Politijim Radio (with yours truly): Can Newt Get Back in the Race?

The great Politijim and I teamed up to do a 30 minute radio broadcast on Newt and his chances of getting back in the race. Have a listen and let me know what you think:

Listen to internet radio with PolitiJims Rants Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Big thanks to Politijim for setting this up!

Newt: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Human Right

Newt gave a great speech at the NRA yesterday. It's such a travesty that Romney is the likely nominee.

Newt on Romney, the Etch a Sketch Candidate

(h/t legal insurrection)

Newt at the Alabama GOP Presidential Forum

Hopefully last night was enough to put Newt over the top. Come on, Mississippi and Alabama, just win a couple for the Nipper:



(h/t The Right Scoop)

Newt Teaches Obama a Lesson on Energy

Newt really makes Obama look like a dumbass:



(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

A Not So Super Tuesday

I think last night was probably pretty close to what I would have considered to be the worst case scenario.  Newt only won his home state of Georgia, Santorum won in Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota and Romney took the rest (Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, Ohio, Alaska and Idaho).  I was hoping that Ron Paul would have been able to unite the not-Romney vote in Virginia and then take some of the small caucuses as his small devoted following could definitely tip the scales in states where a thousand votes can decide things.  Imagine what the stories would have looked like this morning if Ron Paul had taken Virginia, Alaska, Idaho & North Dakota while Newt took Georgia, Tennessee & Oklahoma?  People would have gone nuts, Santorum would have been all but finished and this race would be wide open.  As it stands now, Romney has a near 100% chance of being the nominee.  It would take a historically epic meltdown for him not to be.  We'd practically have to find out that he is an active White Supremacist, had a sexual affair with Barney Frank and/or find out that he is, as many have suspected, an android (preferably all three) for him to be denied the nomination at this point.  Money, organization and an automatic vote from Mormons (which helped flip usually very conservative western states to his side) have really proven to be insurmountable.  The constant splitting of the conservative vote hasn't helped either.  Santorum's strategy of sticking around, despite abysmal vote tally's after Iowa, to wait for Newt to be destroyed, has helped him vault to the #2 position but also seems to have helped Romney become the nominee.  I'm sure Santorum supporters could say the same thing about Newt sticking around but I really don't think Santorum could unite the party like Newt.  Santorum does well in states with lots of social conservatives while Newt has a more broad Reaganesque message which could potentially unite economic, social and foreign policy conservatives under one candidate.

I'm sure there will be some uber die hard Newt supporters who will attack me for not having enough faith.  Yes, I realize that Newt is not to be underestimated and that people have left him for dead before but I just don't see how he can be the nominee at this point.  We've had 23 contests and he has won a grand total of 2 of them.  He's underperforming what Mike Huckabee did in 2008 at this point who had won 6 of the first 31 contests.  Other than getting a nice big check from Fox to start his own show, Huckabee doesn't have much to show for that performance politically.  Let's say Newt wins in Alabama and Mississippi.  Then what?  Santorum isn't dropping out, so how does Newt get victories outside the deep South?  Heck, given his loss in Tennessee, which borders his home state of Georgia, I don't think even Alabama and Mississippi are done deals.  The most he can hope for is a denial of a majority of delegates to Romney and a brokered convention.  But the power brokers aren't going to go with Newt no matter what, they friggin hate him with a passion I've never seen.  Plus historically they have favored a more moderate candidate at conventions anyway, whether or not they personally like him.  In 1952, the very conservative Robert Taft got the shaft (with some delegates actually stolen from him at the convention) in favor of the RINO Eisenhower, who historically wasn't even a Republican.  In 1980, these power brokers were trying to get a co-Presidency agreement between Reagan and Gerald Ford to water down Reagan's conservatism.  If we have a brokered convention this year, we know Paul will go with Romney given his collusion with him this year anyway and Romney will walk away with the nomination one way or the other. 

What about Santorum?  He doesn't have much of a chance either.  He just has very little appeal outside of social conservative heavy states.  He just can't get to 1,144 without winning in the northeast and California and I find it hard to believe he will have a chance at that.  And again, a brokered convention is not going to nominate someone like him.

It seems all that is left for me to do is to decide who to vote for in the fall.  It definitely won't be Obama but it won't be Romney either (I decided that months ago).  I've never voted for a liberal in my life and I am not starting now.  The Libertarian Party might be getting another voter, despite my complete disagreement with them on foreign policy.  At least they believe in small government, unlike Obama and Romney.

