Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

January 19th CNN GOP Presidential Debate [video]

It’s only been a few days and it’s already time for another Republican Presidential candidate debate tonight at 8pm Eastern on CNN. If you liked the last one because there were only five candidates, you may really like this one as Rick Perry has joined the ranks of the fallen.

Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will be the only participants in the CNN debate that will be held in Charleston, SC.

Just hours before the debate Rick Perry announced the suspension of his campaign and his endorsement of Newt Gingrich. Shortly after that, news broke that Newt’s ex-wife sat down with ABC news in an interview where she discussed their divorce more than a decade past.

Romney has been hammered over his use of off-shore banking to hold his money, his tax rate and his reluctance to share his tax returns. After his lackluster performance in the last debate, the negative attention is taking its toll as Newt has now taken a slim lead in South Carolina polls.

Ron Paul struggled to explain his unpopular foreign policy in Monday’s event and that seems to left him anchored at the bottom of the pile now that Perry has left.

That leaves Santorum to make or break his campaign in tonight’s affair. His last debate performance was neither great nor terrible, he’s been largely left alone by the press and today we learned that he actually won the Iowa Caucuses.

Where to watch

  • CNN
  • CNN.com
  • This post if a live stream is made available

Since Perry's Out, I'm With Romney

As reported, Gov. Rick Perry has dropped out of the presidential race.

Which candidate will I support now?

Backstory: Originally, I favored Mitch Daniels- a solid fiscal conservative who pushed for, and got, a balanced budget multiple years in a row, an increase in Indiana’s credit rating to AAA for the first time ever; and substantial reform in Medicaid with the Healthy Indiana Plan. Mitch is also solidly pro-gun and pro-self-defense; indeed, after the devastating Indiana Supreme Court decision curtailing an individual’s right to defend his home, I wrote a letter to Governor Daniels expressing my outrage, and received a wonderful reply from his staff. His message of a social issues moratorium- criticized by some on the right as proof of Mitch’s “closet liberalism”- was sound advice, proven more sound every day this Presidential primary continues. This moratorium allowed him, among other things, to defund Planned Parenthood by approaching it as a budget issue rather than a social issue.

But “My Man Mitch”, one of our party’s few Democrat Whisperers, announced he wasn’t running. I was devastated. After a few months of searching for a similarly authentic personality, one with fiscal bona fides to match Mitch’s, I found one: Governor Rick Perry of Texas.

Perry’s authenticity resounded in me; his eleven-year record of economic performance in Texas couldn’t be seriously challenged; he wasn’t afraid to part ways with generic GOP thinking when he disagreed with it, particularly on immigration issues; and he attracted a loyal following. On that last point, I must say this: Some of the nicest people I’ve met recently on Twitter and Facebook are people I’ve encountered by advocating on behalf of Rick Perry. He didn’t just attract supporters, he attracted good and decent supporters. Unfortunately, he didn’t attract enough of them.

Rick couldn’t overcome his initial debate performances- likely a result of the pain medication he took following his back surgery. His later debate performances were extraordinary, but too late to save the campaign.

So now that he has dropped out, who should I support?

I suppose it’s fair to say I’m on the “Anybody But Obama” bandwagon. We’re not just choosing the next President. His success or failure will also decide our success or failure in retaking the Senate- which is crucial to our cause- as well as success or failure, to some degree, in state and local elections. Whomever occupies the White House for the next four years will also replace at least two, perhaps as many as four, Supreme Court justices- determining the composition of the Court for the next twenty years. We must, at any cost, win in November. To quote a great fictional leader, “all other concerns are secondary”.

We have four contenders for the nomination now. We can safely eliminate two right away: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Paul doesn’t have enough support among registered Republicans to win the nomination, and Santorum, despite the recent endorsement of the Family Research Council, doesn’t appeal enough to moderate elements of the party to win the nomination either.

So, I am left with two choices: Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.

I’m not going to get into either candidates’ record, since both are substantially lacking in genuine conservatism. My one and only concern is stated above: Which has a better chance of defeating Barack Obama.

