Who Kidnapped and Brainwashed Jim Bopp?; Conservative Activist Endorses Pretend Conservative Mitt Romney

American Spectator has a story asking what happened to Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand who from the beginning has been a fervent supporter of Massachusetts liberal turned moderated turned pretend conservative Mitt Romney.  Here is a paragraph from that column:

Terre Haute Attorney Jame Bopp

"But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison."

I had the exact same thoughts when I read the email yesterday from Terre Haute attorney and conservative activist James Bopp in which he endorses Mitt Romney as the conservative choice.

I first met Jim in 1995 when we both worked on the Rex Early for Governor race.  Jim is a very personable guy, a person who has consistently stood for conservative causes, including being a strong supporter of the pro-life movement.  I've watched Jim's legal career develop after that.  Jim heads the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an outfit based in Terre Haute that takes on political free speech cases all over the country, a cause which is near and dear to my heart.   One of the cases Jim took on involved representing me a decade ago in the Southern District in a successful effort to invalidate a statute prohibiting candidates from passing out literature with more than one candidate's name mentioned, unless that literature was previously filed with the county election board. 

I should also mentioned that Jim actively supports anti-SLAPP legislation.   SLAPP lawsuits that are those filed against private citizens to try to keep them from speaking out about public issues.  The purpose of the lawsuit is not to win, but rather to drive up the legal costs for the private citizen so much so that he or she will give up and agree to not speak out anymore in settlement of the lawsuit.  The tactic, often employed by well-funded corporations with deep pockets, is repugnant to Free Speech.

Jim recently received headlines for being on the winning side of the Citizen's United case.  I'll have to disagree with Jim on that one.  After reading that opinion, I thought it nothing more than an activist opinion that, based on a creative interpretation of the Constitution, inappropriately usurped legislative power substituting instead what the court thought the best policy was, the exact sort of thing we conservatives have for decades criticized liberal judges for doing...the same sort of judicial B.S. that led to Roe v. Wade.  Nine times out of 10 though, Jim is on the right side on political free speech issues. 

Back to the Bopp endorsement.  This is from the email that went out to conservatives:

My Fellow Conservatives,

Like all conservative Republicans, and most Americans, I believethat the future of our country, and the preservation of our way of life,depends on the defeat of President Barack Obama and his replacement with apresident who supports free enterprise, limited government, traditional familyvalues, and a strong national defense, based upon the principles of our UnitedStates Constitution.

Because of my obligations with the Republican National Committeeand my belief that any of the major Republican presidential candidates wouldadvance our conservative principles, I have stayed neutral, hoping that onecandidate would emerge with the demonstrated ability and support to take on anddefeat President Obama. That candidate has now emerged and, as a result, it istime to put aside our minor intra-family differences, to end the increasinglydivisive primary fight, and to unite to focus on achieving our shared goal ofdefeating President Obama.

That candidate is Governor Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is a true conservative. One does not have to guesswhat Mitt Romney would do in office.  He served for four years as Governorof Massachusetts and has a record that conservatives should be proud of.

As Governor, Romney fought for social conservative values. Hevetoed bills that would have authorized state funding of embryonic cloning,would have changed the definition of human life from fertilization toimplantation and would have given young women the morning-after abortion pillwithout a prescription. He promoted abstinence education in public schools.When the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, he left nostone unturned to set aside that ruling. And in contrast to the ObamaAdministration’s war on the Catholic Church by mandating their institutions toprovide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans,Governor Romney vetoed a bill that would have required Catholic hospitals tooffer abortion-inducing drugs to potential rape victims.

Of course, it is true that Romney had a conversion to the pro-lifecause, not unlike other Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.We should not only embrace him as a result of this conversion, but alsorecognize that he is a success story. But the best test of the sincerity of aconversion is deeds, and Mitt Romney was “consistently pro-life” as Governor,according to the President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

On the issues currently deemed the most important by the Americanpeople, the economy and federal taxes and spending, Romney also has aremarkable record. As a private investor in struggling businesses, Romney wasvery successful in turning them around. As governor, he issued more than 800vetoes and cut taxes 19 times. The result, in a state with an overwhelminglyDemocratic legislature, is that he closed a 3 billion dollar budget gap andturned it into a 2 billion dollar rainy-day fund.

Mitt Romney’s success in the first five primary states, includingwins in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada, have revealed an emerging consensusamong Republican voters that he is the most electable – the most likelyRepublican candidate to defeat Obama. Romney has the broadest support among allelements of the Republican party electorate, has the most appeal toindependents and swing voters, and is, therefore, the most electable of all. Itis time, therefore, to celebrate the result and concentrate all our energy onachieving a general election victory.

Et tu, Jim?  Say it ain't so.

Santorum Stuns GOP Establishment With Three State Sweep; Scope of Romney Rebuke by GOP Electorate is Staggering

Rick Santorum

Last night was a huge night for former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.  Think Silvester Stallone playing "Rocky," an underdog boxer from Santorum's home state who was a huge underdog taking on the world champ, Apollo Creed, but went the distance even knocking down the champ in an inspired performance.  Of course, Rocky eventually lost that match in a split decision which might also  ultimately be Santorum's fate.   But for now let's look at the three punch combination that put Mitt Romney on the canvas last night. 

MINNESOTA
Santorum won the Minnesota Caucus with 45% of the vote.  Ron Paul was second with 27% of the vote while Romney finished third with 17% and Gingrich fourth with 11%..  Romney did not win a single county in Minnesota, a state he won in 2008 by a 41% to 22% margin over eventual GOP nominee John McCain.

MISSOURI
Although the Show-Me (I hate that nickname) State had a non-binding primary, i.e. a beauty contest, that didn't award any delegates, Missouri is still a signficant swing state with considerable population centers of St. Louis and Kansas City.   Santorum won the state going away with 55%, the first GOP candidate to get a majority vote in a primary or caucus in 2012.   Romney finished second with 25% and Paul at 12% brought up the rear.  (Gingrich did not compete in Missouri).  Santorum won every county in Missouri as well as the independent city of St. Louis.


Mitt Romney

COLORADO
Polls leading up to the Colorado caucus consistently showed Romney with a double digit lead.  Voters though had other ideas.  Santorum won the state with 40% of the vote.  Romney was second at 35%, Gingrich third at 13% and Paul at 12%.  Again, this was a state Romney competed in during the 2008 election cycle and won, defeating McCain by a 41% to 22% margin.

COUNTY BREAKDOWN:
Here is an interesting tidbit.  There were 265 counties involved in last nights primary/caucuses, including 64 in Colorado, 87 in Minnesota, and 114 in Missouri.  Here is the scorecard when looking at how many counties each candidate won:

Santorum: 236
Romney: 16 (all in Colorado)
Paul;  4 (all in Minnesota)
Gingrich: 1 (in Minnesota)
Tie (Santorum-Romney in Colorado): 2
Tie (Santorum-Paul in Minnesota):  2
Undetermined:  4 (all in Colorado)

CONCLUSION:
Gingrich was not a factor in the three races last night as he spent his time leading up to those states spending his time and money in Florida which he lost handily to Romney. Santorum and Paul's strategy of bypassing Florida to work on the next round of states appears to have paid off, especially for Santorum, big time.

Rocky, i.e. Rick Santorum, showed how vulnerable Mitt Romney in a race where there is only one conservative.  It appears that Romney desperately needs Santorum-Gingrich splitting the conservative vote in order to be the front runner.

WHAT TO EXPECT:
The Romney independent PAC will step up its assault on Santorum.   Romney's way of winning this race appears to try to viciously savage anyone who dares challenge his right to the GOP throne.  What should be alarming to his campaign though is that attacks on Santorum leading up to these three states did not seem to work and possibly backfired against Romney driving down his numbers.  Since Santorum doesn't have the baggage Gingrich does, he's more difficult to attack than the ex-Speaker.  Romney's message that Santorum is an insider while he's an outsider is not really a credible message for the former Massachusetts governor who has every GOP establishment figure supporting him.

Why Barack Obama Will Win Re-Election Against Likely GOP Nominee Mitt Romney

This time last year, I was fairly certain a Republican nominee would take out the unpopular President Barack Obama.  Now I'm fairly certain that President Obama will win re-election.  Here's why:

President Barack Obama

1)  The Economy is Improving.  The unemployment rate in January of 2012 was 8.3% down steadily from August 2011 9.1% and down greatly from the peak on Obama's watch, i.e. 10% in October, 2009. Further, we appear to have made it out of the double digit recession.  GDP was at .4% in the first quarter of 2011, and then went to 1.3% for the second, 1.8% for the third, and no 2.8% for the fourth.

While I believe Presidents get far too much credit for a good economy and far too much criticism for a bad one, it is a political fact of life that Presidents get judged on how the economy does while in office.  Obama is now running for re-election with a growing economy that is creating jobs.  Likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney stumbled when asked about the improving economy, and suggested it would have improved more were it not for Obama's moves in office. That's not a winning message.

