thought to us when Bush was in office, but is terrifying now?
  • Didn’t most of us (alive) during the Reagan years applaud a “Drug Czar” and now wonder how the heck Obama has so much power?  And why didn’t we complain MORE when Bush hired 33 of them?  (Obama is at 38.)
  • When most FDR’s entitlements were agreed to be “temporary” until people got on their feet again by the US public, and transformed into a “right,” why would expect this power to grow out of control? 

I could see how a precedent could be made based on the mood of the country.  None of us over 40 – even remembering the hippie 70’s - could imagine society EVER getting to the point where gay marriage could not only be legal, but accepted by a MAJORITY of Americans.  It certainly enforces the idea that:

Once government is given power over ANYTHING – it is nearly impossible to remove it.

Like the EPA (or any other government department) that once had a great role to regulate irresponsible businesses, they slowly become infested with socialist or statist bureaucrats who succumb to the seduction of needing even MORE power to justify themselves or their hidden agendas.  Undeniably ANY government power can be excessive and misused depending upon who is in power.

Fifth Internal Debate: WHAT THE HECK DO I BELIEVE??!!!

Now in fairness to the story, the rejection by McDonnell was because the ultrasound required a “transvaginal” procedure.  (I don’t even want to know what that is.)  McDonnell and the GOP rewrote the bill to not be “invasive” using more conventional methods to accomplish the same thing. 

But we are still talking about the STATE of VIRGINIA demanding:

  1. A Medical Procedure
  2. To Accomplish a (good) propaganda purpose

Is it just me or has anyone else noted that our courts have recently dictated that the majority of people in a state have no say in law against judges, that abortion and privacy is a “right,” and that you needn’t prove you are even a constitutional citizen of this country to be President of it.  Is it that far fetched that this “law” couldn’t suddenly be determined by a future Virginia court to mandate knowledge of the trials of single mothers or the ease of oral abortion?

I am not one who believes the Ron Paul whacko proposition of libertarianism that government should not try to prevent rampant drug growth in your neighborhood.  (And in fairness to Paul – he is only slightly off where Jefferson stood for most of his life, although contrary to Washington, Adams and Monroe.)

So I proceeded to ask myself the following questions:

  • Am I a hypocrite for disdaining government oversight of medical services everything else but abortion?
  • Where do I draw the line of what government CAN do?
  • What does the Constitution and Federalist Papers say?

The last question suddenly helped me put a lot of this into perspective.  If we had a decent Supreme Court, or a properly educated Executive Branch that would realize the court can NOT impose new “law,” the unborn would already have protection by the RIGHT not just to LIFE, but also to LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPINESS.

I will end with this thought: We certainly have no qualms about defending the citizens of this country by using it’s taxing power to equip an army to defend against the Pearl Harbor’s and 9/11’s.  We also feel justified in removing the rights of those who attempt murder upon those who breath outside the womb.

Is it better for the taxpayer to pay and force a drunk driver to go to school before he kills an innocent victim, or keep putting him in jail on every infraction until he actually succeeds?

I understand that it has now been thirty years since we thought Ronald Reagan would somehow see Roe vs Wade over tuned.  I understand the idea of using the liberal strategy of chipping away at legal foundations to move the government (and people) closer and closer to our goal.

At the end of the day – this isn’t giving Viagra through ObamaCare or free cell phones to illegals.  It is attempting to prevent the unconscionable murder of a living human being with thoughts, a heart beat and a soul.  And frankly I’ll take my chances with government power to prevent even one death.

But it reinforces the impetus to find candidates who will not allow fanatical pro-abortion judges to become Federal Judges, or appointed to the Appellate Court or Supreme Court.  It demands a renewed effort for a Constitutional Amendment.

But, if we simply would continue to pray and educate in our spheres of influence, perhaps it wouldn’t even be needed.

God forgive us, as a country for what we have allowed.  Our intellectuals laugh at the idiocy of uncivilized cultures that offered human sacrifices – and even our “Pro Life” politicians rationalize political expediency for political power.

Let YOUR Kingdom come, let YOUR will be done – here in America.  Move the hearts of the mothers and fathers to defend life with their own, and please have mercy and grace on us.

And most of all Father, please forgive me for not praying for the unborn every day.

God help us.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Objectively Comparing Mitt, Rick and Newt Part 2 - (Conservative Coattails)


Part 1 of an OBJECTIVE GOP COMPARSION dealt with ELECTABILITY.  This second part will discuss objective evidence of how they compare on


This is pretty easy if you look at what they accomplished while in office.  Talk is cheap and if it was currency in this presidential campaign it wouldn’t be worth much more than generic Charmin.