And my choice- this is difficult to type- is Mitt Romney.

Romney has the better organization of the two, by far. Gingrich’s campaign staff have already walked out on him once, and his organization failed to get him on the ballot in Virginia. Romney’s organization, by comparison, has made no missteps.

Romney is inoffensive to the middle. Let’s remember that he won election in a heavily-left state. He has appeal to moderates and independents. Some people on the right discount the notion of “electability”- I don’t. We won’t win by “energizing the base”, which is merely political speak for “preaching to the choir”. We win by getting 270 electoral votes, and that means convincing the- gasp- moderates and independents to vote our way. By comparison, Gingrich has a history of turning people off. For example, he recently told gay people to vote for Obama. Let’s also remember that he once was so offensive, his own party turned on him and pushed him out of leadership in the House.

Central to our success in November is convincing the unconvinced middle that our view of deregulated, free market capitalism holds the key to our economic success. Romney, as is already known, spent a career as a venture capitalist. Dan Henninger at the Wall Street Journal makes a great argument that venture capitalists like Bain contributed heavily to salvaging the American economy in the early 1980s. By comparison, Gingrich has argued against venture capitalism, dipping into the bag of leftist talking points.

Let’s be honest: Mitt Romney is a salesman, and a damned good one at that.

I have reservations about Romney: He’s not entirely gun-friendly, he signed RomneyCare, and he’s spoken favorably of a national VAT tax. Gingrich has negative points against him, too: He’s not entirely gun-friendly either, he also has a long history of supporting government health care, his welfare reform plan is pretty shabby, and he believes FDR was “the greatest President of the 20th century“.

Let’s remember what I said earlier: This is not a choice of which candidate is ‘slightly more conservative’ than the other; it’s a choice of which has the best chance of winning the middle and becoming the next President of the United States.

I believe the man with the best chance is Mitt Romney.

Rick Perry To Drop Out

CNN reports Governor Rick Perry will drop out of the Presidential race today. The news is confirmed by Politico. As of the minute this report was being written, FOX Business confirmed on-air on the Varney and Company program that Perry will drop out.

Sources believe he will endorse Newt Gingrich.

CDN will report on developments.

UPDATE: Fox Business reports on-air that Perry will hold a press conference at 11am.

UPDATE: At press conference, 11:16 am, Perry officially suspended his campaign and endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Who Will Herman Endorse?

 

Herman Cain, former GOP presidential candidate, is scheduled to make an endorsement and announcement Thursday morning on his hometown radio station, News/Talk 750AM WSB in Atlanta. The announcement, being billed as “unconventional,” will be aired live at 8:45am EST as a part of the regularly scheduled Neal Boortz radio show. You can listen live at wsbradio.com.

The local radio station promos for the announcement lead listeners to believe that Herman Cain is headed back into the talk radio world on WSB, the station that hosted his previous show “The Herman Cain Show” for three years. His show has been on hiatus for nearly a year, a decision that was made when Mr. Cain formally decided to pursue a bid for the White House.

Here is the snippet currently found on wsbradio.com promoting Thursday’s announcement:

The endorsement will come on the eve of the South Carolina primary, and much speculation can be made about whom Mr. Cain will endorse. Primary voters were shocked yesterday when Sarah Palin endorsed Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Because of the goodwill that is apparent between Cain and Gingrich, the argument could be made that Mr. Cain will follow suit and also endorse fellow-Georgian, Gingrich.

Speaker Gingrich has claimed that a victory in South Carolina would lock in the nomination for him, and recent polls show that he does have the momentum. Maybe the endorsement from Cain, who was extraordinarily popular with Southern voters, would provide that last boost necessary to overtake Romney.

However, the fact that Thursday’s event has been labeled “unconventional” must make us all scratch our heads. Mr. Cain doesn’t do much by the book, so he could very well use this platform to launch another book tour, website, or just version 2.0 of his talk radio career. There’s no doubt the radio station is loving the fact that we’ll all have to tune in to find out.

S.C. GOP Presidential Debate Notes

The FoxNews/Wall Street Journal S.C. GOP Presidential debate last night contained a slight twist: The addition of twitter social media interaction. While it was hailed as giving voters a more direct way to ask questions and get involved with the debate, it really isn’t as much of a “thinking outside the box” addition as some claim it to be. Tea Party groups and numerous conservative websites have been doing this since the start of the GOP Presidential debate season. CDN has been live-streaming many debates and allowing voters to interact during the GOP debates.  Readers may also vote for who won last night’s debate by clinking that CDN debate link.

Debate notes:  Token Fox News Liberal Juan Williams stooped to new lows with a semi-hidden racism claim posed as a question aimed at  Newt Gingrich about his remarks about having school kids work as janitors and other positions at their schools as a way to promote work ethics and self-pride, while also teaching them the value of money.  Newt was strong throughout the debate, which has been the case in all of the previous debates. He offers well-defined, concrete solutions for America. Williams was embarrassed as he should be, especially when he attempted to circle back and hit Newt with underlying, perception-nudging charges of racism a second, and even a third time. Typical Liberal class warfare tactics there Mr. Williams.  Shame on you.

Fox News put a twitter report on TV this morning with data compiled from twitter activity last night. To show how  determined Ron Paul’s supporters are today, they overwhelmed the twitter debate data in pushing Ron Paul to a supposed win by stating that Paul answered the questions the best. None of that kind of thinking was to be found anywhere in my debate notes. Paul stated that he would lower tax rates to zero last night. He fumbled the question about whether America has the right to kill her enemies, such as happened with Bin Laden. The Iowa Republican had an excellent summary that begs to ask the question, “Just what makes anyone actually believe that Ron Paul won this debate?”

Ron Paul: The Texas congressman told a flat out lie when he was asked about comments he made last year WHO Radio about giving the order to kill Bin Laden. Paul said on Simon Conway’s show, three times, that he would not have given that order. He said during the debate that he never said that. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, there is videotape evidence.

Paul then made it worse by saying we should have worked with Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Newt Gingrich took Paul apart for those comments, saying the Pakistanis were compliant in hiding Bin Laden. It was an awful moment for Paul and anyone except his diehard fans can see that. There were other problems, including an exchange with Santorum on gun rights that Paul lost. Overall, it was a terrible night for the libertarian icon.

 

Rick Santorum scored big points for hitting Romney on his nasty attack ads, and Ron Paul on gun rights issues. Santorum still appears to be fighting to be heard in these debates, which could be viewed as unfair in numerous ways. The only questions he seems to get are on religion, abortions, and assorted social issues which he tried to answer by pointing out his fiscal conservative credentials as a U.S. Senator. Without a fair shake,  Santorum could very well be the next candidate to join Jon Huntsman in dropping out,  possibly after the Florida primary.

 

Mitt Romney showed exactly who he is last night, in a heated debate about his non-committal  statement as to if he would release his tax returns for all to see. Gov. Rick Perry refused to let Romney off the hook,  and a moderator pointedly asked Romney if he would release his tax returns, to which he basically replied, “maybe.”  It was a simple yes or no question.  Mitt Romney stood tall with pat answers for most of the night, yet did little to install a much-needed conservative confidence with voters with many of his answers. Governor Perry reemphasized the need to get government out of people’s lives and return the numerous stolen powers of the federal government back to the states.  Had  Governor Perry made the commitment to run for the 2012 GOP nomination for President much earlier than he did, he would surely be polling much higher than he is currently.  It’s still a long ways  to go until Nov. 6, 2012, yet it is certainly looking very much like a race between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

The Wall Street Journal representatives added a level of credibility to this debate, for which they are to be highly commended for.

As the above picture shows us, the 2012 Presidential elections are a critical turning point in American history. We must limit the U.S. Government to spending less than what is taken in if we are ever to avoid a Greek-style collapse.  Federal revenues must be increased through free-market expansion, and debt spending must be eliminated, while keeping our nation secure under the umbrella of a strong military. Take another look at the debt chart above. That is what the 2012 elections are all about.

 

 

Family Research Council Endorses Rick Santorum

Tony Perkins

CDNews had the privilege of being invited to the Family Research Council’s conference call on Saturday, where Tony Perkins, President of the FRC, announced that a group of 150 conservative leaders had chosen Rick Santorum as their Presidential candidate.

Among the highlights of the conference:

Mr. Perkins gave a synopsis of the meeting at Judge Paul Pressler’s ranch outside Houston, Texas. Surrogates of every candidate except Jon Huntsman spoke before the group. Mr. Perkins said the group’s three primary issues were, foremostly, the repeal of Obamacare; the debt ceiling issue; and the pro-life movement. Mr. Perkins said the group focused on determining the candidate who best reflected the conservative mindset and was most likely to succeed in defeating Barack Obama. He said economic issues were extremely important to the group.

Mr. Perkins said the event was not an anti-Romney event, and very little time was spent discussing Romney’s record. He said there was no discussion of Romney’s religion, and that if it was discussed it was a sidenote.

Mr. Perkins said that the group of conservative leaders would manifest their support for Santorum through their PACs and other means. Mr. Perkins said the organization would not call on Rick Perry or any other candidate to drop out of the election. Mr. Perkins couldn’t name the leaders involved in the group’s ballot process, but he said some may soon emerge with endorsements for Santorum and he estimated that other activites supporting Santorum would emerge within about 24 hours.

Mr. Perkins said there was no discussion of eventually supporting Mitt Romney, and that the participants were not resigned to the belief that Romney would be the eventual nominee. He said there was some discussion about Romney’s abortion record, but that very little time was spent on the topic.

Mr. Perkins said Santorum’s record of stability and consistent articulation of economic and social issues appealed to the group, and that the group hoped to overcome Santorum’s fundraising deficit through public support.

Mr. Perkins said there had been some concerns about Rick Perry’s “stumbles” during the race. He said that he expected passionate support whether the nominee were Perry, Gingrich, or Santorum, but that the most passionate support was for defeating Obama.

He said there was not a fear that the group’s support for Santorum was coming “too late”, following Iowa and Hew Hampshire. He believed that the support was coming at a “good time” in the primary process.

Mr. Perkins said FRC would be releasing a wirtten statement soon regarding the event.

 

 

 

Surprise! RomneyCare Costs Exploding / Hidden from the Public

According to this article in The New York Times, “Massachusetts cannot bar legal immigrants from a state health care program, according to a ruling issued Thursday by the state’s highest court, a decision that edges the state closer to its goal of providing near-universal health care coverage to its residents” adding, “The ruling said that a 2009 state budget that dropped about 29,000 legal immigrants who had lived in the United States for less than five years from Commonwealth Care, a subsidized health insurance program central to this state’s 2006 health care overhaul, violated the State Constitution.” How does that saying by Sir Walter Scott go? Oh yes, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

If we look back on the head politico that signed the 2009 state budget that did indeed prohibit legal immigrants from receiving RomneyCare health insurance, we see Governor Deval Patrick spinning like a top in trying to explain how he went against the state constitution and installed this discriminatory provision into the healthcare law through the state budgeting system. Gov. Patrick knew fully well this was being done to save money, yet after being caught, he comes out saying he was “initially opposed” to it. From the NYT piece,Gov. Deval Patrick initially opposed barring the immigrants’ from the program and worked with legislators to create an alternative — and more limited — program that cost about $40 million.  If the governor was truly opposed to barring legal immigrants from receiving the health insurance provided by RomneyCare, then he would have vetoed it. This is the direct result of career politicians promising things to get elected, then when they realize the cost of it, they start to secretly inflicting hardships onto the citizenry to pay for their irresponsible nanny-state promises. In this case, the implied “free healthcare for all” turned out to be not so free and not for all citizens.

State officials say they will abide by the high court’s decision, ( isn’t that refreshing) but will now have to figure out a way to pay for the extra $150 million shortfall in the state budget. ( They can always raise taxes on the working class to pay for their blunder, and just call them “fees” as mitt Romney did for his entire term as Governor)

Former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney currently stated that RomneyCare is a perfect fit for the state of Massachusetts residents and is working to ensure all residents have health care. When people are promised anything free by the government, it never actually turns out to be free, as most things in life never do. The Cato Institute did a Policy Analysis of RomneyCare back in January 2010, two years before the high court decision that exposes the Massachusetts government barring over 29,000 legal immigrants from receiving RomneyCare health insurance. That analysis exposes how citizens were prodded to not reveal their true insurance status, (possibly to avoid the the penalties for not having health insurance) and that “the official estimate reported by the Commonwealth almost certainly overstates the law’s impact on insurance coverage, likely by 45 percent. The Policy Analysis paper also exposes the biggest piece of misinformation being used to champion RomneyCare as some form marvel of modern medicine and free gift-giving as follows: “Finally, we conclude that leading estimates understate the law’s cost by at least one third, and likely more.” (emphasis added)

These types of  big government lies and informational manipulating of the facts is exactly why  many 2012  GOP Primary voters are taking a closer look at Newt Gingrich today.  Newt Gingrich, as opposed to Mitt Romney, admits his mistakes, while Mitt Romney is still running around the country telling folks how great of an accomplishment RomneyCare was. How dishonest is that?  

Out of luck in Virginia: Judge rules against Perry, Gingrich and Huntsman

A federal judge has dismissed Gov. Rick Perry’s legal action by which he had hoped to regain access to the Virginia primary ballot.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Gov. Huntsman had also joined on to Perry’s suit as they also had failed to gather enough signatures to make the ballot. Now it appears that only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will be eligible for Virginia’s 49 delegate votes during that state’s open primary on “super Tuesday” March 6th.

Federal district judge John A. Gibney Jr. explained his ruling by saying that “In essence, they played the game, lost and then complained that the rules were unfair.”

The legal basis for the suit was not the reason Judge Gibney threw it out, instead the judge went on to say that “Had the plaintiffs filed a timely suit, the Court would likely have granted preliminary relief. They are likely to prevail on the constitutionality of the residency requirement, and, had they filed earlier, they would have been able to obtain the requisite 10,000 signatures”

The suit was originally filed as a challenge to Virginia’s strict registration requirements. Specifically, the legal action contends that the requirement that even those that gather the signatures be eligible voters in Virginia is overly restrictive and a violation of the first amendment protection of free speech.

Too Dumb to Live?

“Dumber than a bag of hammers”, “one peanut short of a snickers “, “dumber than a rock”…  I could go on….  And I will!  “A few fries short of a happy meal”.  “One clown shy of a circus”….

 

Dumber than a post… a doornail…. an entire sector of the population that doesn’t have to pay taxes and will subsequently vote for the candidate that promises them the world using other people’s money…

 

We often use phrases like this to describe people or more accurately, people’s actions, as being ill advised, immature, adolescent, persnickety, childish, self-indulgent, knee-jerk, hasty…. In a word – stupid!

 

For example, the guy who tries to ride his scooter down a staircase – A few beers short of a six-pack.  How about this: robbing a house by attempting to go down the chimney – a couple of cards short of a full deck.  This was my favorite: attempting to dissect, while still alive, a presidential contender to find all of his faults, only to realize that you’ve killed off all the viable candidates and are left with only a couple of duds.  BWAAHAHAHAA!!  Oh! That one kills me everytime!

 

And, unfortunately, I believe we may have just killed off our country.

 

2012 marks the 50th anniversary of our Supreme Court officially telling God to take a hike.  You remember, don’t you?  Back in 1962?  Engel v. Vitale – the Supreme Court case that banned prayer from public schools – was brought by several students from New York State who thought that voluntary (yes, I said voluntary) prayer in public school violated their First Amendment rights. The prayer that was so offensive read like this:

 

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

 

A utilitarian prayer to say the least, this was also one that was not forced on anyone. Yet a group of activist lawyers appealing to an activist judiciary were successful in ripping the right of the freedom to express your religious beliefs from everyone else, just to placate a few who did not believe that way.  One taco short of a combo plate, if you ask me.

 

Perhaps I do have a different First Amendment than these folks did, but mine reads like this:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof……

 

In the world of common sense, a voluntary (for those educated in the public schools, that means you don’t have to do it) prayer is not the equivalent of Congress creating a law that establishes a national religion. Furthermore, in this increasingly shrinking world of common sense, one could arguably state that banning a “voluntary” prayer would tend to stomp on that last part of the First Amendment, “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.”

 

Yet because we did not want to anger a few, we ripped fundamental rights away from the vast majority. Out goes God, in comes political correctness.

 

It’s been downhill from there folks.

 

I recently checked out a book from my local library. I needed to show them a photo ID. I recently took a test for teacher certification in a specific subject area. I needed to show them a photo ID. My wife and I just swapped out a Christmas present for another item at Walmart. We needed to show them a photo ID.  I’m going to go vote for my Congressman, a Senator, a President and many other state and local officials on November 6 of this year.  You’ll never guess what I don’t need to show them??  Dumber than salt!

 

A modern definition of insanity is attempting to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Republicans, who started with eight or nine viable candidates for president, all of which would be better than the current occupant, have a macheted their way down to basically one.  Herman Cain rises up (click, click) BOOM!  See ya!  Michele Bachmann does well at the Ames Straw Poll?  KABLAM!  Down you go!  Rick Perry comes out with favorable numbers?  RIP, TEAR, SLASH!  He’s out here!  Newt Gingrich surges from the bottom of the pack.  SUPER-PACK, SUPER-PACK!  He’s done!

 

Who’s next? We haven’t finished “vetting” candidates yet!…… we have to find someone to go up against Mitt Romney!…….  oh crap!  Only Ron Paul is left!

 

If you are experiencing flashbacks to 2008 or 1996, take comfort – you’re not alone.  TOO DUMB TO LIVE!!

 

So I ask the question: Is America now simply just too dumb to live? Have we destroyed every person that could lead us back to our former glory, all in the name of vetting?  At the same time, have we turned a blind eye to the fact that now almost half of the electorate either doesn’t have to pay federal income tax or is on some form of federal aid? Do you think people like that are ever going to vote to make the hard choices that this country needs to make in order to fix itself?  Have fun going down the chimney!

 

Perhaps Alexis de Tocqueville was right:

 

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

 

Remember some of chants of the OWS protesters, “This is what democracy looks like!”  Yeah, folks, it does.  That’s why our founding fathers didn’t touch democracy with a 10 foot pole. They specifically called for a republican form of government, one that would not run headlong into hasty decisions, but one that would take it’s time, deliberate, debate and then finally decide.

 

We don’t want to do that anymore as Americans. We want our patience and we want it right now!  That, my friends, is too dumb to live!

 

If we are to survive as a country, we are going to have to eradicate this type of thought. My question to you is this: with all of the “dumb” we have done in this country over the last 50 years, have we come to this moment – a pivotal one in our history – confident that we will elect leaders that will make the difficult choices to get us back on track? Or have we finally hit that tipping point, where all we can do is watch in horror as a once great nation collapses in on itself?  Have we really become “too dumb to live”?

Actual 2012 GOP Primaries to Start Now

Yes, Actual GOP primaries,  as in disallowing Democrats to participate in GOP elections such as happens in NH and Iowa.  Blue chips, red chips, paper slips, and other assorted childish game-playing will now give way to actual Republicans, and only Republicans voting for the 2012 GOP nomination, and frankly, it’s about frigging time.  How ludicrous is it that Democrats can sign in as Independents or an “undeclared voter” in the NH GOP primary, vote in it and then turn around and walk out still an undeclared voter?  Obama-sheep are allowed to go in and throw their votes in the NH primary for whoever they feel has the best chance to lose against Obama.  Likewise in Iowa, as this article exposes how nonsensical that circus of a media sham has become.

This is from nh.gov on voting in the NH primaries :  3) If you are a registered member of a party, you may change your registration at any primary, however, you will not be allowed to vote in that primary. Undeclared voters may declare a party and vote at any primaryThe law allows an undeclared voter to declare a party at the polls, vote the ballot of that party, and then change their party affiliation back to undeclared simply by completing the form available from the Supervisors of the Checklist at the polling place. (emphasis added)

The rest of the 2012 GOP Primary/caucus schedule may be viewed here, courtesy of UPI.  Up next, on Sat. Jan 21st, 2012 will be the South Carolina primary. Apparently, Democrats can vote in the 2012 GOP Primary elections, but will give up their eligibility to become a National Delegate, as seen at examiner.com:

 And since voters are not allowed to partake in the primary races of more than one party, anyone voting in the Republican Presidential Primary on Jan. 21 cannot participate in the vote at their county’s Democratic Party precinct meetings. That lack of vote on March 3 would thus exclude a delegate wannabe.It wouldn’t  just affect individuals personally, either; in fact, it could lower the state’s ranking in the order of presidential primary races for 2016.

 

Next up after S.C. on the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary schedule will be Florida, on the new earlier primary date of Jan. 31st, 2012.  Florida is known as what is commonly referred to as a “closed primary” meaning only registered Republicans who had registered by the close of business on Tuesday, Jan.3rd, 2012 will be allowed to vote in the 2012 GOP Presidential primary.  Early voting for the Republican primary is scheduled for Jan. 21-28. Times and location vary by county. Please visit the Florida Division of Elections for specific information regarding the county you live in,  specific places to vote in the 2012 GOP primaries, and other voting rules.  Keep in mind that the Republican National Convention will be held in Tampa, Florida on Aug. 27-30, 2012.

While the media, which heavily promotes the DNC agenda of today, spews  opinions about past GOP Primary/Caucus results in relationship to the actual general elections results constantly, they seem to deny the staunch realities of what happened in the 2010 mid-term elections. The 24/7 media coverage of the Iowa and NH early primary/caucus votes are designed to do one simple thing: Nudge people’s perceptions as to what GOP candidate is to be deemed “electable.” Remember that in 2008, Mike Huckabee pulled off an improbable win in the Iowa caucuses? If this was so important at the time, then why did John McCain receive every single one of Iowa’s delegate votes in 2008?

Now the media is once again telling us that South Carolina and Florida should be easy wins for the establishment GOP nominee,  Mr. Willard Romney,  based on… his “historic” wins in NH and Iowa. Will the voters once again be led by the nose to vote for Mitt Romney by the multi-million dollar media blitz, or will they make a stand and vote for someone who has actually cut the size and scope of government and has shown the political aptitude to wipe the floor with Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 Presidential debates? Newt Gingrich certainly qualifies.  So does Texas Governor Rick Perry, except for his difficulties expressing his stances on the issues at times. Jon Huntsman has inched forward lately… in the Liberal Northeast region of America.  South Carolina and Florida are political light years away from the mainly Liberal Northeastern U.S. So is Iowa for that matter.   Only time will tell who will win in the actual 2012 GOP primaries of South Carolina and Florida, no matter what the media and big money political operatives tell us. Get informed, get involved.

 

 

 

New Hampshire results didn't change anything

Mitt Romney’s long-expected triumph in New Hampshire came to be and yet .. nothing changed.

New Hampshire is home to all of 12 total delegates in the GOP nomination fight where 1,144 are required to secure the republican spot which means having won the state doesn’t put Romney much closer to the end goal.

With no one changing anything in their election plans after New Hampshire, did it matter?

Conservatives are still searching for an alternative to Romney that will more closely line up with their principles which the Granite State was unable to define – being a mainly moderate-to-liberal area it should be no surprise.

South Carolina is the first primary in a Conservative state and will likely present Conservatives with the candidate that will be the anti-Romney – or if Romney runs away in the southern state, perhaps no alternative exists.

Look for Huntsman’s New Hampshire showing to fizzle in S.C., Paul and Perry will fight a place in the bottom half and Santorum/Gringrich will have another neck-and-neck battle, but this time for second. Romney will likely take South Carolina, but the question remains how decisive a win he manages.

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »