The First PolitiJim Broadcast – Vote Santorum

I’ve had it on my mind to bring PolitiJim into audio and video recently, and this is my first attempt.

Frankly, I hate it – but you tell me what you think.  Don’t worry.  I’m a big bird…(yeah ha ha), but seriously – you won’t hurt my feelings. 

Discussion point:

How much Santorum and Romney suck, but why we need to urge people to vote Santorum in Pennyslvania.

The news is that Santorum has dropped behind again in the polls there and (finally) someone had the gonads in Pennsylvania to say what PolitiJim has been documenting for 2 months.  Santorum is a big fat honking lying sweater vest.  This from a guy who has known Santorum his entire political career and is intimate with nearly everyone who has been connected to Rick through the years.

No word from Malkin, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Levin, Ertelt at LifeNews or the NUTSS in Texas (that means you Donna Garner and Alice Lanihan) who have tried to prop up the Pennsylvania Prevaricator. 

And yes.  If you are still in PA, vote for him.

Let me know how you like the show.  All constructive criticism is appreciated.  Even, “oh my God, never do that again.”

Special thanks to @MrLTavern at Mr L’s Tavern who gave me the idea for the format (albeit a very poor bad reflection from his.)  If you want to see how it’s REALLY done.  Subscribe to him here.

The First PolitiJim Radio Show

Read More

A VIDEO Comparison of Thin Skin Sins of the Candidates

In the first video, the reporter (who is off camera on most clips) responds to Rick’s rant.  You determine if the reporter seems to be provocative or the baiting-type.

Then watch interactions Romney/Gingrich have had with reporters.

WHO IS MORE PRESIDENTIAL?

Rick Santorum

PolitiJim covered extensively how the bullying was noted by key Pennsylvania leaders and even played a part in the turn of the Tea Party types against him in 2006.

Here Santorum tries to blame Joe Scarborough (who tells Rick 3 times he agrees with him) that he is playing “gotcha.”  Is this thin skin sin?

 

Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich

I know – you think i’m going to be easy on him right?  Wrong.  I tried to find the WORST example of his.  Still, listen to the difference in tone.

My favorite:

WHO sounds more Presidential?

Hint.  It’s always the person who isn’t threatened when facts are on their side.

Read More

Continuing Debate on Rick-Mitt Unelectability

Mark America brings up a good point for debate.  Who is more UN-electable?  Mark’s take is this:

PolitiJim, Romney is simply unelectable. See my latest on Suicide by Romneycare. Santorum is at least as able to defeat Obama as Romney, and perhaps more so, precisely because he isn't neutered on the biggest issue Republicans have: Obamacare.

Like you, I think Newt is the best of the three, but until the electorate discovers this, we're in for tough times. I think that "Etch-a-Sketch" did basically ensure an open or "brokered" convention, in which case Santorum will not get the nomination, but there's a fair chance it won't be Romney, either.

In this sense, I look at Santorum as a viable vehicle to a brokered convention where Newt's smarts will serve him well. I remember, for instance, that at CPAC, apart from Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich got the biggest applause and the most enthusiastic response of any of the speakers. In a brokered convention, the ability to deliver like that could be key.

So if some conservatives wish to remain on the Santorum train for now, I don't mind, because a.) I see him as better than Romney, and b.) because he helps prevent Romney from obtaining 1144.

In a complete shock to the 15 people who actually know of PolitiJim in the blogosphere, I have a response to his response.

---

Hey Mark!  (everyone follow @MarkAmerica and subscribe to MarkAmerica.com - GREAT Patriot!)

In answer to your post, I don't see the evidence support that Santorum is more electable than Romney.  We have to look at this NOT from a conservative perspective - but from an electoral one.

It is the relative strength going into the brokered convention that I am worried about.  A very weak (under 15%) Gingrich doesn’t give him any power.  A strong Santorum (anything above 35%) gives him enough power in my opinion to successfully challenge Romney in a floor fight with the 60% anti-Rom vote.   Romney’s campaign has already conceded they won’t get 1144 so in my opinion we are battling for strength of SANTORUM going in, not strength of Romney.  EtchASketchy’s advisor, I think, guaranteed this and I can’t see Romney galvanizing enough support from those of us that are appalled by who he is and what he would be.

RomneyCare won’t hurt him in a general election since Obama would have to argue AGAINST RomneyCare to make it a negative for him with general electorate.  Romney’s biggest liability will be his Wall Street, Thurston Howell impression which he will combat WITH RomneyCare to show he cares.  I agree it gives him ZERO high ground against Obama on the issue, but I don’t see it as a negative for him as he lies convincingly on the stump it was a “state’s right” issue.

But’s let’s talk about ELECTABILITY of the two.  And as I said, I don’t see the objective basis to think Santorum could beat Obama.  Here’s why:

Money and organization are important.  In comparison to Obama on both, Romney wins hands down.  Even with MONTHS to prepare - Santorum couldn't even qualify for 18 districts in Ohio and I forget how many in Illinois.  Neither will compete on money with the former Illinois Senator Felonious Skunk  - so it comes down to :

Message.  Romney is terrible.  Santorum is worse.  Objectively I don't see how anyone can argue that.  On the unveiling of his economic plan, Santorum had to jump into the contraception thing all over again.  (At least EtchASketch wasn't Romney but an adviser).  And Rick didn’t learn.  Just days ago Rick said “The issue in this race is not the economy.”  And he was kind enough to the Romney campaign (and future Obama campaign) to provide a 2fer, by saying , “I don’t care what the unemployment rate is going to be.  It doesn’t matter to me.”

Put a half a billion dollars in ads (and another $20 billion in free media coverage) behind that clip and the 44% of Americans who have no opinion of Rick Santorum will.  And Rick’s not exactly the guy to create a good second impression.

Gingrich's message carried SC but was buried by Romney money in FL.  Same happened to Santorum in Illinois.  (It only took 7-1 to bury Rick and 22-1 to bury Newt) But at least Romney has a bazillion surrogates to get media attention.    Santorum however is DESPERATELY hopeless of EVER getting off of his ridiculous social issue quicksand and while a few conservatives  who vibe to his shrill judgmentalism thinks he is inspiring NO ONE ELSE does!  In a period where the social issues were forefront and he should have shinned during the Catholic attack by Obama - HE FELL BY 20+ points!  So he couldn't even articulate a message that was IN HIS FAVOR with a mass media that gave him a forum.

Meanwhile (for the record) a third place candidate totally unnerved the White House and set the national discussion on $2.50 gas.  but that's another discussion.

So on message - although neither has ANY real ground breaking platform to push - I'd have to give the edge to Romney because when he screws up, he lies better than more convincingly than Santorum and doesn't have the social lightening rod.

Leadership?  What has Rick done to convince the voters he can lead?  Romney's got MA Gov and Olympics (despite the holes WE are aware of).  Rick's been a historically unpopular legislator, lawyer and lobbyist.  Even my marketing company couldn't make that brand sell.

Which leaves us with actual statistical evidence.  My post earlier showed that while half of the GOP felt there was too much "religion" talk in the campaign, something like 72% of Dems/Independents did.  We can't just brush off his historic 2006 loss.  In a state that knew him publicly for 12 years - he b*tch slapped back to Virginia by PA voters.  Why?  Hypocrisy, Lies, Self-Righteous arrogant....what Dick Morris said was a "uniquely unlikeable personality."

At the end of the day, it is the 20% to 25% of NON religious, NON conservative voters who likely will judge NOT on policy, experience or leadership - but on PERCEPTION.

And Thomas Sowell wouldn't bet "rent money" on the ability for Santorum to distance himself from his extreme religious image of suddenly DOING what he said over the years, and using government to suddenly peep conservatives into everyone’s bedroom.  To me this is why Media Matters is gleeful over Operation Hillarity and why the White House has held their fire from Rick for the most part. 

The enormous open house of Rick lies and hypocrisy would be never ending.  Bush was able to raise his “dumb Texan” barely enough to beat Al Gore only because (I think) people had enough of Bill Clinton.  I’m not so sure with a faked 7% unemployment and faked 4% GDP Obama will have that yet.

So I probably disagree that Romney is more unelectable, but agree that it’s all about the brokered convention.

And in a note of reality to ALL of us Gingrich fans, Newt DOES have a severe woman problem.  The perception in the mainstream of being a philanderer is a very real one and I’ll post the polls next week.  It can not be ignored by the Gingrich campaign.  If the truth about Obama’s gay lifestyle, forging documents and the charges against Obama’s gay sexual harassment at Harvard become widely known it will a non-issue, but Gingrich won’t get himself dirty with it and there is no evidence even the CONSERVATIVE media is willing to touch even OBVIOUS evidence of non-personal issues on Obama.

If those issues are not brought up it IS possible to recover from your negatives as Hillary did during her primary campaign.  She went from high negative 60’s to low 30’s and by every indication since ALL of this is old news to America, he’s got no where to go but up.

And finally on our beloved Sarah, yes.  She is positioned VERY well to step in although don’t count the Romney/RINO machine from beginning to sink those positives back into the 20’s or 30’s if they see her as a threat with an upcoming convention.

I’m finally come to turns that most people don’t have the time, or are too lazy to figure out the REAL story on each of these candidates.  No matter how much you argue how successful Palin was in Alaska there are some that simply won’t take the time to believe it. 

This is why I’m relying primarily on prayer.

And Oh Lord, help us.

Especially from ourselves.

Read More

If It Came Down To Romney or Santorum

I’ve started to hang out at Intellectual Conservative.  At times they are neither, but at least they present fairly objective viewpoints.  An article speculates on why Santorum is the last man standing.  I’m less interested in those arguments than his concluding paragraphs:

So the GOP is left with the last non-Romney – whiny, unaccomplished Rick Santorum. He has no executive experience, a less than endearing personality, no sterling political accomplishments in his résumé and is easily painted as an extreme social conservative. Romney will probably eventually prevail – his Illinois victory this week is more of a harbinger than Santorum's two southern victories last week. But if Rick somehow does manage to secure the nomination, it will be a calamity – for the GOP and for the nation. Not only will he lose to Obama, he could jeopardize GOP control of the House and enable a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. A second administration with the same parameters as in Obama’s first two years could have dire consequences for America: skyrocketing taxes and spending, Greece-like deficits and debt, Obamacare fully implemented, Cap & Trade, and so much more – gigantic steps toward converting America from a freedom-loving republic into a collectivist, Euro welfare state, impotent in foreign affairs and slavishly dependent on an increasingly tyrannical federal government at home.

Romney is no Reagan. But he is conservative America’s best chance to defeat Obama. And even if he doesn't, the ticket he will lead should retain enough handles on the government to forestall the nightmares outlined above and give traditional America some reason to hang on for a while longer until a Reagan-like savior finally appears.

I agree that Santorum will guarantee an Obama victory.  After the 4 part vetting of his REAL record and what the MSM will use against him I am now more scared of a Santorum nomination than a Romney one.

And not because Romney will make a decent conservative President.  Paul Weyrich forsaw how evil Romney was after initially endorsing him in 2008.  But at least he has a shot to beat Obama.

And what will it get us?  …A weak version of Bush #3.  Clearly there is no desire to completely get rid of all of ObamaCare or initiate great reform.  He will get some corporate tax cuts which will revive a sluggish economy but in 4 to 8 years the GOP will not have cut enough and caved to the emotional terrorism of the left & MSM and some bright Democrat star will likely hold it all against him.

How do i know?  Because EVERY President ends up being the same person they were before REGARDLESS of rhetoric.  Romney's own endorser (Powerline) admits he gave up on MA fiscal discipline at the end of his 2nd year.  In a GOOD economy, he was 47th in job creation and implemented the first broad based government healthcare takeover regardless what he wants to say.  Bush 41 could "say" NO NEW TAXES all he wanted, but he did what he does.  Bush 43 could "say" how conservative he was but he had the EXACT same record of undisciplined government growth he had in Austin TX.  They will be WHO they are.

Paul would cut the hell out of government and ignore Israel and nearly every international threat.  Santorum would capitulate to every compromise just as he did as the #3 leader of the Senate which spent about $800 Billion and lost control to the Democrats.  Gingrich would pass the items that had the most support first - like repealing Obamacare, NO TAXES would ever be raised, he would be HUGE in international and military matters and likely (again) implement historic cuts and conservative causes with a bunch of mumbling wussies who will later backstab him.

All are better than Obama, but one has to get elected first.

My personal opinion is that the Romney Etch A Sketch episode ensured a brokered convention.  The chaos in current events coming will either ensure a 2-1-1 split until then or bury Santorum.  Rick’s tongue is proving to be the Tesla coil of catastrophe and certainly can’t be quieted for two more months.

Santorum people won’t settle for Romney and I doubt Romney people will settle for Gingrich.  Paul’s people will likely miss the convention due to a late night hash fest in Suite P.  It really doesn’t matter what deals the candidates make since Tea Party people didn’t come this far to end up with someone either unelectable or unreliable.  I like Newt’s chances in a floor debate or speech to become the nominee.

Read More

PolitiZo Knows: Forget Mitt, You Capitalists Like Rush Limbaugh Will Lose the Election

 

You’ve heard what Romney said, what Rush said about what Romney said, and the mass conservative “groupthink” on what this means.  Leave it to a conservative brother AlfonZo Rachel (my aka – PolitiZO) to be “keeping it real up in here.”  Starting with the bashing of the Bain beating – Limbaugh, Levin, Malkin and most conservative bloggers have shown why they keep losing the cutlure war.  To recap:

This from the man who suggested that Newt Gingrich might say something to embarrass the GOP on the campaign trail:

I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

And if that wasn’t enough, 10 seconds later the Quarter Billionaire with Cheese reiterated:

I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.

We will hear from the Democrat (sic) party the plight of the poor and there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those who are very poor.

And possibly because ex-Governor Romney missed getting a gift for our beloved President he continued:

You can choose to focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.

Rush points out this isn’t Romney’s first observed symptom of the dreaded “foot in mouth” disease common in political figures like Joseph Biden.  But Rush continues to hit Romney from the stereotypical far right saying:

The ‘safety net’ is one of the biggest cultural problems we’ve got. We had better be worried about it just like we had better get angry over ObamaCare. ObamaCare is worth getting mad about. Mitt said that it wasn’t. …The safety net is contributing to the destruction of their humanity and their futures.

I’m not sure which is worse.  Romney’s CNN clips trying too hard to be a “conservative” or Rush implying that we should now start advocating to get rid of ALL “social nets.”  

I think the Obama team will have a dilemma.  In choosing whether to feature Romney or Rush in their first $100 million ad run.  

It is crazy how some think the idea of completely eliminating every government department, social program and illegal immigrant will merely sail through Congress like a resolution to honor American football.  In addition to being simplistic, they simultaneously quash any constructive debate.

As I wrote in a rather confrontational piece to the (normally) insightful heroine Michelle Malkin, many don’t even see how hypocritical they’ve become.  Let’s call it Ann Coulter disease, named after the former anti-liberal crusader who argues that the 2nd most liberal initiative of any Governor in US history is a reason to elect the same man she told us couldn’t win a few months ago.  Malkin hopefully only has the 48 hour version.  If you accuse the man who refused to do ANY mudslinging during the first 12 debates (and even defended his co-competitors against attacks from the media), you can’t suddenly call him Saul Alinsky when the candidate your backing has shown zero class in creating divisions from debate number one.

We send so many mixed messages, the American public must think we are the Miley Cyrus fan club.  We talk of how principled we are then tear down our own.  We claim to understand OBJECTIVE FACT and then we take the first piece of propaganda that fits the bias for or against OUR candidate, and we pass it along as fact.  And I blame a lot of the CONSERVATIVE media.  Not just Coulter, but Limbaugh and Levin as well.  It’s great to get paid to flap your gums and flex your oversized personality, but patriotism may not make for great programming.

As we covered here during the Bain debacle:

1. Gingrich was NOT attacking “capitalism”
2. As Enron has proven, not all “capitalism” is good.
3. Our founders built our form of government for those who would use self-discipline. (THEY called “greed” a sin not a campaign slogan.)
4. Increased regulation exists from abuses of capitalism. (No one needs laws to protect companies from dumping chemicals in Lake Erie if those corporations had been responsible.)

And if you defend Bain and Romney, not only are you teaching people NOTHING about why they should appreciate wealth-creators, you are helping to elect Barack Hussein Obama for a second term.  Has no one been keeping track of the not-too-subtle planned escalation of OWS against “Wall Street” and the Obama surrogates who started the class and race warfare last fall?  You really think DEFENDING Venture Capital is something that will get through to the 30% of the electorate we will need and who will never listen to Hannity or read HotAir?

I am NOT saying we conservatives should compromise.  Au Contraire. (That’s French for No Friggin Way.)  But look how Reagan and Laffer sold supply side economics.  They gave data. They sold the hope of every person to be successful and not need help.  And then stood firm while it kicked in.  A 1984 forty nine state landslide didn’t come by a cute campaign slogan.  People SAW that what we predicted came true.  And Reagan was rewarded with another (two) terms – extended by his Vice President.  What are WE teaching America so far?  Given all the headlines of the GOP primaries, here is what the public can ascertain about Republicans:

• It doesn’t matter how you earn your money.  Gordon Gecko is our new Party Chairman.
• The former leader of our movement who was responsible for the greatest sweep of conservative legislation in history, is morally deprived crazy man who can’t control his own thoughts.
• The one potential candidate we had who actually reduced her state government spending by 25%, while reforming corruption, is great to get the “little people” excited.  God forbid we should let her try to do what we need and support and defend her on a national level.
• We truly respect women, unless they try to like – want to run the country or something.
• If a candidate falsely accuses another of being a racist, or our campaign staff sends out a memo that women are unfit for office because of their gender, or as bloggers we falsely slander good Christian tea party women running for office – no need to apologize.  We are above all that.
• We love big bold, economic and tax reform, unless it’s big bold and actually reforms the IRS (or better than the one we propose).
• We are as courageous as the soldiers behind George Washington at Valley Forge unless our candidate gets falsely accused more than twice.
• Successfully governing a major state, from a conservative standpoint, is a great resume enhancement unless you need to be judged upon your ability to answer complex questions in a 30 second sound bite in a forum akin to political Jeopardy.
• We are mostly conservative Christians that believe in the Bible.  But there is absolutely no mercy, grace, love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness or kindness for our fellow Christians who have repented for their past sins like King David (adulterer/murderer), Moses (murderer/God disobeyer), or Peter (flip-flopper/disloyal betrayer). 
• It is especially important that instead of telling Americans what we would actually DO if in office, we so love our GOP brother or sister that we must broadcast, embarrass and demean them to people who already dislike us.  (See, that helps us later when we run against someone really despicable like Obama.  Who will do the same thing.)
• We absolutely, under no condition, will never ever never break the contract we have with seniors, because we care and love them so much. But, if you came across the border directly following the country giving amnesty to everyone who was already here, we want to embarrass you as badly as possible and rip you from your children and grandchildren just to show you how damn tough we are. (We aren’t capable of being nuanced.)
• We are the defenders of truth and integrity (as opposed to those evil liberal Democrats) but are allowed to totally distort any position, policy or vote as long as it smears and ridicules our fellow God fearing Republican running against us.
• God forbid we should actually acknowledge the good points of other GOP brothers and sisters in the race. (Except for the one person who has been praising his competitors from day one.)
• We are so concerned with the Marxist-in-Chief getting re-elected that we will vote for anyone unless it is the one GOP candidate we just can’t stand.  In that case, we would rather help our country go to hell so that we can make a political point and then somehow, miraculously, everyone will THEN want OUR candidate who couldn’t win in the normal election process.

It is about time conservatives especially wise up.  More importantly, it is about time for conservatives to grow up.

The brilliance of Ronald Reagan was not his conservative core.  He ran as a populist ESPECIALLY appealing to blue collar workers.  If a pure conservative outlook was all it took, the candidates would be seeking endorsements from former Presidents Goldwater, Kemp, DuPont, or Duncan Hunter.  Santorum may want to second guess the greatest conservative legislative achievement in the past 100 years because Newt didn’t put in any “social” issues like abortion. Gingrich, however, who had been studying and teaching war strategy, made sure the “Contract With America” only included issues that ALREADY had 70% support of the American people.  Therefore, when he pledged to pass it in the first 100 days, as FDR did (nice research Glenn Beck), he didn’t need to worry about extensive electorate education and building support for each initiative.  It’s not just being conservative, it’s understanding how to engineer a majority to enact something the people are READY for.  There is a SKILL and mechanics to IMPLEMENTING a view you hold.  Plus that whole leadership thing.

On things like Medicare and Social Security reform that he and Jack Kemp have been planning since the early 80’s, they’ve been trying to find a way to get enough support to ease people off the statist teat.  So called “true” conservatives who want to cut off 46% of the American public from their government addiction will quickly find the druggie getting violent if they try to change them too fast, too much.

And it might help not to tell someone who has no rational decision making capability that once you take over control you will take away all of the thing they THINK they can’t live without.

(Sorry there is so much hear til we get to the Great ZO, but finally you should be ready to understand where he is coming from)  Watch ZO, and we’ll discuss:

(h/t TheRightScoop)

His quick points:

• “Capitalism” is a term that has natural negative response in liberals.
• You are hitting a brick wall by using a term they won’t accept.
• Capitalism does NOT mean creating wealth. (You can make wealth in socialistic societies too.) 
• “Capitalism” is not the same as Free Markets.
• It IS the RIGHT to keep your own money.

It might shock Gingrich grumblers that the "father of capitalist thinking," Adam Smith himself never used the term “capitalism.” He described his own preferred economic system as "the system of natural liberty.  Liberty or personal freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority."  *

And one more fascinating idea to consider:

The word “capitalism” does not appear often in Supreme Court opinions. Further, nearly all the references before 1950 are pejorative, appearing in first amendment cases involving the right to make statements attacking capitalism as an institution. Examples include United States v. Debs (1919), where the defendant attacked capitalism as a cause of war, and Abrams v. United States (1919). In addition, Justice Louis D. Brandeis used the term occasionally in dissenting opinions to speak about the evils of uncontrolled capitalism (Liggett v. Lee, 1933; Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association v. United States, 1925).

I’ve made the point before that 11% of the US own a business.  Only about 30% ever will in their lifetime.  THAT LEAVES 70% who don’t have a “love” for creating money as a business, but relate to income creation at the discretion (or obligation) of an employer.  TV shows like OFFICE and THIRD ROCK aren’t popular in lampooning managers because there isn’t some sense of resentment or jealousy.  Why do we as Republicans expect these people to suddenly want to embrace an ideal that they don’t believe applies to them?  Is there anyone that didn’t get ripped off by a company they worked for?  We should be AGREEING that all those who lost their retirement at ENRON was wrong, while showing that government take over of companies screwed pensioners even worse.

Evangelicals finally started to learn this about 10 years ago.  They used “church words” like ‘repent’ to try and reach sinners.  Even the word “sin” means nothing to someone who doesn’t have a basic grasp of Christianity or Judiasm.  They were shocked, when they just stated being normal people, building relationships and being ready to help – that suddenly opened another level of acceptance of people to start thinking about the whole “Jesus” thing.  My favorite is the church in Ireland that sends all of its’ congregants to buy the first round at the nearby tavern for those preferring soccer over things spiritual.  Fastest growing church in town.

Instead conservatives (you Republicans join in if you want to), need to hold our core values as a compass, but realize that a huge portion of the American population need to be won over.  Not just with talk and logic – but with faithfulness and integrity. 

Remember Boehner’s and company “Pledge for America?” First they were too gutless to ban earmarks.  Second, they reneged on the promise to post bills online for at least 3 days prior to voting. And then there’s that little matter of the promised $100 Billion in cuts that turned out to be $35 Billion in cuts that turned out to be basically nothing at all.*  I’m not so sure I’d trust that statement Boehner made in December that Newt wasn’t as conservative as people think.  Unless of course by “conservative” you mean “two faced spineless liar.”  That description might fit another politician who will go unnamed.

We might need to EARN BACK the trust of the American people like, well, what Gingrich did as Speaker where he passed 9 of the 10 of his campaign promises within 100 days.  You know, back when 60% of the American people trusted Congress instead of the current 11%.

Limbaugh WAS right about one thing today on the Florida exit polls.  They mean nothing when your opponent had 65 political ads on for every one of your own.  And Romney’s money won’t save him against Obama where he will be at a 4:1 disadvantage.

They DO mean something if money will win the day.  But we have examples from 2008, and a myriad of Senate races that money alone can not overcome a sincere message.  Funny thing is against an OWS and class war attack – It is Gingrich and Paul who stand the best chance of beating Obama.  All you have to do is look at Santorum’s yet unvetted congressional afterlife to see that Newt’s Freddie Mac looks like a free Big Mac compared to the lobbying entanglements of Santorum.  But it does no good for people to be completely distorting Rick either as this tweeter did:

Even Romney, of whom there is ample evidence of severe character issues, deserves respect for most of his business and Olympic experience as well as his ability as a father to raise, what seem to be, well grounded and educated children.  Can’t we point out that he has held numerous positions inconsistent with his actual GOVERNING record, without acting like Bill Maher?  I don’t see how we can deem it “negative campaigning” to simply state that he tries to hide his complicit proactive initiative in introducing gay marriage into Massachusetts and is lying when he says the Supreme Court forced him to do it.  I would even add that that I am convinced he has had an epiphany on abortion.  I just don’t have a track record of legislation or government leadership to verify it.

When George Will calls Gingrich a Marxist, Malkin ignores her guy’s endorsement of a rabid pro-abortion Senator who was the deciding vote on abortion-funding ObamaCare but slams Newt for an eventual “unendorsement,” and Liberal-slayer Ann Coulter not only slanders Newt Gingrich but tries to push RomneyCare as a conservative initiative – something is terribly, terribly wrong.

Why the hell would people want to become like us?

ZO is right.  What we’ve been doing ain’t working.

 

Read More

The Importance of the South Carolina Primary Result

It really is amazing that just a week ago, Romney was 2-0, Huntsman was dropping out and his "moderate" supporters were supposed to flock to Romney, Romney was polling 10 points ahead in SC and about 25 points ahead in Florida. Fast forward to today, literally just 7 days later, Romney is 1-2, Huntsman supporters clearly didn't flock to Romney, Newt won SC by 12.6 points and is now leading in 2 Florida polls by 9 points.

I realize this is partly par for the course in what has been a very volatile race where Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich were all front runners at one point or another before a single vote was cast and now we've had 3 contests and 3 different winners. But I think the result in South Carolina was especially important for a several reasons:

1. The Romney electability argument is in tatters. The only real argument I ever heard for why we should nominate Romney is that he is the most electable in the field (it's not like they could point to his record in Massachusetts). If you want to beat Obama, he is your man. It doesn't necessarily feel that way right now does it? If you add this year's contests to his electoral record, he is now 6-19. To put that into perspective, that is a worse record than both the Buffalo Bills (10) and Cleveland Browns (7) have over their last 25 contests. You'd actually have to go down to the St. Louis Rams, who are 5-20, for a worse record. Perhaps nominating a 1 term Governor who left with a 34% approval rating isn't the greatest idea?


2. It's clear that money and organization are nice but it is better to connect with voters. Romney really does seem like the second coming of George H.W. Bush, complete with John Sununu. Like the elder Bush, Romney has a horrible time connecting with voters, not really being to understand what makes them tick. In 1980, Bush ran on his resume and by spouting generalities of what he would do as President. Romney seems to be using the same playbook. Can anyone remember any part of Romney's 59 point Bain Consulting powerpoint presentation pitch, errr, I mean plan? With Newt, you remember that he wants to institute a 15% flat tax and get rid of capital gains. He also points out specific things that he would do to help the locals wherever he campaigns. In South Carolina, Newt kept talking about the I-73 corridor and the Port of Charleston. In New Hampshire, he would talk about being able to provide power to Boston without hurting New Hampshire's natural beauty. In Iowa it was ethanol. It really is nice when a national politician comes into your town and instead of giving some canned speech that he could give 3,000 miles away actually does show that he cares about the local citizens. Newt was also able to connect very well in the debates. People are upset about the state of things and want someone who shares that feeling. Newt capitalized on this feeling just as Reagan did at the debate in Nashua, NH when he resurrected his flailing campaign by yelling at the moderator "I paid for this microphone Mr. Green". As George Will wrote back then: "Americans are getting angry and seeking authenticity, and Reagan gave them authentic anger... When Reagan is aroused he is the most effective campaigner in living memory." (Side note: This quote came from Rendevous with Destiny by Craig Shirley, an excellent chronicle of the 1980 campaign, definitely pick up a copy).

Romney seems to be able to get angry at Perry not letting him finish a statement in a debate and Perry using edits in Romney's own book against him but other than that he seems to be about as passionate as toothpaste. That's okay if your opponent is a technocrat like Mike Dukakis who wears a shirt and tie in a tank and can't seem to get upset when asked in a national debate "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Not so okay if your opponent is a Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or even a Barack Obama.

Oh and one more comment about Romney and his seemingly over-rated organization, if it was so good, why did he have to bus in BYU students to populate his rallies? Wouldn't actual citizens of South Carolina have been better?

3. Romney continues to not get any benefit from candidates exiting the race, even if they endorse him. Remember when Jon Huntsman left the race and endorsed Mitt Romney? The conventional wisdom is that these voters would go to Mitt Romney as he was the other "moderate" in the race. That doesn't seem to be the case as Romney's favorability seems to have done nothing but go down since that endorsement (perhaps Huntsman gave him the cheese touch). It actually looks like some of the Huntsman supporters went to Newt, according to this Byron York piece. The same thing seemed to have happened this summer when Tim Pawlenty got out of the race and endorsed Romney. His supporters seemed to go anywhere but. I guess the point is that if you wanted to support Romney you would have done so already given the mindless support he receives from the Republican establishment.

4. Turnout Showed That South Carolina Voted for Newt with Conviction. Turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire were pretty low, both down around 10% from 2008 if you adjust for the surge of Democrats, Independents and stoner college students who added to Paul's totals (turnout was up only 2.5% in IA and 6% in NH if you include everyone, pretty disappointing considering the Democratic race is noncompetitive and just out of sheer boredom turnout should increase). Conversely, turnout in South Carolina was up a whopping 35% and still up 21% if you adjust for the Paul voters. A low turnout election victory is a lot like a stock or the stock market going up on low volume, yes it is moving, but without any conviction, so it won't take much to reverse course. From this point of view, the Santorum victory in Iowa, where he won with less votes than Romney received in his disappointing showing in 2008, and Romney's victory in New Hampshire were won without conviction on the part of voters. No wonder neither "victor" received much of a bounce in the next race. It's pretty clear from the South Carolina vote totals that the base is very excited about Newt right now and couldn't wait to cast their votes for him.

5. According to the exit polls, there are no obvious kinks in Newt's victory in South Carolina. Sometimes you can look at exit polls and figure out that a candidate won because of a disproportionate vote amongst a certain subgroup, like Santorum winning Iowa due to his victory amongst evangelicals in an evangelical heavy state. In South Carolina, Newt's victory was as almost as complete as you can make it. Newt won among both men and women (so much for affairs hurting him), all age groups over the age of 30 (under 30 went to Paul), college graduates and those without college experience, all income groups under $200k a year (representing 95% of the exit poll sample, so much for his "insulting" comments on the poor), Republicans AND Independents, and anyone who considers themselves at least somewhat conservative. Romney, on the other hand, was able to carry graduate students (by only 2%), those making over $200k (somehow only connecting to the top 1-5% of the electorate doesn't sound like a winning strategy, mathematically, in a democracy), moderates and liberals (by only 3%) and pro-choice voters. Essentially the voters who tend to vote Democratic in general elections. It looks like voters understand something that the National Review doesn't, that Romney is an elitist moderate of mushy ideals.

Looking forward to Florida, based on these numbers, Newt seems to be in a good position, at least for now (in this campaign, visibility is no more than 24 hours, it is a relative eternity until Florida votes). He actually received 47% of the 65+ vote in South Carolina which should be nice for him down there. Also, his skepticism about Ryan's now failed medicare reform plan (his current one only takes effect after Medicare is scheduled to go bankrupt), and his views on immigration will probably help him in Florida, with its older and more heterogeneous population.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. I have a sense that the Romney campaign is about to get completely unhinged as they desperately try to save his candidacy. For example, what was up with their demand that Newt release the report of the ethics committee? You know, the report that has been online for more than a decade? Also, Romney seems to be personally attacking Newt on the stump now instead of using surrogates. The next couple of debates should get interesting though Romney should remember that Newt's attack muffin phase wasn't working so well when he was attacking fellow Republicans. GOP voters don't want to know that you can attack Republicans with passion, they want to know you will fight for them and against the establishment of Washington when you get there.

Crossposted from libertarian neocon's blog.

Read More

Problems With Polls Predicting the President

UPDATE: Gallup announces that Romney/Gingrich tied against Obama in National Poll.

Hate to say I told you so but,

…ok. I don’t hate saying it at all. 

I was absolutely right. 

Polls don’t mean anything for future predictions and since the writing of the original article below.  Although this does not guarantee that Gingrich OR Romney will fare well or not in the fall, IT DOES eliminate the argument that Romney is more “electable.” 

That leaves us money, organization, policy and message.  Romney is blurred on the the last two more than any other nominee. (SEE CHART AT BOTTOM OF POST)

---

I am a hypocrite.  (Don’t worry – you likely are too.).  Let me explain.

I was reading @JazzShaw’s piece on HotAir entitled Who beats Obama? (Part XXVII) and he questions three assumptions that:

• Every time we nominate a moderate we lose. (see McCain, John)
• The country is actually far more conservative than you think and they want a clear contrast
• If you don’t nominate a “true conservative” the base will stay home and we’ll lose again

He then goes on to post all the popular polling results showing Romney (and possibly Ron Paul) being the only people who can beat Obama.  Now just for a moment let’s suspend the problems with the Gallup poll that is DIRECTLY contradicted by the Rasmussen poll regarding how many Americans are moving to or from the Democrat party (21% left Dem party). 

My hypocrisy?  I have simultaneously referenced polls as proof of a fact and dismissed their legitimacy at the same time.  (But hey, I’m a complex bird)  My motives however are based in rational thought, as silly as that may seem.

Polls ARE extremely accurate in showing the segregation of opinions AT A MOMENT IN TIME.  What they are terrible at is predicting how people will think IN THE FUTURE.  I referenced this fact in our HOW TO PICK A GOP CANDIDATE series regarding Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings where she swung from +30 to –9 back to +25 and back.  Perry, Cain and Clinton and Rob Lowe all prove what is here today is gone tomorrow.  Gingrch was favored by over 20% early, dribbled to 4%, soared to 38%, dropped to 3% and now moving back up on the Billboard charts with a bullet.

There are a number of reasons for this.

First, as in the case of McCain and Obama, the candidates RESPONSE TO EVENTS can change public opinion.  McCain was leading Barack until the financial debacle hit.  George W was invincible until until Katrina hit.  And Fred Thompson was Reagan reincarnated until he we learned he just played one on TV. You get my point.  This is the fear regarding Rick Perry that one “Oops” will so undermine confidence in his leadership ability they might (God forbid) re-elect Obama.

PolitiJim Whitewater Rafting Polling Rule: The likelihood of Presidential candidate capsizing in the polls is inversely proportional  to their experience and exposure in national politics.

Unfortunately this rewards the slick politician with money or power as much (or more) than the sincere statesman or stateswoman.

Secondly, people FOCUS differently with a 2 PERSON RACE and TIME.  Mr. “Bold” aka Rick Santorum, was more like the audio visual kid in school in dodge ball who we only picked because all the cool kids had been bonked.  It is easy to overlook the green beans at Thanksgiving dinner unless Uncle Alphonso hogged the oyster dressing and it’s all gone.  They were there all along even with the little almond shavings advertisement, and suddenly didn’t seem like a bad option when we realized pie was still 2 hours away.

PolitiJim Tortoise and Hare Polling Rule: Never count out taking the ugly girl to Prom until you’re date actually buys her dress and tells her friends she is going with you. (And no I’m not still bitter Norma Beck.)

Obama against a GENERIC REPUBLICAN is a much different evaluation than Obama against Romney.  But similarly, when their are NO OTHER prospective candidates in play EXCEPT Romney and Obama the focus on each changes.  Who would have thought the Dallas Mavericks would get to 4 games against the heralded Miami Heat much less win? (Shut up Dallas fans.)  It’s why we play the game.  Apollo Creed may be invincible to the very best skilled contenders but until he faces a tenacious Rocky who won’t give up, he doesn’t know the marathon battle is his Achilles heal.

Not only will the CONTRAST be different when only looking at two candidates, the political chemistry changes.  Who would have thought the “Maverick” would bury his sharp tongue against a socialist Democrat candidate with a Marxist background?  Rick Lasio and Hillary Clinton is a good example.  For me, this is another danger in Mitt Romney if we judge by his interactions with other GOP Candidates.  He’s like that passive aggressive coworker who complains about the music from your cubicle and the laughs and makes a joke when press back against him even slightly.  Was I the only one concerned that Gingrich’s initial “politeness pledge” signaled a lack of spine to truly go after Obama?  I thank God he took the gloves off.  And he has arisen again.

Reagan in 1976, McCain in 2008, Obama in 2008 – there is so much history to contradict ANY credibility using an early poll to determine who truly is best against a future opponent I’m shocked anyone uses it as an argument.  As I discuss in my article HOW POLITICAL IDEAS BECOME REALITY, there is somewhat of a mathematical formula to introduce, attract and entrench ANY political idea. 

I apologize for not giving you the data link (except those in the 2nd paragraph above), but clearly more and more consider themselves “conservative” even if they are independent. We learned this week that 48.6% of America receive SOME government handout and 47% don’t pay taxes.  But we also know from Gingrich led welfare reform most people don’t WANT assistant but want to do it themselves.  Reagan proved that giving someone a goal rather than a government guarantee will attract, inspire and empower not just political victory, but real cultural improvement.

Finally we have to look at the micro-polling.  As George W. Bush proved, you can loose the popular election and become President. The Weekly Standard puts it like this:

In fact, because of the nature of the electoral map this time around, the key to victory won’t be whether Republicans can win in Democratic territory but whether Obama can, once again, win in Republican territory. In that vein, the election will likely come down to whether the Republican nominee can hold three mildly GOP-leaning states:  Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. If the Republican nominee wins these (and if other states go according to form), then Obama would have to sweep New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to win, which he isn’t likely to do.

The article breaks down why Gingrich’s populist message will likely be much more attractive to the general electorate in those key states above.

PolitiJim “Averaging” Polling Rule: Sticking one foot in a bucket of ice water and another foot in a bucket of boiling water isn’t accurately described as feeling room temperature on “average.”

People really should step back from the SNL impressions of Palin and ask themself: “How the hell did Palin maintain an 80% approval rating as an ultra-conservative, mindless Caribou Barbie?”  (Sorry, @Beulahgg – I mean “heck” :) )  She defeated a former Democrat governor and the GOP Trend Rating had Alaska at 23 out of 50.  It’s hardly Idaho or Alabama and not even currently in the Top 10 of most conservative states.  So how’d she do it?

She didn’t defend "conservatism” or “capitalism” that interested a narrow electorate.  She attacked excess, unfairness and corruption.  And that included companies like Big Oil who were within their personal mandate of suppressing exploration to drive their stock up, but which wasn’t creating jobs.  It gave her credibility that she wasn’t on the side of a a few wealthy people.  Alaskan millionaires didn’t attack her because more jobs ultimately meant more money.

While Reagan won with conservative values, it was an appeal to union workers and middle Americans not “capitalists.”  While I am absolutely convinced that Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh and Gingrich grouches are ignorant of Newt’s real Bain argument, I am similarly convinced the election fortunes don’t lie with the 11% that own businesses or the 31% that at one time did or do.  The vast majority of independents (who will still decide the election) are workers.  And the swing states don’t want a dissertation on why Mitt Romney deserves the money he made.  They just want jobs.

So I reprint the “contrast” portion of my earlier blog post with regard to the weakness of Mitt Romney:

Obama and the Democrat party have ZERO interest in telling the truth or doing 10X worse than what this documentary does.  And they will.

An average, emotionally led person will easily buy that Romney personally foreclosed on their home and built a golf course in place of the hospital that would have cured their 5 year old daughter with leukemia.  And the other 40 similar ads that will follow it.

Every advantage we should have as conservatives is nullified by Romney.  He can’t argue ANYTHING without being a hypocrite if not having evidence that he is INEFFECTIVE in those areas.

No ObamaCare	RomneyCare
Lower Corporate Taxes that would revive business coming back to the US	Romney made billions while the average people struggled
Less Union Power and Help	Protection against greedy Romney’s who cut insurance and benefits while pocketing millions.
Less Government	Romney had taxpayers bail out pensions while he took out profits
Romney can create jobs	Massachusetts was the 47 out of 50 in job creation while he was governor and Bain laid off thousands. Besides his 100K number is unsupported.
Strengthen the Military	Obama killed Bin Laden, Romney wasn’t even in his office for over 200 days his last year as Governor while he campaigned for President
Reduce US Debt	Romney ran up debt of companies and took profits while doing it.
No Bailouts for private business	Took them at BAIN.

Obviously, the guy who reformed government, balanced the budget for four years showing a surplus and helped stop communism has a bit better chance at drawing these differences.  Imagine a $100 Million advertising campaign by Obama simply using this ad that Ted Kennedy created multiplied times every main stream media outlet focus AGAINST Mitt Romney.

H/T @KLSouth

Read More

Godfather Politics Is Whacked

I'm a HUGE fan of Godfather Politics. So much so I urge you to subscribe and get it delivered to your inbox like I do.  Like every conservative site, they have a slant and although unhidden, it's as rich and meaty as a NY pepperoni slice with extra gouda.  But.  (In fact, big Marlon Brando Butt...)

They ran a piece today called, "Don't Be Surprised if Obama Wins."  The primary assertion is that the GOP is already screwed because, with the economy in the tank, Obama is still over 40% approval and none of our candidates are inspiring or have enough "fight" to win in 2012.

At risk of having a contract put on me - Godfather, you're frickin' crazy!  First, it is important to note popular approvals are very different from registered voters and turn out.  Secondly, over half of the voters can't name a SINGLE GOP candidate!  A "generic" Republican trounces Obama who can't get above 50% in a poll of most Americans who aren't even paying attention!  To me this explains how even Perry suffers against Barack the Magic Dem'crat (45-38) since most voters couldn't pick him out of a line up of Aggie Assistant Coaches.  As we've seen in the GOP primary people have a "perception" that easily (and violently) changes once they pay attention.  The Perry plummet, Bachmann bomb and Trump tumble all occurred when we actually observed the candidate of prospect perform, then fail to impress. 

This happens to us all the time in real life.  I couldn't wait to have a Land Rover as my first luxury car.  I finally could afford it and had picked the color and interior.  Then I drove one.  Honestly, the cab of a CAT tractor was more comfortable.  And even IT has a bigger back seat.  I then "settled" on a QX.  I was shocked when others fawned over it since I never saw it is an Escalade or Lexus type image.  Why should we be surprised that most Americans haven't looked much deeper than a 30 second clip on ABC Nightly News?

Do you realize that Obama ONLY won with 53% of the popular vote in 2008 against a weaker candidate than Romney, Cain or Gingrich?  And it was even closer in the electoral college.  If McCain had won Ohio he very likely would have won the whole thing.

In 2012 at least 4 swing states now have fairly popular GOP Governors who have been singing a conservative carol since 2010. (Including WI and OH no less).  And Dick Morris points out that in 2012 the black vote rose from 11 pct to 13 pct due to the novelty of the first black President and the endless hype in MSM and liberal media.  Now, even at urban radio stations, there is open disappointment in "The One" which AT LEAST Will depress the turnout back to 11% and maybe less.  If Cain runs and shaves another 2 % or 3% nothing else matters.  Obama won't have the votes.

The Latino vote he won 75/25 is now down to low 40's in approval and the young vote is the same.  if EITHER one of this whole true a year from now, he'll be Chicago's problem to deal with again. (The subject for a WHOLE other blog.)

Frankly, I am more concerned with either a Clinton nomination or the declaration of a dictatorship by D'Oh-bama.  And those are both very, very far fetched for someone who has done his best to illegally gain more power by the minute.

The weakest candidate we have right now is likely Perry and that only from his debate performances.  And while registering an underwhelming 2.2 on the Ronald Reagan Richter scale, he has the ability to raise cash and expose every voter to slick commercials 20 times per episode of Glee, OZ and Piers Morgan.  And (thank God) he has the best media team of all the candidates as witnessed by his stunning Global Mitt Warming ad embedded in this paragraph.  We already know Republican voters aren't going to vote for anyone else.  If GOP voters aren't motivated by the petrifying fear of another four years of Obama are problems are much deeper than candidate "pizzazz" or persuasiveness.  I probably agree much more along the thoughts of Rush Limbaugh that the economy is SO bad, we have a chance to elect a serious conservative instead of one who will just perpetuate the current corrupt system.

Godfather, you asked at the end of your article to "help prove you wrong."  I'll go farther.  I'm calling you out.  MAN UP, and GO MATTRESS!  We are CONSERVATIVES.  I don't frickin' care if Santorum is the nominee and he blows buggers on Obama during the debate.  The LAST person I expected to give me some linguine spine'd lament is the Goombah of gonads.  We will win this thing if we have to hold neighborhood debates to educate people on how GREAT this United States Constitution is and why capitalism will again unlock the power of the greatest people on earth.  US.  AMERICANS.

I will admit, this week was tough for me. I haven't watched Beck since he left FOX News but did Monday.  He's already cashed it in.  Doesn't care who gets elected.  He's basically all, "just by a pistol and start storing freeze dried soup in your basement."  Well some patriot of valor, integrity and fearlessness he turned to be.  Thank God for the Human Events video from the Hillsdale College President and the speech last week by Tom McClintock.  If anyone had a right to be popping the equivalent of Dan Quayle Quaaludes its the conservative representative from a state that re-elected a far left liberal who failed miserably and who has all but ensured their bankruptcy through a communist California cabal.  But what does Tom the Tea Party Caucus Representative say?

The last election, despite its dramatic results, only changed one half of one third of the decision making apparatus of the federal government. ...The good news is that (another election) is coming, and the economy is very dynamic.  For good or ill, it responds rapidly to changes in public policy....I have great faith in ... the judgment of our people when they are paying rapt attention to events – as they now are – and in the resilience of a free economy.

Two years from now- I believe we will be able not just to tell our children what it feels like when it is morning again in America – but to be able to show them.

Read the whole speech here.

Now if I guy like that, who is seeing stuff in his Budget Committee he can't even tell us, and lives on an island of rampant mindless liberalism, is optimistic for our future - I expect nothing less from the Godfather.

Leaders don't whine, they find a way to win.  WE have faith in the "53%."  Including you.

Read More