2) Obama is Much Better Suited to Appeal to Economic Populism than Romney.  The last few years have seen the rise of two economic populist movements, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street (and its variations).  Although the former hails from the right and the latter is from the left, they are not unrelated in their philosophy.  Both hate the use of government to take money from Main Street and hand it to Wall Street.  The Republicans though are on the verge of nominating Mr. Wall Street, a card carrying member of the 1% and a person who supported the corporate bailouts so despise by the Tea Party and Occupy groups.  While Obama's supported those bailouts and he is hardly a "man of the people," when your opponent says he is not worried about poor, makes $10,000 bets, and says his making $374,372 to give eight speech is "not much money," it won't be hard for Obama to appeal to the populist sentiment that gave rise to the Tea Party and Occupy crowd.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

3) Romney is Not Well Liked by His Own Party.   There have been five state primaries/caucuses thus far. Romney has yet to hit 50% despite being much better financed and organized than his opponents.  Repeatedly weak GOP challengers have risen above Romney in the polls, not because of those candidate's strengths, but because of their dislike for Romney.  There has been a consistent formula for Republican presidential victories, i.e. building a coalition between fiscal and social conservatives.  Romney is not trusted by social conservatives in the party given his sudden transformation on key issues and even fiscal conservatives have doubts about him because of Romneycare and his support of corporate bailouts.  Romney is only actively supported by about a 1/3 of the electorate and that seems to be only because they're repeatedly told he is the best candidate to beat President Obama.

4)  Obama is a Much More Skilled Politician.  Romney is a gaffe machine, a person who apparently doesn't think bother to think before he talks.  Romney is not trusted by much of the GOP electorate and is barely beating a very weak Republican field.  In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008, even though Clinton was herself a skillful politician and had far more money and better organization than the NonRomneys who are often beating Romney in the polls.

5) Romney Has Exploitable Baggage.  While issues associated with Bain Capital, Romney's tax returns, and hefty speaking fees have only a modest impact in a Republican primary race, that all changes when Romney goes to the general election round.   Expect the Democrats to dig up several persons whose lives have been negatively affected by Romney's decisions while leading Bain Capital.  It doesn't matter if the strategy is fair or not, the fact is, coming off the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, people aren't going to like a Republican candidate who has the cold business sensibilities of Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life.

It is possible Romney could beat Obama in a general election.  After all, the economy could dip sharply before the election propelling Romney.  Or President Obama could reverse course from 2008 and run a disastrous political campaign.  But while the window is open for a Romney victory, it's only cracked open a few inches.

While Romney's Fortunes Rise in Florida, New Polls Show Gingrich Leading Nationally For First Time

Newt Gingrich

The last five polls out of Florida, released the last two days, show a consistent Mitt Romney lead in Florida of 7-9 points over South Carolina primary winner Newt Gingrich.

While Romney's boat has clearly risen in Florida, what is interesting is that he has for the first time since mid-December fallen behind in national polls.  A new NBC poll just released this morning from NBC News/Wall Street Journal shows Gingrich with a nine point, 37-28 lead among Republicans.  This comes on the heals of two other national polls released this week from Gallup and Rasmussen showing Gingrich, respectively, with a six and seven point lead respectively.

By the way, all this information can be found at www.realclearpolitics.com

Polls Show Romney Going From Eight Points Down to Eight Points Ahead in Just Three Days

Mitt Romney

The polling in the Republican presidential nomination has now swung back the other way.  After his South Carolina win, Newt Gingrich almost immediately wiped out Mitt Romney's lead in Florida and moved several points ahead.   That lead faded almost overnight as polls show Romney regaining the lead.

The poll I found the most telling in terms of the recent trend in Florida is the last two Insider Advantage (IA) Florida polls.  In a 1/22 poll, IA's poll had Gingrich leading Romney 34-26.  In a poll conducted on 1/25, IA shows Romney leading 40-32.  While Gingrich only lost 2 points on his total, Romney gained 14 points.  Santorum and Paul were down 3 and 4 points respectively in the poll.  The remaining 5 point increase in Romney's numbers were undecideds breaking his way as the January 31st primary draws near.

Gingrich has a week to turn things around.  If he fails, Romney will have resurrected a campaign that was beginning to flounder.

Gingrich Now Leads National Polls

Two national polls released today show former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has moved ahead of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  Rasmussen has Gingrich over Romney 35-28, while Gallup Tracking has Gingrich ahead 31-27.

Gallup Tracking Poll Shows Gingrich Within One Point of Romney Nationally

Mitt Romney

An updated tracking poll released by Gallup today shows Mitt Romney's national lead cut to one point.  A week ago, the Gallup tracking poll showed Romney with a 23 point lead on Newt Gingrich.   Romney's numbers appear to be in free fall.  Expect Romney to go bitterly negative against Gingrich as he tries to salvage his campaign.