Newt Schools David Gregory on Meet the Press

He so needs to be the nominee:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

It's Do or Die Time for Conservatives and Libertarians. Time to Unite Behind One Candidate and Defeat Romney

It's time to stop dilly-dallying. Super Tuesday is upon us and with that, the nomination race could be all but over unless conservatives and libertarians finally unite behind one candidate, a candidate who can beat both Romney AND Obama. That candidate needs to be Newt.

Among the not-Romney's he is the only one who can unite the party. Economic conservatives like him because he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. Defense hawks like him because he is the most hawkish of the lot. Social conservatives, when they can get past his personal life, like him for his strong record on issues like abortion. And libertarians, like the Libertarian Party's nominee in 2008, Bob Barr, like him because he is economically libertarian and not over the top on social issues.

Can anyone honestly say the same thing about Santorum? He goes out of his way to attack individual freedom and libertarianism and completely blew his chance to be the nominee by focusing on social issues instead of the economy (probably because his economic policy record isn't really that great). Who attacks prenatal diagnostics? Or the idea of contraception? Or says he wants to vomit over a rather non-controversial (and somewhat revered) JFK speech? He has proven himself to be quite a bit more gaffe prone and offensive than Newt, despite the fact that people thought he was a "safer" option. Even I was offended by some of the stuff he said and I am a Pro-Life registered Republican. It's really not surprising that his support is crumbling like it is. See the latest tracking data from Gallup (Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black [matches his soul], Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green):

Santorum is just not ready for prime time. He is simply too divisive, offending gays, women, parents, protestants and libertarians (in total about 80-90% of the electorate). Unfortunately, he retains enough support to possibly give Romney a majority of the states on Super Tuesday. His conservative backers need to wake up quickly, bite the bullet and go with Newt. As the brilliant Thomas Sowell wrote:

Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic.

Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates.

Can anyone really argue with that?

I think Ron Paul supporters (the historically Republican ones, not the liberals who are just visiting the GOP for this election in order to support Paul) need to wake up as well. They are not furthering libertarianism at all by supporting Paul any more. He's made his point and has shown that he is a force to be reckoned with but supporting Paul on Tuesday just increases the chances that the most statist candidate, Mitt Romney, is nominated. Do you really want to be responsible for nominating the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to enact a socialist universal healthcare system in their states? Newt isn't a libertarian but he is the man who did the most to wound the leviathan in the last 30 years. Why not vote for him and give this country a chance? It clearly won't with either Romney or Obama.

Finally, Newt is simply the most electable candidate in the race right now. As I mentioned earlier, he can unite the party, has a great grasp of both politics and logic and can actually explain conservatism in a way that others can understand and agree with.  Santorum and Paul are both to extreme to get almost any independents over into the fold. 

Sure he has baggage but I think most of it will go away.  Freddie Mac? Let's see Obama bring that up when he received over $126,000 in bribes, err I mean donations, from Fannie and Freddie while he was in or seeking office (he was the #2 largest recipient in Congress, #1 was the notoriously corrupt Chris Dodd). Nancy Pelosi? Let's see Obama make an issue out of that one or Newt's opposition to cramming down the Ryan plan. 

It's time for believers in small government and personal liberty to unite behind Newt, otherwise we will once again have a Nixon vs. McGovern sort of choice in the fall.  And the stakes are just too high this election for that.

Santorum's Support Seems to be Collapsing

This chart from Gallup is probably making people in the Santorum campaign panic, at least a little. Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black (matches his soul), Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green:

If these were stock charts, I would say that it would make sense to lighten up on Romney as there is a lot of resistance at 36%, that Santorum still has a ways to go down (probably to 18%) and that Newt could be a buy as he has formed a base and seems to be trending up a little. Ron Paul looks like a value trap. A stock that you can make a good fundamental argument why it should go up but never goes anywhere.

Watch Newt Take Apart Obama's Energy Speech

Definitely worth watching:



Video streaming by Ustream

(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

Highlights from Newt's Stellar Arizona Debate Performance

Calm, cheerful and knowledgable:

Santorum is Blowing It Already. Who Attacks Prenatal Testing?

Santorum attacked free prenatal testing yesterday and sounded like a complete crank while doing it. I am against any government mandated benefits because they increase the cost of healthcare but even I think that prenatal testing is one of the last mandates that I would attack. There are quite a few pregnant women out there that don't take care of themselves and the more they go to the doctor to check on themselves or their baby, the better. Anyway here is what he said:

One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare -- another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country.

Newt is probably looking better and better all the time for lots of conservatives.

Update: Here is the video of Santorum on Face The Nation where he attempts to defend his comments, though really fails (granted Bob Schieffer wasn't exactly being objective, but Santorum really came across as bitter and out of touch). Are amnio's really a menace?:

A Great Example of Why Newt is Better Than Santorum

Watch this great interview of Newt at the Hoover Institution. You see a great man who talks about important issues that the majority of Americans really care about. Santorum, on the other hand, focuses on gay marriage, attacking personal freedom and invading the bedroom.