Romney: Lost GOP seats and sent GOP registration to all time low.  (You read that right.  He actually INCREASED the number of Democrats in his state.)  Romney does have the endorsement of an impressive number of GOP leaders  - RINO’s and “conservatives” alike.  However, he is able to buy loyalty as his PAC has done with numerous politicians like Nikki Haley.  So there’s that.  Unfortunately we have no record of him being able to do it with Democrat legislators.   And his shunning of the heroes of the 2010 elections is a practice, it seems, of someone other than the Amish, since Romney has endorsed almost every non-Tea Party candidate up until he was running for office.

Santorum: Not only did he loose his race to a Democrat by historic margins in Pennsylvania, he was the #3 leader in the Senate and the Chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus lost over 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats giving the entire Congress to Democrat control.  As Wikipedia says:

The Democratic Party won a majority of the state governorships[6] and the U.S. House and Senate seats each for the first time since 1994, an election-year commonly known as the "Republican Revolution." For the first time in the history of the United States, no Republican captured any House, Senate, or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat.[7]

He has won more caucus states than he has gotten EXISTING congressional leaders to endorse him, which tells you how highly thought of Santorum will be of those that will have to pass his legislation.   One reason for this disdain is that he only distributed EIGHTEEN PERCENT (18%) of the money he collected from donors to help get conservatives elected – to ACTUAL candidate races.   He did endorse Doug Hoffman in the famous NY-22, but not only refused to endorse Tea Party candidate Rand Paul over his Mitch McConnell RINO competitor – he also slammed the Tea Party in the process either confusing them or smear them with a Ron Paul association.

This is an interesting exchange. RedDogReport SLAMS Santorum for (again) NOT supporting the Tea Party candidate Chuck Devore over Carly Fiorina.  Many of us were extremely disappointed in Sarah Palin for doing so – and the fact that Nikki Haley sold her support to Mitt Romney for a PAC donation proves that Sarah has some consistency problems on endorsing conservatives also.

Can someone tell me again how Gingrich gets slammed for temporarily endorsing and reversing a GOP candidate in a New York district and yet the guy who keeps undercutting conservatives by endorsing RINO’s like Arlen Specter and Christine Todd Whitman is the “true” conservative?

Santorum’s negative Trifecta: a terrible track record of helping conservatives over RINO’s; playing Scrooge with GOP campaign money; and, losing his own PA seat and the Senate in 2006.

Now in his defense he WAS extremely helpful in raising money for other Republicans.  Not through his PAC, not through endlessly mentoring younger political prospects, no.  By Lobbying.  Tom DeLay style.  This BusinessWeek article cites numerous sources saying that although he didn’t lean on lobbyists the way that sent DeLay to prison – it was clear what he wanted.  And despite his pretense that he had nothing to do with it now, he told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

“The K Street Project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town,” Santorum said, according to a November 2005 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story. “From my perspective, it’s a good government thing.”

I’ll just let the BW article make my point about our party’s most principled conservative:

A year later, Santorum disavowed the project during his 2006 re-election race as he faced fire from Democrats who said it was part of a “culture of corruption.”

“We don’t have a K Street Project,” Santorum said, according to a Washington Times report in January of that year.

And although we don’t have similar tales of Santorum developing public servants who might become the next Jim DeMint or Paul Ryan he did create jobs:

…at least 23 of Santorum’s former aides left Capitol Hill to become lobbyists, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political giving.

Gingrich: The worst slam against Gingrich is the lie that he was “thrown out” of the Congress because he lost 5 House seats (zero Senate).  That alone is far more successful in political seats lost even without comparing approval ratings.  When Gingrich left office, the Congress he engineered had a 60% approval rating and it was the only time (besides directly after 9/11) Congress has EVER broken 50%.  And that would give Gingrich the firm edge without considering these accomplishments by Gingrich:

  • Engineered Conservative Opportunity Society with Paul Weyrich that coordinated a strategic conservative attack on the liberal congress for the first time in the modern era.
  • Personally took down Jim Wright of Texas as the Democrat Speaker of the House risking his entire political career.
  • Despite reservations by the ENTIRE GOP party, Gingrich set in motion a plan to create a permanent conservative movement.
  • Took over GOPAC and created a conservative training system parts of which are still in use today.
  • Delivered more money than any congressional leader before him.
  • Engineered Contract With America and took control of House for first time in 40 years on the par of the historic Benjamin Disraeli.
  • Passed extensive conservative legislation while GROWING Congressional approval for the GOP.
  • Presided over the greatest influx of Republican voters in history during his leadership as Congressman, Minority Whip and Speaker.  Note: Gingrich markedly IMPROVED the GOP favorability even over Reagan’s historic levels.

One of the most notable examples of how effective his leadership was is observing Congress after he left.  It reverted back to the RINO policies of old,  unwilling to stand up to George Bush 43, and running up trillions in debt.