Gingrich has skillfully figured out how to play the economic populist, outsider card. While Gingrich as a 20 year plus politician and lobbyist is hardly the ideal messenger for the tea partyesque cause of populism, he is far better suited than the uber-wealthy Romney.  The former Masssachusetts governor has yet to figure out that having a parade of insider, establishment figures announce their endorsement of him is not helpful when it comes to attracting voters looking for an outsider to take on the problems in Washington.

Gingrich Almost Overnight Surges Past Romney in Florida (w/Update on Rasmussen Poll)

Newt Gingrich

The last several polls have showed Mitt Romney with a double-digit lead in Florida.  Those polls showed leads of 22, 24, 26 and 15. 

Yesterday, a day after the South Carolina, Insider Advantage did a poll of the Sunshine State.  The result showed Newt Gingrich with an eight point lead over Romney.

It appears the non-Romney's are coalescing behind the former Speaker. That spells trouble for Romney. If the former Massachusetts Governor can't win Florida, where he is supremely organized and has money to compete in the state's several media markets, then his nomination becomes doubtful.  The nomination could be over pretty quickly, but over with Gingrich as the nominee rather than Romney.

UPDATE:  Rasmussen also released a poll today confirming the Gingrich surge. That poll shows Gingrich with a nine point lead, a 31 point swing from a previous poll just 11 days ago showing Romney with a 22 point lead.

Gallup Tracking Poll Documents 18 Point Drop in Romney Lead in Six Days

On January 15, 2012, Gallup released a tracking poll showing Mitt Romney leading nationwide by 23 points.  Today Gallup released an update on its tracking poll showing an 18 point drop in Romney's support, in just six days, making the spread 30-25 in favor of Romney.

Expect Newt Gingrich to almost completely close the gap in Florida polls early this week.

Why the Conventional Wisdom About Romney's Organization is Wrong; South Carolina Voters Disbelieve Romney is "Most Electable" Myth

Yesterday, Newt Gingrich won a huge victory in South Carolina's primary.  Gingrich finished with 40% of the vote while Mitt Romney had 27%.  The 13% spread reflected a more sizable Gingrich victory than even the latest polls were predicting.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

In a race for third place, Rick Santorum edged out Ron Paul, 17% to 13%.

A number of political analysts have suggested that this is the end of the road for the former House speaker, that Gingrich doesn't have the organization that Romney has and therefore won't be able to compete in the races ahead.  I don't buy that and here's why.  Romney can have a great organization in every state to come, the problem though is at the end of the day when voters go to vote and see a ballot with a Romney choice and a non-Romney choice .  Head-to-head, with a single anti-Romney, Romney loses.

An unpopular candidate can be rehabilitated if he or she is not well known.  But if the candidate is very well known by the electorate and disliked, all the organization and money the candidate has cannot fix that perception of the candidate.  Romney is strongly disliked by 2/3 of Republicans.  Even if he is lucky enough to get the nomination, the narrow band of establishment Republicans who support him will not provide enough of a foundation to win a general election.  Most people in this country, when asked an ideology refers to themselves as "conservative."  Nominating a Massachusetts liberal turned moderate turned pretend conservative isn't a way to win a general election.

Finally, an overlooked story out of South Carolina is that the voters of that state rejected the notion that Mitt Romney is the most electable.  Exit polls showed that of South Carolina voters who said "electability" was the key factor in their vote, 50% voted for Gingrich while Romney received 40%.   Romney's chief argument for his nomination from the beginning has been that he is the "most electable."  If voters in other states follow South Carolina's lead in viewing Gingrich as the most likely to beat President Obama, the case for nominating Romney is over.

Ogden on Politics Endorses Ron Paul as Best to Carry Conservative Republican Banner

Ron Paul

For several week, nay months, I've been trying to figure out which Republican to support for President.  They all - well maybe not Mitt Romney - have an attraction for someone like myself who believes in limited government but also believes in personal freedom.  After much consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the polices Texas Congressman Ron Paul advocate most closely match what I believe in.  Paul thus receives the Ogden on Politics endorsement, which along with 3 bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Let's first dispose of the challengers.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney was never a serious option. He represents everything wrong with the establishment wing of the GOP, which wing mocks Republican voters who actually believe in the conservative values that they vote on.  Romney is the ultimate elitist running in the age of populism. He doesn't understand working men and women and, what's more, he does not seem to care about them.  He has flip-flopped on a number of social issues.  I have no problem with people's views evolving over time, but Romney changes his views to try to win votes.  He has no core values, except the fervent belief that he should be President.  Romney is the Republican equivalent of Evan Bayh.