Why Does Santorum Hate Individual Freedom So Much? Was He Dumped by a Libertarian Girlfriend?

As I read more about Santorum and listen to more of his speeches, one thing is striking, he REALLY doesn't like the idea of libertarianism or individual freedom.  He's mentioned it in speeches, at compassionate conservative social justice forums (just that name should scare people) and even in debates he makes sure you know that he isn't a libertarian.  Now this goes way beyond just trying to differentiate himself from Ron Paul, this actually seems like some sort of deep seeded hatred, as if he were scarred in the past by libertarians.  Was he dumped by a libertarian girlfriend because he wouldn't sleep with her before marriage?  Was he jealous of a bunch of libertarian friends in college who liked to smoke pot and galavant around?  Who knows, but whatever it is, it has left him a man who really doesn't think people should be allowed to do what they want to do, even if they aren't hurting anyone else.  It's not like this anti-libertarianism makes any actual political sense.  10% of the GOP are practically down the line libertarians and another 40-50% are what I would call libertarian sympathizers.  These would be believers in the free market who don't necessarily want to get involved in other people's private lives even if they are socially conservative themselves.  Ronald Reagan himself fits that bill as you can see from these comments he made to Reason Magazine in 1975:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

...

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he's stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that's one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.

...

I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government's involvement in things that are not government's proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.

Now let's take a look at what Rick Santorum said at the horribly titled "The First International Conservative Conference on Social Justice" of which he was Chair:

The competitor to conservatism's future, I believe, is libertarianism. It is a consistent and vibrant, although I believe misguided, strain of conservatism.

America's conservative heritage never pursued a limitless freedom to do whatever one wants so long as no one is hurt. That kind of "freedom" to be and do whatever we want, irrespective of the choice is a selfish freedom that cannot be sustained or afforded. Someone always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own-self interest. That is the great lie of liberal freedom, or as I like to say, "No-Fault Freedom" -- all the choice, none of the responsibility.We here today believe in something altogether different. It is the liberty America's Founders understood properly defined. Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good. Freedom is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while extending our hand to our neighbor. The only orthodox conservative philosophy that matches with this is compassionate conservatism.

Huh?  So we fought the American Revolution for the idea of sacrificial freedom?  I thought we fought the revolution because:

All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I don't see any talk about sacrificing for the common good in the Declaration of Independence.  It talks about how individuals have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that if a government doesn't let them do that, the citizens have a right to overthrow it.  The only sacrifices they are making are for their own freedom, their own happiness.   So not only does Santorum have a warped view of conservatism and libertarianism, he has a warped view of history as well.  It actually seems that if he were around during the Revolution he would probably be a Tory.

Now let's get back to the present.  Right now there is a battle going on over Obama trying to force Catholic institutions to offer their employees free contraception.  This battle has the potential to sweep the GOP to victory as people are repulsed by government overreach into their religious freedom, now do we really want a nominee who will say something like this?:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's okay. Contraception's okay."

It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it—and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong—but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most Presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.

Does that sound like a winning argument?  Santorum would actually be the perfect guy for us to put up in order to completely defuse the uproar over Obama's contraception stand and instead make it about Santorum's overreaching moralism and anti-individuality.  I really don't think most people want a President of the United States talking about what we do or don't do in our bedrooms.

This is why I continue to be with Newt and will continue to be with Newt to the bitter end, whatever that might be.  He is the only candidate in the race who is a true Ronald Reagan conservative (Mitt Romney is more like Gerald Ford or Lowell Weicker and Rick Santorum is probably closest to Pat Buchanan in terms of his moralism though not his foreign policy stance).  He believes in the free market, believes in a strong national defense and will fight tooth and nail to defend our religious institutions without turning off those that aren't terribly religious.   

Newt's Awesome CPAC Speech

Don't count him out yet. I think he received more applause than both Romney and Santorum combined:



(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

Why a Shift by Conservatives to Rick Santorum Would Be a Mistake

A couple of polls came out from Public Policy Polling this weekend showing that Santorum seems to be replacing Newt Gingrich as the main "not Romney" candidate in Minnesota and Colorado.   There seems to be a desire to "give another conservative a chance" as well as to potentially field a candidate without as much baggage as Newt so that Mitt Romney's negative ad carpet bombing will not be as effective.