Do I even need to go into the various public speaking and political efforts Gingrich did to battle ObamaCare, Tarp, support Palin against attacks by Obama press when the other candidates weren’t giving press interviews?  Why even summarize the obvious?

While Rick Santorum was withholding support from Rand Paul and falsely smearing him with his father’s followers, Gingrich was ORGANZING tea parties like this:


Comparison of Tea Party Statements

(Santorum’s statements are not edited here to show the originating question about libertarianism, but does clearly show him criticizing the tea party via that element, saying NOTHING to support it, and supporting the RINO McConnell candidate against the Tea Party candidate.)


I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  Obama didn’t magically morph into anyone other than who he had ALWAYS been as an Illinois state and US Senator.  George Bush didn’t magically become Bill Buckley, Jr because Karl Rove put a Ronald Reagan Halloween mask on him with a Milton Friedman voiceover. All of these candidates have very clear records of what they did previously despite WHATEVER promises they may make.  The fact that George Bush 41 promised “no new taxes” after (we thought) he was converted by basking in the reflection of Ronald Reagan, PROVES we can not trust ANYTHING they say.


The track record of each has been covered extensively as in our Mitt v. Newt article and Santorum pro and con.  I especially like Steve Deace’s comparison of Mitt vs. Newt and Chuck Norris’s comparison of Newt vs. Santorum.  But let’s be brutally honest.  POLICY is important to Mad Prez Skillz but is ridiculously worthless if that Executive can’t:

  • Communicate effectively (Bush on Iraq)
  • Get bipartisan support (Obama on …everything)
  • Defend negative attacks (See Bob Dole/John McCain as campaigners)
  • Effectively RUN government (Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama)
  • Is Perceived as being honest with Voters (See Nixon)

I think we can safely say BASED ON WHAT THEY’VE DONE, that the policy wise Romney will be RINO, Santorum will generally be conservative but bigGER government and Gingrich will try to continue the Reagan legacy.  Their respective tax/economic proposals will be covered later here on PolitiJim but if “where the treasure is there their heart is also” it is a GREAT insight into who they really are:

Romney: Complex 59 point tax plan that is more conservative than current plans and will create enormous difficulties to get it all passed because of it’s complexity and potential politicking with lobbyists. (Wall Street Journal deems it “timid.”)

Santorum: Some pro-growth elements that will do nothing to reform the tax code, revenue imbalanced and likely impossible to get through Congress.  This is primarily due to using the government to incentivize families and other “conservative social engineering” by tripling child credits. (The Tax Foundation D+ analysis).

Gingrich: Art Laffer endorsed “bold” flat tax plan liked by CATO, Heritage, WSJ and Forbes.  In fact, Forbes believes it is the best possible plan among the candidates. It is derided by Kiplinger, EPI and others as “unrealistic.”  (Funny, the same thing was said about Contract With America and a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.)  It was especially ironic to read the Kiplinger Letter critic who said “not much” of Contract With America was implemented.  Not only is this factually and horrendously wrong, can you imagine what would be accomplished with any other politician who didn’t even try?  Welfare Reform putting 2/3rds of welfare recipients alone make this a foolish and irresponsible statement.  My take: Every plan meets resistance.  If you aim for the stars, you’ll hit the moon.  If you aim for the barn, you’ll hit the ground.  It seems a lot of these groups want to aim for the ground and will end up shooting themselves in the foot.

leadership Leadership Management

Romney: Seemed to run a good company at BAIN Capital.  Although we now know that public money helped make the Olympics a success, the bottom line is he still turned it around.  In Massachusetts, he had two seemingly good years fiscally before giving up and spending 220 days out of office his final year running for President.  He manipulated the government by Executive Order to implement gay marriage and engineered (with same people who did ObamaCare) RomneyCare.  He can get things done, except numerous conservative items like tax cuts he couldn’t get passed.  Bottom line; he knows how to manage people to the point where Washington DC would enjoy some minor course corrections but would basically end up Bush 3.

Santorum: This is tricky because his only record is of a very good lawyer, legislator and lobbyist and the only executive positions he held were on boards of companies that had “issues” and a charity that couldn’t give straight.  He is in many ways a more experienced Barack Obama who has never really managed any operation or implemented any LARGE idea as an executive.  He knows a lot about making laws and quite a bit about foreign policy.   And we suspect that is exactly what we would get:  A lawyer who thinks that passing legislation is “leading” without any real vision or strategy.  While he might even have a bold idea (despite attacking 999, Michelle Bachman/Jim DeMint’s “hold the line” and other "grandiose” ideas) – it seems he is almost too much of a pessimist to motivate others.  I don’t think it would be fair to say the crew would throw him overboard, but I don’t think he knows HOW to do major reform by leading a country and a group of egotistical politicians. 

Gingrich: He was so effective in managing, leading and implementing as Speaker that Time Magazine called him a defacto executive.  He will be the bullseye of Soros, MSM, the Democrat party and probably even comedians – but then again, what Republican hasn’t been?  He did engineer an amazing feat with a Democrat President and Senate and we literally have no one else who has done the same.

Commander in Chief and Crisis Management

Romney: He oversaw the Massachusetts national guard which is probably about as extensive as the first mob uprising at Faneuil Hall.  He has interacted with post 9/11 security concerns with the Winter Olympics and knows how to manage and make decisions.

Santorum: Rick Santorum has met 3 Commander in Chief’s.  Having oversight of Foreign policy isn’t the same as leading or managing troops let alone creating architecture of battle or even armed services preparation.  The good news is that if the military didn’t turn on Barack Obama, it’s a good chance Santorum would make it through his presidency alive.

Gingrich: The longest lecturing professor at the War College including a 30+ year span of training Admirals and Generals.  A student of military history and strategy since being drug around the world with his army father and family as a little boy.  He reads military strategy FOR FUN and is friends with people like Benjamin Netanyahu and other world leaders.

GeoWashingtonPortrait BEING PRESIDENT

Of course the final issue involves intangible issues of communication and execution of presidential duties.  Romney and Gingrich have shown they are competent leaders.  Santorum simply hasn’t been in that position yet to grade him.

Somewhere in the bag of skills we see the need for a combination giving hope for America to make bold steps while reassuring them that “change” won’t be the Obama brand.  They need to not give in to political pressure like George Bush 41 did on tax increases while still being able to cut the deals you could as was the “magic” Heritage founder Paul Weyrich saw in Newt Gingrich as Speaker.  There has to be a “leader” quality we saw in George Bush 43 during 9/11 with the ability to keep in touch with the American people as Bill Clinton despite his numerous personal troubles.

Romney: It was interesting that Romney used the word “resolute” to describe himself in the last Arizona debate, since the hundreds of clearly documented flip flops show is ACTIONS to be anything other than politically expedient.  In fact, he clearly lied about not ordering Catholic hospitals to dispense the morning after pill.  So if by “resolute” you men firmly committed to say whatever it politically expedient – then sure.  Since Michael Jackson’s “BAD” is good and “wicked” is somehow supposed to be excellent, perhaps he is just a victim of cultural confusion.  We already see how our allies have disengaged America because of the same proclivity of our President and I think many of us have a right to be concerned about his trouble in telling the truth.  My take: Romney would have be as strong and directional as the current political wind as he was in Massachusetts.  I see him EXACTLY like John Boehner was during the debt ceiling debate where he would talk tough – then immediately capitulate to the old Establishment without having the resolve as Jim DeMint and Michele Bachmann did to “hold the line.”  These kinds of people score quick political victories but have no true core or sense of purpose to keep guiding people toward the right goal – since their goal is only to follow the people – not lead them.

Santorum: I have an “Apology to Santorum supporters” coming later this week since I feel I have been extremely harsh on the past Pennsylvania Senator.  I see the warning signs that the Wall Street Journal discussed yesterday, and actually feel he would be stronger on conservative values than Romney, but without any remote ability to communicate his ideas and gather support around them.  The fact he can’t even get more than 3 congressman to endorse him EVEN NOW THAT HE IS THE FRONTRUNNER is a terrible warning sign of acknowledged leadership problems.  My take:  I’ve hired my share of employees in business over the past 20 years including some who started major corporations and ran them.  You get a “sixth sense” about capability after getting burned a few times that differentiates “doers” from “talkers” from “BS’ers” to “safety first politicians.”  There is ALWAYS negatives in everyone’s past.  If you don’t make mistakes you never learned how to handle to risk.  If you never learn how to handle risk – you either are foolishly risky – or to protective and get nothing meaningful accomplished.  Santorum is one of those guys I’ve hired that is a bomb that will absolutely explode in your face at the wrong time.  Could you get lucky?  Yes.  But the dire state of the world, the nation and a blank slate generation will either have something to aspire to, or fall further into cynicism or socialism – if they don’t see conservatism and capitalism work.

Gingrich:  I like that Newt Gingrich doesn’t promise he won’t make mistakes.  That is a huge sign of maturity.  I like the fact that he isn’t afraid to talk about going to moon to try and recapture the imagination MY GENERATION grew up with that turned disinterested troublemakers into engineers and responsible adults.  He’s actually DONE everything we need to be done economically, in government reform, in inspiring others to our cause and even in slowly moving those who don’t want to toward the RIGHT goal.  Moreover, he’s been planning this since he was 15 years old.  And teaching it to people like Rick Santorum whose first instruction in politics came from Newt Gingrich.  It is interesting to go back to those who knew him during and after his position as Speaker of the House.  The GOPAC founder, the Moral Majority founder, even some who support Romney out of convenience (or bribes – we don’t know) all agreed that the Presidency was the correct place for him all along.  The slam of the Democrats when he was in power was not just that he was acting like the President – he was being more effective than theirs!  Imagine what would happen if he actually had the job.

Is Romney the anti-Santorum Candidate?


UPDATE:  Much thanks to Libertarian Neocon who looked up the underlying data on the YouGov/Econ poll. 

In the words of Emily Latella, “never mind.”

The poll detail (PDF) actually shows Santorum beating Romney in a head to head match up.  This fits with what we have seen all primary season, that Romney is unacceptable to the majority of GOP voters so far.  Here is the current poll for all candidates:


And here is the head to head with Santorum and Romney in a 2 way race (completely contradicting the YouGov chart and editorial below)


However – there is MUCH more interesting data on social issues and voters that we will cover in another upcoming post.  Suffice it to say – Santorum is still on a roll with GOP voters.

Much has been made of Willard Mitt Romney’s inability to crack the nationwide 25% GOP nomination ceiling that seemed to indicate the entire primary was the race to select the “anti-Romney.”  These voters are also known as the “Non-Roms,”  “DitchMitts,” or “WillardWont’s.”

WillardMovie This makes obvious sense, since those of us who remember the movie “Willard” have enough anxiety about psychotic Presidents in real life without one named “Willard in the White House.  That is not fair, of course, to the former Massachusetts Governor, and if my parents had branded me with such a given name I’d be more than willing to revert to a first name of a baseball glove but also.  At least his middle name wasn’t “Wilson” or “Spaulding.” 

A new poll out by YouGov confirms that Santorum is now the clear front runner for the GOP nomination and has a very interesting additional tidbit. 

A majority of the GOP will not vote for Rick Santorum.


Now many had a consistent narrative (including yours truly) that the party simply wouldn’t abide by a fake conservative like Willard Mitt. Especially not one that would lie about manipulating a state into accepting gay marriage by executive order or one who couldn’t achieve anything higher than a 47th place ranking among Governors in a time of low unemployment and decent national economic growth.

What the heck did we know?

I mean, did any of us envision a sweater wearing, anti-culture Senator who as a Senate leader lost the Congress to the Democrats just a few years ago?  (Yeah – that’s my excuse too.  It would be like projecting the geriatric Madonna would be the star of the Super Bowl halftime show.)

I’ve been screaming the past few weeks for conservatives to realize two things:

  1. Rick Santorum is neither a “true” conservative, nor “principled.”
  2. Rick Santorum is the nightmare candidate for the GOP.

Wall Street Journal’s Dorthy Rabinowitz (yesterday) observes:

It's not only that a certain body of Santorum pronouncements on social issues exists, and that they're of a sort that large sectors of the American electorate find unpalatable, to put it mildly. Or that he continues to add to them.

By the time Democratic researchers apply themselves to this compendium of Mr. Santorum's views—in the unlikely event that he becomes the Republican nominee—it's size will have doubled, at the least. The Republicans have already provided President Obama with high-value gifts this election year, but none nearly as delectable as the prospect of a run against Mr. Santorum.

She goes on to quote just a few quotes from the Pennsylvania pseudo-priest including his comments on JFK, contraception, women and the very disturbing defense of gay priests.  Santorum supporters will be quick with a counter argument to rationalize each of these.  Santorum himself is now quicker to explain his gaffes.  The explanation normally begins with “what I meant was…”  But like fake box office winners or fake Iowa straw poll results – you can’t get back the impact of the first perceived impression.

I am unsure of how to reach my fellow fundamentalist friends who have been stupefied by the (supposed) saintly Senator.  They don’t seem to understand that religious conservatives make up less than 22% of the population and less than 50% of the Republican party.  They don’t seem to understand the lessons of Goldwater Republicans that “being right” has nothing to do with persuading other Americans to join them or winning elections.  They also don’t seem to understand how to reasonably project how a Santorum CANDIDACY would play out.  (I just argued in the second part of a 2 part series that based on ACTUAL past track record the scenario’s which are most likely.)

GingrichReagan There certainly are circumstances where “popular opinion” is wrong.  The Democrats always held that a Hollywood actor couldn’t get elected (both in California and nationally.)  Even the GOP leaders laughed at a single term Georgia congressman with too much fat and sideburns that he could orchestrate a usurpation of liberal control of the House of Representatives.

But Reagan had intelligence and charm that outweighed the “lightweight” political presupposition of his opponents.  Gingrich understood the mechanics of popular opinion on 10 issues ALREADY massively popular with the American people and organized them as a lead blocker for an entire freshman class of GOP conservative players (including a little known lawyer named Richard J. Santorum).  But Wally Cleaver has none of Regan’s warmth and grand fatherliness and his very visible religious convictions (many that I also share) are not just unpopular – they are divisive to a vast majority of Americans and those that persuade them.  And unlike Gingrich, he isn’t inspiring them to his viewpoint to be better, he is chiding them like little Catholic schoolchildren.

There is evidence that this “anti-Rick” sentiment is being proven out as Michigan voters are being introduced to Rick by his campaign, the antagonistic media and his opponents negative ads.  Romney has jumped back to a 6 point lead.  Unfortunately as rational voters realize that Rick is a rhetorical ricochet away from giving the Democrats their dream campaign disputant, it may fall to conservatives to rally around Paul, Gingrich or Romney to stop an endless campaign about contraceptives and Christian canon instead of jobs and judicial reform.

Those who truly care about not giving Obama a second term, and radically reforming government, had better buy a clue that they are putting their personal insecurity of needing their religious values reaffirmed over the best options for the party.  Or the country.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Objectively Comparing Mitt, Rick and Newt Part 1 - (Electability Based on Track Record)

gty_santorum_romney_gingrich_debate_thg_120119_wg At the risk of interrupting the Christian conservative fantasy dream, I am going to dare to be OBJECTIVE in comparing Romney, Santorum and Gingrich on what REALLY matters to conservatives.

Despite all the chatterboxing and punditry, we will extrapolate our expectations of their qualifications to be our nominee and President based on their past actions – not words.

We can only pray that those who claim “our only objective is to replace Barack Obama” are not in positions of authority anywhere else and make such shallow decisions.  What good does it do to beat Obama and then end up with George Bush 41 or 43 that would continue to grow government?  Likewise, what good does it do to elect someone we perceive will be “conservative” if they can’t beat the Democrat Presidential Nominee to have the chance to govern?

There is a balance of qualities we need to address, namely:

This Part 1 will deal solely with:


Electability has two parts.  First, getting a majority of the GOP voters to gain the nomination, and secondly getting at least 20% of the Independents or Democrats despite the sand blasting by billions from the Obama Campaign and the MSM.

ROMNEY (aka MODERATE MITT or as Santorum called him in 2008 - The “true” principled conservative)
I think we all agree that Romney has a great chance of winning the GOP nomination if “real” conservatives remain split.  Despite protests of many fellow friends (and my own vacillating opinion)  I do agree that the GOP isn’t going to vote for anyone else and Mitt’s past liberal flaws become benefits among Independents and Democrats who have two or more brain cells.  Yes, RomneyCare is a problem but if Romney is able to still win a GOP primary in Florida, do you really think Independents and open minded Dems will be harder on him than Obama?  Probably not.

Romney is the best at competing with money and organization of all of our candidates and will have a ton of surrogates to argue his (our) case in the media.  As he has in GOP debates, he can survive a punch pretty good with a series of good looking smiles, slight of hand slickster responses and well timed lies.  There is no doubt he can beat Obama, but if it is close, his campaign and values don’t fit the UCLA government analysis that “big ideas” win close elections.

The idea that Romney will play better with Independents on things that hurt him with conservatives is likely very true.  But conservatives likewise never fully went after him on Bain layoffs, and statements like “I like to fire people,” and “I don’t care about poor people.” These were non-deductible gifts to President Obama and his new SuperPACS and will become common knowledge by anyone who owns a TV.

SANTORUM (aka RELIGIOUS RICK or as the gay community calls him…  - actually I can’t print that here.)

Dan Riehl (who’s blog I subscribe to and Twitter account I follow religiously) – made a severe error in his post suggesting that because Santorum’s current polling is at 40% among the GOP,  his “electability” argument is over.  (And if you don’t agree, GO Pee yourself – or something was his argument).

Of course you could have made the same claim about Bachmann, Perry or Cain.  Time and attention have a way of changing perceptions when either new “facts” are brought to light or we witness the candidate in the role as the leader we were expecting to see if they measure up.  Obama was elected because the mainstream media protected him from scrutiny.  It is my contention that Santorum is leading because the conservative media is doing the same, burying stories of his embarrassing comments and not really looking at his pro-union, pro-bigger  government, pro-GOP Establishment record.    Despite the Club for Growth’s very reasoned analysis of warnings and virtually NO history of reform he initiated, conservatives ridiculously overlook far worse infractions of Rick’s “conservatism” than anything close to what Newt did.  CG says:

As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues”

If  the Conservative press keeps artificially making excuses they will get stuck with a non-executive who will do what he’s always done. Be at the front of social issues without any real inner core of reform.  Don’t believe me?  How about the fact that he was AWOL on TARP, ObamaCare, and even stabbed prolifer’s in the back by making it harder for protestors to picket the VERY thing he was supposed to be for.  He touts Welfare Reform but was originally against Jack Kemp’s idea to get rid of it totally, and then championed a version that House conservatives deemed “an expansion” of Welfare Reform.  I am equally as befuddled at supposed “principled pro-lifers” who don’t even dig deep enough to find out why the Pennsylvania Right to Life did NO canvassing for him 2006.  But yes – if the conservative media mafia like Limbaugh, Malkin, Ingrahm  and Levin continue to overlook the sins of their priest of perfect – and keep screaming he can beat Obama  - Santorum will be much like George W. Bush.  (Without the executive, charisma and leadership skills.)

So can he beat Obama?  Despite positive assertions by my friends that have been wrong on just about everything else in this primary, we just don’t know.  Part of the reason is because he was JUST beaten 6 years ago in a bell weather state that supposedly had ALREADY vetted him and knew him well.  (The war argument doesn’t hold since his competitor also was for the war and a “bad year for the GOP” doesn’t explain why 3 other GOP candidates defended their seat ok.)  Al Gore’s defeat somewhat suggests in a close race the economy might not even win and if you think the mainstream was hard on Bush – just wait until their gay mafia forces fund and accentuate EVERY statement, vote and affiliation he’s had through their lens.  We DO know that hypocrisy alone can kill a candidate’s chance.  Santorum has a BUNCH of problems there, in his charity, personal giving, cover up for other congressional adulterers and even the gay priests. 

He can argue ObamaCare all he wants – but sitting on the board of a Healthcare MegaCorp that was ripping off Medicaid while he was there can’t be nuanced through a mainstream media lens.  Be as blind to this as much as you want conservatives, Santorum is a FAR weaker candidate in a general election than ALL of the other candidates, including Paul.  We do not own the culture – and we can’t get it back by telling people we should. 

If he continues to tell “whoppers” like this, he wont’ even be able to argue against Barack Obama.  Here he tells an audience that we should worry about ObamaCare because in the Netherlands 50% of the elderly are euthanized – which was TEN PERCENT OF ALL DEATHS!

(Washington Post fact checker found it was less than 2.5% of all deaths and only 0.4% could potentially have been against their own wishes.)

Dick Morris writes extensively this morning on these problems and while he (somehow) maintains that Santorum could beat Obama he discusses Santorum’s inability to stray off point:

And there is a flip side to his idealism -- stubbornness. He clung to his defense of the Iraq war throughout his 2006 race for reelection, refusing to flinch even as the war's popularity took a nosedive. Santorum's friends will tell you that he is loyal to a fault and consistent even at the price of political disadvantage. While admirable traits for a friend, they are not necessarily conducive to winning the presidency.

Morris has proven no soothsayer selecting Romney in South Carolina and other things, but we clearly agree on one thing, there is a much larger element of risk in running Santorum against Obama than others.  The inevitable negative ads and scrutiny have begun.  I’d bet rupees to Ricky’s that articles like this Washington Post article – will do even worse to Santorum’s poll numbers than what they did Gingrich.

Newton Leroy Gingrich (aka the Newtster or the Pennsylvanian-born Dough Boy)

Gingrich has shown (twice now in this cycle’s national polls) that there are circumstances where people will get behind him as the GOP nominee.  He has been a victim of smears by people who we used to trust (Malkin, Levin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc).  Oddly, nearly everything that was thrown at him from the Paul Ryan issue to the Reagan issue turned out to be absolutely 100% false.  Marianne Gingrich’s damage was proven not to be serious either politically or factually but there are some that just don’t believe in the redemption of Jesus Christ despite the life of King David and Newt clearly changed life of the past decade plus.  For him to get out of the primaries, it will HAVE to be due to a Santorum fall.  Too many ego’s and prides are involved for a majority of GOP supporters to admit they didn’t vet Santorum closely enough.  But if that happens – Gingrich frankly is the only TRUE conservative.  Except for his pre-Reagan and Reagan-backed votes of the 80’s, he never voted to increase the debt ceiling or give unfair advantage to unions over non-union employers as Santorum did.  I don’t see any reason that he couldn’t “stick” in a long fall.

Of course, running against a corrupt, Democrat incumbent is what Gingrich has been successful at his entire life.  Where conservatives freak out about a TV ad with Nancy Pelosi when global warming science was NOT discredited,  the public won’t care.  In fact, it will make him seem MORE acceptable to them – that he will work with others.  He certainly has the ability to battle in the mainstream media, debates and with ideas and “looks” Presidential – unfortunately the final determining factor for a large number of Independents.


It seems Santorum has the best chance to get through the primaries if the the conservative media continue to cover up who he “really” is as the press did for Obama in the general election.  It’s really like Rock, Paper, Scissors.  Santorum cuts Gingrich, Gingrich covers Romney, and Romney smashes Santorum IF AND ONLY IF the negative ads do to him, what they did in Florida and Iowa.

And if Santorum survives the initial scrutiny, he can clinch the nomination but likely will struggle in a general election where he is too far “right.”  Romney could likely do as well in a general election, but is too far “left” and his nomination chances are in jeopardy.

Of the general election candidates, we’ve proven with Dole and McCain moderates don’t work.  An incessant beat that Gingrich was responsible for creating the environment for 11 million jobs, a balanced budget and reforming Washington not only might win – it will put a glaring light on every weakness of Obama.

Part 2 – What evidence does each candidate give from their track record of:

  • Creating and enlarging the conservative movement (and elected officials),
  • Governing in a conservative, reform-minded manner.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

3 Million Registered to Vote in Multiple States


I would first like to thank all of you who registered and helped proof the signatures on the Scott Walker Recall Petition project (Verify the Vote) which has been an absolutely amazing modern day digital minutemen movement.  I can tell you there were not ANYWHERE NEAR the 1.2 million signatures they said they had – but don’t know specifics yet.

Ever wonder how Rahm Emanuel won Mayor of Chicago even though the courts initially decided against him, and polls going into the election showed him losing?  They stole the vote.  And Obama is planning to do it on a NATIONWIDE scale.

Please read this letter I received from Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote discussing MASSIVE evidence of MoveOn trying to steal this upcoming election.

True The Vote (please enable images to view full-content of email)

Dear PolitiJim,

Imagine liberal, extremist, big government groups back in control of Congress, with no common-sense Constitutional conservatives to veto their worst bills.
The election is months away, but this scenario could definitely happen, and here's a big reason why: “Nearly 2 million dead Americans are still on active voter registries, and 1 in every 8 registrations in the United States is invalid or has major inaccuracies, according to a new study” by the Pew Center on the States (TheHill.com, Josh Lederman, 2-14-12). Liberal extremist groups like the George Soros financed MoveOn and ACORN are going to try and steal this election again with a massive voter registration and resulting fraud.

Must Show
ID to Vote

Seventy percent (70%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% oppose this kind of requirement.

Additionally, the Pew report stated last week that almost 3 million Americans are actively registered to vote in multiple states, while about 12 million have old or error-ridden addresses listed on their registrations, including empty lots and the like. But we can't stop there and we need to do more to STOP the"Chicago-politics" machine from stealing the election at ANY cost.
The bad news is that United States Attorney General Eric Holder has used the Voting Rights Act to block one of the best GOP voter integrity laws in South Carolina. But the election won't be decided in South Carolina–and to continue the Soros-socialist agenda at ALL costs, Holder will keep going.

With the election approaching, we don't have much time to fight to preserve our most precious freedom - the sanctity of our votes and ballot integrity. So we're aiming to raise at least $100,000 this week to continue our grassroots campaign for voting rights. Can you chip in $10?

Yes, I can give $10 to help stop the unethical attack on our voting rights!

Last August, three voters in Wake County, North Carolina, were charged with voting twice in the 2008 presidential election, apparently for President Barack Obama. In April, a member of the executive committee of the NAACP in Tunica County, Mississippi, was convicted on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots and sentenced to five years in prison. She voted in the names of six other voters, as well as in the names of four dead voters. There are pending indictments of city council members and an ongoing grand jury investigation of ballot fraud in Troy, New York, over a 2009 primary involving the Working Families Party (Heritage.org - Without Proof: The Unpersuasive Case Against Voter Identification, Hans von Spakovsky & Alex Ingram, 8-24-11).

Here's our plan: First, we'll team up with the leading citizen groups in each state–great organizations like the 9-12 Patriots.

Then, True the Vote will organize events to empower these despicable attacks on voting integrity and ballot security, while also being a vanguard against voter fraud at every level. Voting is one of the most sacred rights in our democracy. But unethical groups know that if they can inflate even 1-2% of turnout among these key voting blocs, it'll be enough to tip the scales in race after race.

These laws are there to protect ALL taxpaying Americans their voting rights. What’s more, as Mike Brownfield of the Heritage Foundation noted on 12-21-11; “... surveys of registered voters show that requiring a photo ID to vote would not be a serious problem. An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID, and a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only '23 people in the entire sample–less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters' were unable to vote because of an ID requirement.”

The 2012 election is coming up fast, so we don't have much time.
Can you chip in $10?

Yes, I can give $10 to help stop the GOP attack on voting rights.

Donate Securely

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Catherine Engelbrecht,
True The Vote President

P.S. Our small staff ensures that your tax-deductable contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More