Romney's ace in the hole, that he is somehow more electable than the other Republican candidates, is a myth.   When 2/3 of your own party can't stand you and will consider any alternative, no matter how flawed, those people are very likely to stay home or vote for the Democrat or third party in the Fall.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is another option.  I've done enough divorce work to know to take an ex-spouse words with a grain of salt.  While Gingrich clearly has some troubling personal baggage, I do believe in redemption.  Maybe Gingrich has turned a new chapter in his personal life.  I'm far more troubled by Gingrich's professional baggage, such as his lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or whatever he was doing for them.  Gingrich seems to apply different rules to the conduct of other public officials than what he applies to himself.

Gingrich though is a terrific debater, the best of the bunch.  On the campaign trail he is the intellectual equivalent of Obama and more skilled with presidential camapign joust and parrying than the President.  While, like Romney, Gingrich has flip-flopped on issues, unlike with Romney, you get the sense Gingrich does have a conservative core.    I do like the fact that Gingrich is willing to be reasonable on immigration policy and open-minded on other issues.  But it's hard not to forget his participation in the "man is causing dangerous global warming" television commercial with Nancy Pelosi. 

Rick Santorum

Of the field, Iowa Caucus winner Rick Santorum, is probably the most likable on a personal level. I do like his commitment to the pro-life cause and that he is willing to live the philosophy regarding the sanctity of human life.  I think fiscally he's fairly solid, though he like virtually every member of Congress has earmark and other issues.  But I don't like Santorum's lack of tolerance when it comes to social issues. I realize the entire Republican field, sans Ron Paul, is against legalizing same sex marriage, Santorum though seems to take that position a step further, with his condemnation of homosexuality.  While it's not my cup of tea, I don't understand how allowing same sex marriage endanger the institution of marriage.  Even though many of us disagree with same sex marriage, we need to be more tolerant of homosexuality.

Rick Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry was my original favorite.  I saw him as having a stellar record in Texas and someone who could unite the fiscal and social conservatives in the GOP.  But while Perry on paper was a strong candidate, he was a bust on the campaign trial.  Perry's poor performance in the debates killed him, though he at the end, too late, began to improve.  Further, Perry turned me off with his desperate and misguided play to religious conservatives by believing that religiosity equals intolerance.  The last straw for me though was Perry's debate declaration that we should send troops back into Iraq.  Ugh.

That brings me to Texas Congressman Ron Paul.   I didn't reflexively walk in to the Paul camp.  I have concerns. One issue that is hardly mentioned is age.  Ronald Reagan, at 69, is the oldest President ever elected.  Ron Paul is 76, almost as old as Reagan was when he left office.  But times have changed from the 1980s.  People are living longer, but more importantly, they are living healthier lives into their senior years.  Ron Paul is one of the brightest minds on the stage, the only intellectual rival to Gingrich.  I am over my concern about his age.

The biggest concern I had along the way was Paul's involvement with the well-publicized racist newsletters for which economic analysis.  In one of the media interviews I saw, Paul did the right thing.  He apologized and basically confessed he was negligent when it came to reviewing what others were writing in the newsletters.  I like it when people are willing to admit to mistakes.  More importantly though Paul went on to make an extremely compelling case that he is the most sensitive candidate when it comes to issues that disproportionally impact minorities and, in particular, African-Americans.  Paul talked about the failure of the War on Drugs and the high incarceration rates.  Further, Paul understands probably better than anyone that taking away civil liberties to fight crime, ultimately opens the door for the law-abiding to have their rights taken away.

On other issues, I often disagree with Paul.  On foreign policy, I agree with Paul that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, or at the least not made a long-term project out of it.  But on Afghanistan, I disagree with the Texas congressman. We were right to go into Afghanistan because of the events of 9/11 and terrorism practiced by Al Quada.  I think Paul should be more concerned about terrorism and dangers such as Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Ron Paul

While a lot of Republicans talking heads fault Ron Paul for his isolationist policies, which I agree go too far, they are willing to support an interventionist foreign policy that is even more extreme.  We need a GOP nominee who will finally question the need for bases all over the world and the level of defense spending that eats up half of the nation's budget.  As far as the politics of foreign policy, the isolationist wing of the GOP is alive and well and growing larger every day.  Ron Paul though seems to be the only candidate who understand that.

Where I am most in sync with Ron Paul is on economic policy.  I think Ron Paul's focus on the budget deficit is long overdue.  But rather than just pay lip service to addressing the debt, Paul is the only one willing to seriously rethink the bloated role the federal government has assumed in our daily lives.  Cutting that role of government is frankly the only way the cuts necessary to be made can be made.

A Facebook friend faulted pro-life Ron Paul's for not being pro-life enough because he did not think the federal Constitution should be interpreted to ban abortion.  Ron Paul is exactly correct.  Roe v. Wade is an abomination because the constitution is silent as to when life begins and the right to an abortion.  The majority of justices simply invented an fundamental right to abortion based on another made up right, a general "right to privacy" which, by the way, also isn't mentioned in the Constitution.  To twist the language of the federal Constitution to ban abortion would be judicial activism every bit as bad as Roe v. Wade.   Two wrongs do not make a right.  Ron Paul believes not only in the Constitution, but that when that document is silent as to rights, the people, through their elected representatives have a right to decide what the best policy is.

My support of Ron Paul can be summed up as this.  While I often think the policies he advocates go too far, he is at least going in the right direction.  I can't say that for the other candidates.  I can't say that anyone on the Republican stage would actually reduce the size of our federal government or protect our hard-fought liberties like Ron Paul would. That's why Ogden on Politics is glad to endorse Ron Paul for President.  Don't forget to take this opinion along with your $3 for a Starbucks coffee.

Gingrich Suddenly Leading in South Carolina; Romney Has Very Bad Day on Campaign Trail

Five South Carolina polls were released today.  Unbelievably former Speaker Newt Gingrich leads in three of them.  Before today, Mitt Romney had led in 10 straight South Carolina polls, including the last four by double digits.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The issue over Romney's 15% tax rate and his saying $374,327 plus to give 9 speeches was "not very much" income seems to be hurting Romney even within Republican ranks.

Meanwhile the news out of Iowa is that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and not Romney, actually won, the Iowa caucus. 

It was all in all a very bad day for Mitt Romney.  The only saving grace was the airing of the interview with the second wife of Gingrich's where she suggested he wanted an "open marriage" if the relationship was to continue.  I doubt that will have much of an impact, given people tend to discount anything an ex-spouse says.  I could be wrong though.  After all, I did not foresee this enormous comeback by Gingrich in South Carolina.

Romney Makes Campaign Gaff, Says $374,372 to Give Eight Speeches is Not Much Money

Under pressure to release his tax returns, yesterday on the campaign trail Mitt Romney said that his effective tax rate was about 15%, a rate much lower than many working men and women, but is a rate that reflects long term investments.

Mitt Romney

Fortunately for ex-Massachusetts Governor, the focus on his tax returns and the tax rate he pays is diverting attention from a far more damaging statement.  Romney said that, in addition to investment income, he also gets "speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.”   In fact, in the most recent year, Romney made $374,327.62 in speaker’s fees, at an average of $41,592 per speech, according to his public financial disclosure reports.

Americans have no problem electing wealthy men and women to office. What they balk at though is electing candidates who they believe do not understand the plight of average Americans, especially when the country remains mired in a recession.  Romney with one speech makes just under the median American household income of $46,326.  With just eight speeches he matches several years of income for ordinary folks.  Yet he considers that to be "not very much" money?

For a smart man, Mitt Romney can be incredibly stupid at times.  He might get a pass in Republican circles for such ill-advised comments.  But when he goes to the general election round, his tin ear when it comes to the economic plight of average Americans will be an albatross hanging around the nominee's neck.  As I've said, Romney

He's unlikely to get a pass from the American people when he is the nominee and is squaring off against President Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney's Treatment of Family Dog Shows Candidate Has Unpresidential Character Flaw

Photograph of since departed Seamus

I am not one to usually watch Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, whose views I generally find repugnant.  But recently I ran across her detailing the story of Mitt Romney and his dog Seamus which I found interesting.  Below she quotes a 2007 Boston Globe story by Neils Swidey and Stephanie Ebbert:

The white Chevy station wagon with the wood paneling was overstuffed with suitcases, supplies, and sons when Mitt Romney climbed behind the wheel to begin the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario … Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

[...]

As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ”Dad!” he yelled. ”Gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours. As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

A couple days ago, Swidey published an update to that 2007 article in light of Romney's opponent's making an issue of the dog story:

To me, Romney’s critics have focused on the wrong part of the anecdote. It’s not that Romney put his dog on the roof. Remember how different standards were in 1983. Back then, I was a kid sloshing around in the cargo section of my family’s station wagon, competing with my equally unbuckled younger sister to see how many passing truck drivers we could get to pull their horns. I’ll take the Romneys at their word that Seamus loved his alfresco rides. Hell, my dog loves doing all kinds of things I don’t, chief among them luxuriating in the stink of other dogs’ duffs. What is beyond debate, though, is that this far into this particular trip, Seamus had ceased enjoying his ride. Faced with such irrefutable evidence, most people, I suspect, would have relented and let the ailing dog cram into the back of the wagon, even if logic dictated that cleaning up a repeat episode of his gastric distress would be a whole lot messier than if he were returned to the roof.

I totally agree with that assessment.  The problem is Romney saw an animal in distress and instead of putting the dog in the station wagon with the family, he chose to put the dog back in exactly the situation that caused that distress.  It says a lot about Romney's cold, heartless, unsympathetic character...not good traits for someone running for President in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

What if Romney Loses South Carolina?; Is Gingrich Poised to Rebound?

Being the first Republican presidential candidate to win Iowa and then New Hampshire, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is supposed to have the GOP nomination wrapped up.  But does he?

Newt Gingrich

A new Insider Advantage poll out of South Carolina, the next stop for the candidates, shows Romney with only a 23%-21% lead over former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  The poll also showed significant support among other Non-Romneys, Santorum 14%, Paul 13%, Huntsman 7%, Perry 5%.

Gingrich is also being aided by an independent Super PAC financed by billionaire Sheldon Adelson.  Finally Romney is getting some of his own medicine ... an "independent" Super PAC designed solely for the purpose of attacking an opponent, namely him.

Perhaps the defining of Romney has come too late.  Perhaps the candidates not named Romney will continue to divide the NonRomney vote.  But if Gingrich wins South Carolina and knocks out a couple NonRomneys along the way, Romney's sure nomination might be out of the window.  Romney does not matchup well with any GOP candidate in a one-on-one race.

I am greatly troubled by Newt Gingrich's personal and lobbying baggage.  Still, if he is the only option to Mitt Romney (and Barack Obama), I will support him.  Romney has not a conservative bone in his body and is rightly disliked by virtually every Republican who is not in the presidential game for the sole purpose of personally cashing in if the former Massachusetts Governor wins.

Actually the best scenario would be a brokered GOP convention where the factions in the GOP can nominate a quality Republican nominee.   That is a highly unlikely scenario, but it would certainly be best for the party.

Will Republicans Make Fatal Mistake of Nominating Another Thomas Dewey to Face Harry Truman Wannabe President Obama?



Gov. Thomas Dewey

I said several months ago, before the Republican primary season, that President Barack Obama would run a Harry Truman-style re-election campaign in which he rallied for the common man and against the big business and the do-nothing Congress.  I just didn't know at the time the Republicans would play along with the Obama strategy by nominating the second coming of Truman's 1948 opponent, Thomas Dewey.  Yesterday former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won a solid victory in New Hampshire's primary with 40% of the vote. His next closest challenger was Ron Paul with 23% of the vote.

Like Romney, Dewey was a governor of a northeastern state, serving as governor of New York from 1943 to 1954.  Romney was also governor of a northeastern state Massachusetts.  Dewey was an advocate for big business interests and favored an unfettered interventionist foreign policy.  Dewey was part of the more liberal establishment wing of the Republican Party.  Romney is too.  Dewey had a privileged childhood; Romney's was even more privileged. He was born a multi-millionaire.

The driving force right now in politics is economic populism.  While they have different goals, both the tea party and occupy movements are essentially populists movements that rail against the use of government to aid big business.  If the Republicans proceed to nominate Mitt Romney, which is growing more likely, the tea party populist energy of the party goes out the door as well as the newly energized, Ron Paul-led libertarian wing of the GOP.

A Romney nomination gives Obama the opportunity to run a non-holds barred populist campaign, reminiscent of the then unpopular Truman's 1948 whistle-stop campaign against Dewey.  Romney's time at Bain Capital, in which he worked to reorganize companies by laying off working men and women, might be intellectually defensible from a macro-economic standpoint.  But in the world of politics, it is easily exploitable.

The polls showing Romney the "most electable" against Obama are a mirage.  Nominating Romney, a card carrying member of the so-called 1% in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, is like feeding fresh meat to a lion.  Truman, er President Obama, will rip Romney to shreds.

If the GOP does nominate Romney, there will be one stark difference between the the 1948 and 2012 presidential elections.  The result.  The Truman-Dewey contest was close.  An Obama-Romney race will be a landslide for the President.

See Advance Indiana's excellent take on this issue posted today:  "Will The American People Elect Gordon Gekko President?"

Suffolk/7 News Tracking Poll Shows Romney's Support in New Hampshire Eroding Over Past Week

Mitt Romney

Suffolk/7 News has started doing a daily tracking poll to gauge the race in New Hampshire.  Here are the past weeks' results for Mitt Romney.

1/2  43%
1/3  43%
1/4  41%
1/5  40%
1/6  39%
1/7  35%

Fortunately for Romney, that same tracking poll, which shows an erosion of his support in the Granite State, does not show any definite trend toward a non-Romney candidate.

During last night's debate, the non-Romneys were more interested in attacking each other than going after Romney.  The strategy is to be the last non-Romney candidate in order to take on the former Massachusetts governor one-on-one.  Unfortunately for those candidates they may end up killing everyone off leaving only Romney.

Will Unrealistic Expectations of Huge Romney Win in New Hampshire Turn a Victory Into a Defeat?

By all accounts, former Massachusetts Governor Matt Romney should win next week's New Hampshire primary easily.  Two polls released today show that Mitt Romney comfortably leading the Granite State.

Suffolk/7News Tracking
Romney 41
Paul 18
Santorum 8
Huntsman 7
Gingrich 7

Washington Times/JLZ Analytics
Romney 38
Paul 24
Santorum 11
Gingrich 9
Huntsman 8

What is unfortunate for Romney is that expectations have been so built up about his performance in New Hampshire that he is unlikely to match those expectations.  The NonRomneys are beginning to attack Romney and it is likely his numbers are going to suffer as a result.  The media though gauges winners and losers by performance versus expectations.  If Romney barely breaks 30% next week, which I think is quite possible,l it might be viewed as a setback instead of as a win.

Is Romney's Free Pass From Negative Attacks About to End?; Gingrich Vows To Return Fire

Mitt Romney

In the midst of the negative TV ad onslaught in Iowa, an interesting fact emerges.  During the Iowa caucus season not a single negative ad was run against Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  Such has been the course of this campaign.  The Non-Romneys bitterly rip each other apart hoping to take on Romney one-on-one.  When Romney sees a Non-Romney passing him in the polls, an independent expenditure committee, Restore our Future, funded by unlimited contributions by Romney's Wall Street corporate friends, including money from 10% of this country's billionaires, swings into action funding a flurry of negative ads tearing down the candidate who had the temerity to pass the ex-Massachusetts Governor in the polls.  But when it comes to Romney, the Iowa Caucus winner has consistently received a pass when it comes to negative attacks. 

Newt Gingrich

Romney should be incredibly popular in his own party since he has not faced the negative ads others have faced.  But Romney is not popular...his support in the GOP has been stuck at 25% since, oh, about 2006.  Imagine what the result in Iowa would have been if if Romney faced the barrage of negative commercials that Newt Gingrich faced?

Romney's negative attacks, or rather those of Restore Our Future, which is not at all connected to Romney's campaign (yeah, right), might have awakened a bear in Iowa.  Post-Iowa Gingrich is vowing to end Romney's free pass and begin hitting him with negative advertising defining him as the unprincipled flip-flopper who thinks he can buy the nomination.   While Gingrich may have lost the nomination in Iowa, he can do the Republican Party a favor by exposing Romney for the person he is.  It is about damned time.

75% of Iowa Caucus Voters Reject Mitt Romney; Massachusetts Governor Shows Himself To Be One Of The Least Electable Republicans In The Field

I write this past midnight with 98% of the precincts reporting in Iowa.  Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, with 25% of the vote, has a 5 vote lead over former Massachusetts Governor and Establishment Favorite Mitt Romney.  Romney may well still pull off a win in Iowa, a win he would no doubt trumpet as proof of his ace in the hole, that he is the most electable candidate in a weak Republican field.

Balderdash.

The first thing a candidate for President is supposed to do is consolidate his base.  Romney has been campaigning for president non-stop for at least six years.  Even if he pulls off a win, his performance in 2012 both percentage-wise and raw vote wise, is still no better than it was in the Iowa Caucus four years ago, against a substantially stronger field.

Mitt Romney

The headlines out of Iowa should be that fully 3/4 of the GOP electorate rejected Romney in the Iowa caucus, a figure which is consistent with nationwide polls,  Yet the establishment wing of the GOP, those folks who mock libertarian and tea party Republicans for actually believing candidates' positions on issues matter, insist Romney, a liberal Republican turned moderate, is the best hope to beat Obama.

Balderdash.

Economic populism is being coming an increasingly dominant force in the electorate.  People are sick of government using its power to bailout big corporations while leaving ordinary folks high and dry.  Populism presents a unique opportunity for Republicans to reach out to working men and women.

In the classic Wall Street v. Main Street match, there are a lot more voters living on Main Street. Yet who does the Establishment want to nominate? Mr. Wall Street, Mitt Romney.  As a card-carrying member of the 1%, Romney does not begin to understand the concerns of every day Americans who have suffered through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  Nominating Romney is to completely concede the populist card to President Obama.

During this election cycle Republican voters have considered some very flawed candidates. Through it all 3/4 of them have consistently chosen the flawed candidates over Mitt Romney.  It is preposterous for the establishment types to continue to assume that the 75% who have consistently rejected Romney will eventually bite their tongue and vote for him as the nominee in the general election.  No, what they will do is stay home or vote for Barack Obama.

The lesson from the Iowa Caucus is that Mitt Romney is not the most electable.  Rather he is just about the least electable Republican in the field.