I think though that this reasoning is fallacious and switching support from Newt to Santorum at this point would be a major mistake.  Let's just look at what I believe are the two main arguments for the switch:

1)  "Give another conservative a chance".  Didn't Rick already have a chance after his victory in Iowa?  He had a ton of positive press coverage even when it appeared that he had narrowly lost (by 8 votes) in Iowa and he could have really taken advantage of it.  But he didn't.  He is just not as competent with voters or with the media as he should be.  He followed up his surprising Iowa finish with a 4th place finish in New Hampshire, a 3rd place finish in South Carolina, a 3rd place finish in Florida and now a 4th place finish in Nevada.  In none of these contests was he able to break through 17% of the vote (he got that in evangelical heavy South Carolina) and in two contests (New Hampshire and Nevada) he wasn't even able to break through 10%.  And it isn't like Newt has the establishment media on his side keeping Rick down, if anything it is the opposite.  After 25 debates and a victory in Iowa, Rick Santorum really has no excuse for not catching on, other than himself. 

2) "We need a candidate with less baggage than Newt".  Right now, because Rick Santorum has generally escaped much criticism in the media it appears that he would be a much safer candidate than Newt, one who could survive the carpet bombing of negative ads that will inevitably come from Romney once Rick is viewed as a threat to them.  But this is an illusion as I don't think any candidate with any actual record could escape unscathed from Romney's attacks.  Ad markets have been deluged with so many negative ads by the Romney team that their tactics practically meet the threshold to be considered brainwashing.  Just think about what Newt has actually been attacked for.  He has been attacked for an ethics charge related to the tax exempt status of a college course he taught (oooh, run for the hills!), something even the IRS decided did not hold water.  He has been attacked for, as a private citizen, consulting for a politically unattractive client, Freddie Mac (If it was Iran, I would understand, but a publicly traded company that even Romney was invested in?  Come on.).  He has also been attacked for sitting on a couch for a commercial with a liberal democrat and actually promoting green energy (the horror)!  All of these issues have been completely blown out of proportion by the Romney machine and the media and have nothing to do with Newt's very conservative record while in office.

I'm sure some people would argue that if they had anything on Rick Santorum, that they would have used it already.  Not really.  The Romney machine and its allies in the media establishment only attack when they see a threat to their candidate.  I seem to remember a time when the very same people who are vilifying Newt today were cheering him on for his witty answers in various debates.  The difference at the time was that they were trying to take down Rick Perry and Herman Cain and thought Newt had no chance.  Just wait until they set their sights on Rick Santorum.  There will be wall to wall ads about his involvement in the K Street Project, his endorsement of Arlen Specter (who became a Democrat and helped usher in Obamacare), his "leadership PAC" (which gave a paltry 18% of its money to candidates and spent the rest on everyday expenses for Rick Santorum), his scam of a charity and his numerous "gaffes" which will help sour his appeal among women and independent voters (he blamed the church's child molestation scandal on Boston being liberal, he equated homosexuality with bestiality and he said radical feminism is to blame for the decline of the American family).  Then of course is his record which is more liberal than Newt's.  He voted against NAFTA, against Right to Work and for steel tariffs, as well as various earmarks (especially in election years).   If you don't think the Romney attack dogs won't find enough fodder in Rick Santorum's record to vilify him to the same extent that Newt has been vilified, think again.  Remember, there was a time that even Newt had the highest positive intensity score in the entire field.  Things change.  In a few months, after the establishment is done with him, Rick Santorum's image as a straight shooting conservative family man will turn into one of a corrupt religious zealot who is only interested in his own advancement.

One final point.  I know that conservatives seemed to have become addicted to switching horses in this primary race, going from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich to Santorum and then back to Gingrich, but at some point, it just becomes too late.  Due to his string of lackluster finishes, Rick Santorum continues to have a pretty decrepit organization which just recently couldn't even find enough signatures to get on the ballot in Indiana.  Newt was attacked for not having an organization, so how does it make sense to go to a candidate who probably has an even worse one, especially with Super Tuesday coming up?  Newt has his weaknesses, but like it or not, he is the best we have right now.  He is a Reagan conservative who has a great ability to excite the base and explain to everyone else why we believe what we believe.  We need to coalesce around him and defeat both Romney AND Obama and make America great again.

Great Romney=Obama Ad

This should really resonate:



(h/t Right Scoop)

Newt's Fiery Speech After the Florida Primary Results

It looks like he has not yet begun to fight:

Romney as Flipper the Dolphin

I would say this is one of the better videos of this election cycle and not just because of the dolphin sound effects:

Watch Herman Cain Endorse Newt Gingrich and Newt's Awesome Speech Afterwards

I was kind of surprised that Herman Cain waited so long as it was clear how close he was with Newt after their 1-on-1 debate late last year. Anyway, better late than never. Watch the whole thing, Newt gives a great speech after the edorsement: