What is Mitt Romney doing in the Republican Party? (Although a better question might by why has the Republican Party strayed so far to the left that a guy like Mitt Romney could be its standard bearer…)

Everyone knows the story of Mitt Romney. He ran Bain Capital and financed a number of new businesses and helped rescue others. True, he and Bain failed a few times, but Bain Capital did what it was supposed to do, which is make money for its shareholders. At the end of the day Bain Capital was a net plus in that it actually produced prosperity (and jobs) for a significant number of people, and that accomplishment cannot be obviated simply because they could not rescue every firm they took a position in.

In 1994 Romney sought to unseat Ted Kennedy from the US Senate but lost as Kennedy pilloried him for lacking core (political) convictions. The fact that he had difficulty establishing a coherent message didn’t help. He lost badly. In 2002 he headed west to manage the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. By all accounts he did a tremendous job and accomplished the financial equivalent of a perfect game, making the Olympics profitable for the host city.

Then of course there was his stint as governor of one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts. Like Scott Brown, a Republican in Teddy Kennedy’s neighborhood can be expected to be a RINO, and Romney certainly fit the bill. On a variety of issues both social and economic Romney was… shall we say purple in his approach. But at the end of the day he was more conservative than his predecessor in one of America’s most liberal states.

Add to that the fact that he’s a good looking guy with a great family and he seems like a poster child for putting Barack Obama in the unemployment line. It’s claimed he’s the Republican who can deliver Massachusetts and other key states like as Pennsylvania, Florida and probably Ohio and Nevada.

The problem is, he won’t.

When conservatives stand by conservative ideals, when conservatives clearly and coherently articulate the conservative principles of limited government, fiscal restraint and low taxes, they win. Not sure? In the three Reagan elections (counting Bush-41 in ’88 as an extension of Reagan’s policies) the GOP garnered 54% of the popular vote and beat the Democrats by an average of 11.9%. Contrast that with the elections since Reagan, beginning with Bush 41’s second run. Over the course of those five elections, the GOP has garnered an average of 44.4% of the vote while the Democrats earned an average of 48.3%. The GOP went from an average of 11.9% ahead to an average deficit of 4.4%. That is a 15 point swing in the wrong direction. What’s the difference? Solid conservative vs. milquetoast moderate. Unfortunately Mittens Romney is an extension of that milquetoast strategy.

Ominously, while 2012 may be the most important American election in a century, the two candidates seeking the White House are not going to be particularly distinguishable to voters – if we assume Mittens gets the nomination. Everyone knows that Barack Obama is a statist with socialist & populist instincts. Romney, in slight contrast, may be a capitalist, but on government policy he’s not enormously different. He supported the government’s TARP bailouts of the banks, he regularly plays the populist card of middle class tax cuts while arguing for increasing taxes on the rich, and of course there is RomneyCare, his signature achievement in Massachusetts that was literally the blueprint for the thing he rails against at every whistle-stop event: ObamaCare. Then there is his 59 point tax plan which does little to streamline the tax code and of course penalizes those earning over $200,000 a year. Finally there is his bizarre suggestion last week that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, something even our Socialist in Chief has not suggested. (Is it possible that the financial genius Mitt has no clue about how actual economics work?)

At this critical time when the United States is so clearly heading down the road to perdition what the country needs is someone to stand up on the biggest soapbox he can find and sing the praises of the capitalist system and make a clear and articulate argument for small, constitutional, limited government. We need someone to inspire and challenge the American people to throw off the yoke of the nanny state and pick themselves up by their bootstraps and in doing so become the economic vanguard of the world once again. Unfortunately, what we get instead is a GOP candidate who is in many respects largely indistinguishable from his statist, redistributionist opponent.

There is an old saying that you can’t fight something with nothing. In the case of Mitt Romney the GOP is hoping to fight the omnipresent government type Obama with the slightly less onerous, big government type Romney. Conservatives despise Barack Obama and they would likely turn out to vote if the GOP were to trot out Mickey Mouse to run against him. They won’t require the GOP to light a fire under them to get them to the polls. The middle sea of “moderates” on the other hand won’t respond to nothing. If the mass of largely disengaged Americans who are not political junkies finds that there is little or nothing to distinguish the candidates from one another then they will likely remain on the sidelines and not bother to vote. In a tight race intensity is the key to success. As such, Romney is a losing candidate. As can be seen by the fervency of the not-Romney elements of the GOP, the anemic turnout in Florida and Romney’s canned speeches and uninspiring debate performances, Mitt Romney is incapable of stirring the animal spirits of the base, never mind the general public.

Barack Obama is salivating at the prospect of facing off against Mittens. Knowing that Romney is incapable of articulating or defending strong conservative principals or even inspiring his own party – never mind the muddling middle – Obama can do what he does best: demagogue Republicans (up and down the ticket) and inspire his base with populist platitudes that are like blood in the water to the left. The result will not only be another four years of Barack Obama, but it will likely mean something of a bloodbath in the down ticket races as well, from the House to the neighborhood dog catcher.

Mitt Romney may be the candidate who finally puts an end to a Republican Party that has outlived its usefulness and ushers in a truly conservative Tea Party driven party. One might wish that GOP good riddance. The only question is however, will the United States as we know it survive another four years of Barack Obama so that there’s something left for the Tea Party calvary to come to the rescue of?

To whomever this may concern

It’s been a relationship that has been on the skids since 2010. I tried to make it work, but after I saw that I was the only one making any concessions in our waning relationship I realized that you no longer considered our relationship worth saving. Instead of wasting each other’s time let me just pack up my vote and get the hell out of here. Goodbye Republican Party. It was fun while it lasted.

Mike Henkins

Whew! That felt good! I have been wanting to write that letter for a while now. I can’t believe I waited this long! I should have done it right after the election in November 2010. I knew then that it was over then but I was hoping things would change, but it didn’t. The Republican Party has done nothing but insult me and my Tea Party friends. I mean look! These bastards are going after Allen West now! Allen freakin’ West man! You know what really jumps my tracks? These same Sons of Bushs are the first ones to cry about the need for “party unity”. Un-flippin-real!

I will tell you what’s going to happen. If Romney gets the nomination they are going to come to us at first with hat in hand asking for our time and money to “help defeat Obama.” When we roll our eyes and slam the door in their faces, they will tell us they don’t need us anyway, their new best buds, the Independents, will help out. After they realize that the precious Independent voter isn’t going to waste their time helping out, they will be back again. They will finally get the message after you sic the dog after them. That’s when the crying starts. They will drag out the old “if you don’t vote for Romney, your voting for Obama!” crap. Of course they expect you to fold with this inspiring message. This will be repeated over and over until Election Day. Heh! “It’s your duty!” blah blah blah. Whatever.

The day after the election, when Romney and his little pack of clingers are all out looking for jobs they will point trembling snot covered fingers at us, yelling “It’s all your fault!”. It will have nothing to do with their candidate. It never is. It’s always our fault. No matter how many times they lose, it’s always somebody else’s fault. But this time nobody is going to be listening anymore. At least not me. I am glad to be rid of the back stabbing bunch of posers and two faced liars. Buh-bye!

Well, I have to get back to life. If you see the G.O.P. tell them not to call. I am changing my number and they can keep the cat. Hated the thing anyway.

Beating Barack Obama and ending the damage he can do to this country is one of the most important tasks facing this country. Much to my chagrin, many of my fellow conservatives are all to willing to do Obama’s bidding in taking down Mitt Romney. What does that leave?

Newt Gingrich?

America hates Newt Gingrich

Unlike Mitt Romney, who occasionally beats President Obama in general election poll match ups, Newt Gingrich trails far behind President Obama in every survey. But just how bad are Gingrich’s unfavorable among the general public compared to Obama and Romney?

Not every poll releases their full results, so here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt.

Electability is the key here. None of us is going to find our ideal candidate. But Newt Gingrich is NOT going to be President. Not ever. He is not temperamentally suited to be President. Between his global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi his reference to Paul Ryan’s plans as “social engineering” shows that he shoots off his mouth without thinking and does alarmingly stupid things.

Gingrich could be a real force for a campaign but he is never going to be President. He is too polarizing. He is too widely disliked.

Supporting Gingrich is supporting Barack Obama. This isn’t about what I want. This is about reality.

Mitt Romney will beat Barack Obama and he will beat Obama for the same reasons some conservatives don’t like him. I am well aware that some of my fellow authors here find Romney less than ideal but I do believe the future of this country depends on Barack Obama being defeated in November and a Romney-Santorum ticket is just what is needed.

Obama has already taken a stab at Romney for his financial history but it is not going to gain traction and Jack Lew is the reason.

Barack Obama named Jack Lew to replace Bill Daley as chief of staff. Jack Lew was one of the investment bankers who bet that worthless CDO’s, sold to investors as financially solid vehicles, would fail. This was all done without disclosure, of course.

Lew got a $1 million dollar taxpayer funded bonus in 2009.

Obviously Barack Obama highly regards such a person as this.

And here’s a beauty of a quote from Lew:

“[I don't] personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don’t believe that deregulation was the proximate cause.”

Barack Obama’s chief of staff does NOT believe deregulation caused the financial meltdown. Save that one for discussion with liberals about deregulation. Barack Obama cannot harp on Romney’s past without inviting scrutiny of his own choices.

A Southern evangelical declared that Romney was “not Mormon enough” for social conservatives.

A leading Southern Baptist figure predicted Friday that Christian conservative leaders won’t rally around an alternative to Mitt Romney until after next week’s South Carolina primary, while warning that the former Massachusetts governor is “not Mormon enough” for most socially conservative voters.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said during a newsmaker interview on C-SPAN that evangelical leaders hope that the Palmetto State primary Jan. 21 will whittle down the GOP presidential field and make it clear whether they should rally around Romney rivals Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry before Florida’s primary later this month.

But this reminds of George Stephanopoulos’ colossally stupid moderation of the Republican debate. The country is mired in economic doldrums, foreign tensions run high and what does Stephanopoulos ask? He presses Romney about contraceptives.

Social conservatism is not going to solve the big issues facing this country and social conservatism is not enough to win this election.

Mitt Romney is going to become the Republican Presidential nominee and he will beat Barack Obama in the election and in no small part it will be due to Barack Obama:

“It’s in many ways like the ’08 campaign when Barack Obama ran as a candidate to be an alternative to George W. Bush. That was true in his announcement speech in Springfield [in February 2007].

“This was true when Ronald Reagan ran [against Jimmy Carter in 1980]. We went back and looked back at his [Obama’s] speech. He closed it out offering an alternative to George W. Bush, much to John McCain’s frustration.

In 2012, the economy would be the “one big, dominant issue” as in 2008. “This race is about the economy and a referendum on Barack Obama.”

In terms of New Hampshire this week, however, the Romney campaign looked long and hard at what Obama did here in 2008 when he arrived in the state from Iowa with momentum from his win there and a poll lead in the Granite State. It all evaporated on voting day when Hillary Clinton won.

“We studied what Obama did wrong,” said Stevens. “A lot of people thought that Obama was going to win big. I would have bet you anything Obama was going to win big. So we went and said, ‘OK, what did Obama do wrong?’

“The best thing we could figure out was that he didn’t take questions, that he isolated himself in the bubble. I can remember being in Manchester on a Sunday. He had an event in mid-afternoon and there were people lined up. It was very moving actually. It must have been what it was like with Bobby Kennedy or something. And then he [Obama] lost.

“So we said, ‘OK we’re not going to do that. We’re going to do the exact opposite. We’re going to keep taking questions from voters’. If they sense that you’re on a glide path, that you’re not taking questions I think that’s really bad.”

Another reason that Romney will win comes from democrat flack Donna Brazile:

BRAZILE: Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him — and for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us.

KARL: Why is that?

BRAZILE: Because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attackin’, and that’s Mitt Romney.

KARL: Oh, come on.

Brazile is politicking. She is the canard. She knows that Romney has the best chance to beat Obama and so do most Republicans.

While the Republican presidential hopefuls continue to fight it out on the campaign trail, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the only GOP contender that most voters view as having a chance against President Obama.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Romney is at least somewhat likely to beat the president in November.

Lawrence O’Donnell takes a more sober analysis:

“Romney is the one they don’t want. They know they can beat anybody else. Romney, they think they can beat, but it’s a harder road.”

Probably the best choice for a VP would be someone who appeals to the social conservatives and Rick Santorum fits that need rather nicely. Such a choice would shore up Romney’s right while Romney is free to court the middle upon whom this election depends.

Santorum has taken a far more gentle approach to Romney than have his rivals. Santorum may be thinking the same thing I am thinking. Santorum’s painting Romney as “not conservative enough” could be exactly what both Romney and Santorum need.

No candidate is perfect. None of us ever gets everything we want. But this election is much more than about getting the ideal candidate. It is first and foremost about getting Barack Obama out of office and this combination can achieve that.

“A Big Win for Romney in Iowa” Karl Rove

“Romney’s huge win” Dick Morris

“A big win for Romney” Carter Eskew

“Media Downplay Big Win For Romney In Iowa” Editorial, Investors Business Daily

Come on man? Investors Business Daily too?

The first three headlines I expected. If there were to be a vote on who would be the face next to the entry for “Republican Establishment” in Merriam and Webster’s dictionary 2012 Edition it would be Karl Rove. Dick Morris is the “Smeagol” of Washington D.C. political pollsters and insiders. One never knows if he is being serious or just trying to get headlines to regain his “precious”, relevancy. Walter Eskew works for the Washington Post, that in itself is enough damning evidence but lord knows Jennifer Rubin could have had a gun to the back of his head as well. The one that surprised me is the usually sane Investors Business Daily editorial. Et tu IBD? Et tu?

Let us get down to the bottom of this pom-pom waiving for Mitt Romney. The “Republican Establishment” knows the support for Mitt Romney is weak and tenuous at best. They need this to be a “Big Win” for Romney not because Iowa is important, hell none of the votes actually count from Tuesday, they are non-binding. They are really setting up the win in New Hampshire to be more significant than that will actually be as well. Everyone knows Romney will win New Hampshire. Why do you think everyone from K street lobbyist to National Review has been planning road trips to Manchester. That’s when they all declare that Romney is officially inevitable. A massive wave of Romney love sweeping across the nation and all other primaries are foolish to ride against the Romney tide.

It is in fact the only strategy that can work for candidate Romney. No matter how long they stand beside him looking into the mirror repeating reaffirming phrase to themselves he is still only going to be Mr. 25%. They know this so the plan all along has been to basically wear the conservative base down till they throw up their hands and say “Screw it!”, just give up, and commit themselves once again to dragging their unenthusiastic butts down to the polls pulling the lever for a person they do not believe in hoping that next time they get someone they can be enthusiastic about.

The one thing these Ivy League political savants have not seemed to put into this equation is that the conservative base is teetering on the edge of saying “Screw You!” And either continuing to drop in behind the latest Anyone But Romney du jour, going third party, or in the end just staying home. Does the Republican Establishment even care?

I don’t think they do.

Number of years campaigning in Iowa: 5

Cost per vote: $126.00+

Percentage of vote gained: 25%

Number of votes acquired in year 2012 over 2008: -6

Image of Dick Morris looking up Karl Roves skirt while doing Statue of Liberty position………

Disgustingly priceless.

Will 2012 bring an end to the Republican Party? It would only be fitting that a party formed almost 160 years ago on the basis of stopping the expansion of slavery would be destroyed by its support of the modern day expansion of slavery of a different sort.

That is exactly where we stand. The GOP was formed in 1854 in reaction to the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act which essentially opened up the West to the expansion of slavery. Many Northerners understood that mostly poor free men and could not compete with giant Southern landowners who employed slave labor. The Kansas Nebraska Act heralded the end of the delicate balance between slave and free states that had largely been in place since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Slave states already having disproportionate congressional power, the Kansas Nebraska Act would provide the foundation them to gain significantly more economic power to grow as well.

Drawing its membership from the remains of the Whig Party and the anti-slavery wing of the Democratic Party, the GOP’s first candidate for President, California’s John C. Frémont lost. Their second candidate however did somewhat better: Abraham Lincoln.

Fast forward and the party ended slavery (and passed the civil and voting rights acts a century later) has become a party of modern slavery in the form of big government. Although the Democrats have traditionally been the party of big government, today they share that label with a vapid GOP.

2012 is the best opportunity Americans have had in 30 years to attempt to throw off the yoke of government tyranny. In the wake of the 2010 elections when the GOP not only won an historic victory in the House, but in the Senate such small government candidates as Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee prevailed, one would think that the party understood where the future of success with the American people lay. Unfortunately however that does not seem to be the case.

On a national scale the Republican Party cannot seem to understand its place in this historic moment in time. In 2012 the slavery that Americans face at the hands of the federal government is clear:

• A tax code where half the population pays no income taxes and more than a third receive government subsidies. (This is at its core a massive and growing redistribution of wealth from wealth creators to wealth consumers.)
• A federal spending binge that has more than doubled in the last two decades, consequently distorting capital markets and destroying free market solutions.
• A nanny state that stymies a citizen’s right to live his life as he chooses and do with his property what he chooses. (Federal laws and regulations are so numerous and complex that the ABA and other organizations who have attempted to catalog them have repeatedly failed. Says one researcher: “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime“)
• A regulatory nightmare that grows darker each day for entrepreneurs and businesses who are inclined to try and start or grow businesses to meet the desires of markets or consumers.
• An unrelenting growth in legislative and regulatory distortion of free markets to favor the politically connected.

Not the kind of slavery that was the catalyst for the formation of the GOP, but slavery nonetheless. And the party has been complicit in much of what brought us to this point.

In the face of such oppression, rather than offer voters a slate of candidates who are competing on the basis of who will make greater cuts in government spending, who is most willing to eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional departments and agencies, who will do more to reduce regulation and who will allow citizens to keep the greatest share of their incomes, the Grand Old Party has as its frontrunner a big government, crony capitalist who is not beyond playing the wealth envy card. Nowhere in the GOP field is there a candidate who vows to cut government spending to what it was two decades ago. Nowhere in the GOP field is there a candidate who vows wage war on government regulation.

In 1980, when Americans saw all too clearly the consequences of an unabashedly progressive agenda, the GOP responded (despite the wishes of party insiders) with Ronald Reagan, a man who was not afraid to clearly articulate that government was the problem and that it must be restrained and cut – remember he promised to shutter the Education and Energy departments, only to be stymied by a Democrat controlled Congress.

Today, 30 years later, when federal spending has increased by 500%, when government regulation is exponentially more intrusive, when half of the population is relieved of paying for the operations of government, the GOP field is populated by big government advocates or those who want to simply trim around the edges and rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic.

A GOP victory in 2012 with a lukewarm conservative who is happy to simply slow the rate of increase in government spending and to tentatively trim government regulations will be a defeat for the American people. The country will become Greece or Italy… only more slowly. A better outcome for the country might be another four years of Barack Obama. At least by 2016, assuming the country hasn’t collapsed by then, a party might emerge that will finally present the American people with a real choice between slavery and freedom. At the end of the day I’ll likely be voting for Mickey Mouse or whoever the GOP puts at the top of the ticket. It would be nice however for someone to make the case that a government half the size of today’s is likely still too big and too intrusive.

And Newt goes boom!

Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination.

“The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system,” said an April 2006 newsletter published by Gingrich’s former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.

The two-page “Newt Notes” analysis, found online by The Wall Street Journal even though it no longer appears on the center’s website, continued, “We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans.”

And it now appears, as many of us feared; it is ObamaLite’s race to lose:

…While his position in the national horse race matchup is far from decisive—at this writing the RealClearPolitics average of the national polls shows Newt Gingrich with a slight lead—Romney dominates in all of the structural categories that typically correspond with victory. He has a huge money advantage—with more than $14 million in cash on hand as of the last report mandated by the Federal Election Commission (and that does not include the financial assistance he has received from “SuperPacs” that operate freely on his behalf). This financial edge gives Romney the ability to flood the early states with television advertisements and employ plenty of professional staffers to manage his ground game. Romney also has a runaway lead in the race for endorsements by Republican officeholders; while these move few voters, they reinforce Romney’s institutional advantages, giving him greater access to well-heeled donors as well as on-the-ground campaign intelligence.

Jay Cost further writes that the “not Romney” camp isn’t as huge as many believe it to be:

That said, the conventional wisdom about Romney’s candidacy—that there is a huge “not Romney” bloc of GOP voters out there—is massively overstated. Romney’s favorable rating among prospective Republican primary voters is quite high, upwards of 60 percent, and the latest CNN poll of GOP voters shows that 80 percent of Republicans either support him now or would consider supporting him at some point; this is a larger number than that of any of his major competitors. Yet the theory about a “not Romney” bloc has some merit; what is particularly noteworthy about his numbers is that a relatively large proportion of the GOP electorate—between 40 and 50 percent—believe he will eventually be the nominee, but his actual support tends to be about half that size. So, if there is no vehement “not Romney” faction of Republicans, there is at least a group of GOP voters who are hesitant for some reason.

So is that pretty much it? Every other candidate has gone boom and any candidate that we really wanted to see…a Palin, Ryan, Christie or Jeb Bush never even stepped into the ring.

So it will be Romney

Or will it?

With 45 percent of Iowa Republican voters undecided and a roller-coaster ride about to come to a screeching stop next Tuesday with the GOP caucuses, it may be Rick Santorum’s turn to take the final ascent and surprise the political class by … doing better than expected?

Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has been touted as the sleeper candidate by none other than 2008 Iowa caucuses winner Mike Huckabee. He has relentlessly campaigned in the state, hitting all 99 counties and moving his family out there. He has held 350 campaign events in the past year.

He has received key endorsements from well-known social conservatives in the state, and has had solid performances at each of the debates. And he’s running an old-school style campaign that Iowa voters expect in the retail-style politics of the Hawkeye State.

The man whose at the back of the polling pack — despite recent buzz giving him a late boost — is taking nothing for granted but has nothing to lose.

“My feeling is when you’re sitting last, if you can do better than that, that’s good,” he told Fox News.

Santorum said he’s got 1,000 caucus representatives in a contest with about 1,700 caucus locations. He acknowledges that means no official representative to make his case at each of the locations, but at “almost all of them, and no other campaign is going to have someone there who’s going to get up and speak on our behalf.”

Santorum, who claims organization and message will make the difference, is also banking on a divide and conquer strategy.

“There’s really three primaries going on here,” Santorum said. “Ron Paul has his own primary, the libertarian primary. And (Newt) Gingrich and (Mitt) Romney are sort of the establishment primary. And I think there are three who are vying for the conservative mantle to go up against the Gingrich-Romney duo. And I think that I’m going to be the one coming out Iowa with that mantle.

“And if we can do that, then we’re off to the races here, and conservatives around the country, just like they’re doing here in Iowa, are going to start rallying around our campaign,” he said.

Dick Morris believes he is surging:

All along, the Tea Party voters have yet to unite behind a single candidate. They still aren’t united, but in Iowa, there is evidence that Rick Santorum may be surging ahead.

In the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) telephone poll of 23,000 supporters nationally, Newt led with 31% of the vote, followed by Bachmann at 28%, Romney at 20% and Santorum with a surprising 16%.

But on the ground in Iowa, where it counts, Gingrich has gone through a gauntlet of $10 million of negative TV ads sponsored by Romney, Paul, and the others. Without funds to defend himself, he has seen his vote share drop. Ron Paul’s has risen, Bachmann’s has fallen, and Santorum has increased quickly.

There has always been a sort of mini-primary among the Tea Party followers among Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum – the candidates they find acceptable. Gingrich’s and Bachmann’s drop, Cain’s withdrawal, and Perry’s stagnation all contrast sharply with Santorum’s surge.

The former Pennsylvania Senator has been the also ran in the field, the Rodney (I get no respect) Dangerfield of the Republican primaries. But with the lack of poll numbers has come a lack of scrutiny. These days the spotlight can get too hot very quickly. Santorum, whose conservative record is as solid as they come, is benefiting from the fall of Gingrich in a way Bachmann seems unable to do.

And:

“[Santorum] is the one candidate in the race who hasn’t caught his wave yet,” says Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman and now heads the Family Leader, a coalition of socially conservative groups. “We believe he’s going to catch his wave. And we believe he’s the one candidate who can withstand the scrutiny of being on top.”

It may very well be time to visit Santorum, his record and what he stands for. Just a quick search over the past few days of newsbits led me to his thinking on the 2nd Amendment and the importance of getting solid conservative justices on the bench:

More specifically, the former Pennsylvania senator warned that reelecting President Obama next fall could weaken gun rights. He cited the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the 2008 Heller case that struck down portions of the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws.

“If you read the dissent in Heller, no gun owner should feel comfortable this is a secure constitutional right according to this Supreme Court, and that’s why we need a good, strong Republican conservative who understands what it means to appoint and confirm solid judges and justices,” Santorum said.

I like his foreign policy:

But Santorum’s seriousness rebounds to his credit when it comes to foreign policy. The former third-ranking Republican in the Senate has spent a lot of time thinking about America’s role in the world. And during the debates, he’s been a hawk’s hawk, sparring with Ron Paul over the Iranian threat. “I think Michele Bachmann understates how dangerous Ron Paul would be,” says Santorum. “Many conservatives would fear literally for their safety if Ron Paul would get in there to work with liberal Democrats to gut the Defense Department, to pull back every forward-deployed troop all over the world.”

He’s certainly worth a second look it appears. The question is….can he go toe to toe with ObamaLite?

After much contemplation of how to put into words the current struggle between the Republican Establishment and the ever growing disgruntled Conservative base I found this to be the best way to explain the situation as I view it…

A man walks across the street from his house to GOP Motors, a local franchise that he and his family have done business with for many years. One the lot are four vehicles, 2 new pickup trucks, one covered by a tarp, a beat up old blue pickup truck with a plow next to the garage. He spots a man in a suit and tie standing in the lot whistling to himself and looking for all intents and purposes a man who could be of some assistance. Walking over to the man our story begins.

Joe: Hi. My name is Joe Blow and I see you have 2 new pick up trucks for sale. That’s just what I am looking for. See, I got a good chance at landing this job that requires me to be able to negotiate rough terrain, haul tools and material, and be reliable. Another guy has been doing this job, but he is about to be fired and if I can get on over to the job site, the job is mine. With this economy I cant afford not to get it. So I am in a hurry and I want to buy one of your new pick up trucks. I want to look at the white one first.

The sales man listens intently, nods a few times, and extends his hand for a handshake.

Reg: Well how do you do Joe! My name is Republican Establishment Guy but you can call me Reg. Friend, I hear what your saying and I know I got the right vehicle for you! I know you think you need white pickup truck but I’ve got some thing better then that that’s gonna knock rock your world! With dramatic flourish he reaches over and whips the tarp off the vehicle it has been hiding. Suddenly confetti is being shot from a fake cannons. A marching band starts playing a catchy little pop tune. Balloons are released. Mini pyrotechnics are spewing sparks beside the uncovered vehicle. Reb is vibrating with excitement! He is grinning from ear to ear as he dances over to you.

Reg: Now that’s what ya want right there Joe! State of the art, high tech, and very popular with the ladies! The Romney Volt is exactly what you need! Lets get on into the office and do the paperwork. Reg starts skipping off to the office pumping his fist in the air. Joe stands there confused . He turns to the direction Reg is going.

Joe: Hey Reg! Lets slow down a second alright. Reg turns around and skips back over humming the tune the band was playing with a confused look on his face.

Reg: What’s the matter Joe? The color? Oh we can change that no big deal if that’s the issue. Hell this Romney Volt was designed with the ability to change its color to match whatever colorer the person looking at it wants to see. Watch! Reg closes his eyes, squints, and stares at the Romney Volt. Suddenly the color scheme of the car morphs into a sickly yellow with a pink tint.

Joe: Well Reg, thats neat and all but the color is not the issue. It’s the car. Actually it’s the fact that its a car and not a pickup truck like I need. I already have a McPrius in the driveway on cinderblocks that I bought from you a few years ago that doesn’t run anymore. What I need is a pickup truck.

Joe starts walking over to the white pick up. It is a Dodge Palin with the Alaska package. Big tires, lift kit, big shiny tool box in the back and a electric winch in the front. Just what Joe is looking for. Joe turns to Reb. Joe: This is what I want. I can get to the job site no matter where it is. I got a safe place for my tools, a big bed for the materials, and even a winch I can put to good use. Lets go into the office and discuss the terms and..

Reg: Oh come on! You don’t want the Dodge Palin. The Romney Volt is what you need. I mean look at that beauty! Its even eco friendly! All the chicks dig it! That magic paint job! You gotta get this thing!

Joe: Naw Reg. I want the pick up truck. Lets go get this done. I don’t want to lose a chance at getting this job. Joe turns towards the office takes 3 steps and hears SMASH! Turning around Joe sees Reg with a sledgehammer, breaking the windows, caving in the fenders, knocking off the mirrors. Shocked Joe runs over to Reg who is smiling as he walks away from the Dodge Palin, drops the sledgehammer , and wipes his hands briskly together.

Joe: What the hell did you do that for! Reg: I was saving you from yourself! Now that that’s settled, lets get you in that Romney Volt! Joe is dumbfounded. He doesn’t know what to say. He has heard a few stories in town saying that Reg has been acting a little erratic lately. Some say it all started when Tea Party Auto opened up a couple of years ago down the road. People had been telling Reg for a while now that they were getting tired of the limited selection he had on his lot for sale and promising things that he couldn’t deliver on. It was really bound to happen but Reg just kept ignoring his customers.

Joe thinks for a few seconds realizing he is pressed for time and doesn’t want to lose the job he starts to walk over to the black pickup truck. Joe: Alright Reg, I know you’ve been having a bit of a hard time with Tea Party Auto opening up a while ago so lets just put that incident behind us and take a look at that black Ford HurriCain. Joe walks over, kicks the tires. The Ford hurriCain is a bit smaller then the Dodge Palin. It does have a solid engine, no winch though, but its four wheel drive and it looks like it can do what he needs. He will just keep his tools in the cab. No big deal.

Over walks Reg. Reg: Joe, you don’t want that thing. It make look ok but I am telling you its not going to do what that Romney Volt can.

Joe: Ok, Reg. I know you want me to buy the Romney Volt. Like I said though Reg, I don’t want the Romney Volt. Its not going to do what I need it to do. I need this for a job. I don’t care about magic paint or that the thing is ‘eco’ whatever. I just want a pickup truck.

Reg: Its not what your looking for Joe. I know these things.

Joe: Enough Reg, I want the pickup. Lets just go to the office and get the paperwork done. Tell ya what. I will even do the registering with the state and all that myself. Ok?

Reg: Fine! But your going to be sorry.

Joe: I think I will be alright. Now you are not going to grab that sledgehammer again are you Reg? Reg smiles and shrugs.

Reb: Nope!

Joe: Good come on lets get to the office so I can get going. Joe and Reg head to the office. About halfway to the door Joe hears a loud WHOOSH! Turning around he sees three men dressed as ninjas slashing the tires, cutting brake lines, and finally lobbing a Molotov cocktail into the cab. As flames start engulfing the cab the three ninjas disappear into the woods.

Reg: Oh man! That’s some tough luck Joe! I cant believe that happened! That’s the zanyist thing I have ever seen. Lucky for you I still have that shiny Romney Volt!

Joe: What the hell is wrong with you Reg?! Are you flipping insane?! I don’t want the damn Romney Volt OK?! I need a pickup truck Rebg! What the hell is it about this freakin’ Romney Volt that has you destroying the rest of your inventory?! Jesus to Pete man!

Reg: Its because the Romney Volt is the best car ever! Its shiny! Its clean! Its been poll tested to show that independent car shoppers between the age of 18-45 might like it. Plus if you don’t buy it its your fault I will go out of business!

Joe cannot believe the words that just came out of Rebs mouth. My fault he goes out of business? What the hell? He could have just sold me the damn pick up and he would have the Romney Volt to sell to some professor from the Democrat University. They love these things. This man is bat shit crazy. I should just walk on down to Tea Party Auto but I don’t have the time. He walks over to Reg.

Joe: Ok that’s it! That beat up blue Chevy Newt with the plow on it.

Reg: That rusty old thing with all the dents?

Joe: Yes. That rusty old PICKUP with all the dents. I want it. I will give you the cost of your precious little Romney Volt plus the Chevy Newt on top. I will take care of the registration and all that crap. I am going to pay you in cash right here right now. On top of that I will plow your lot for free in the winter because I have a feeling the police are going to be showing up soon to take you into protective custody and you may be gone for a while. Lets just go get the keys so I can get the hell out of here!

Reg is beat red. His face is twisted into a snarl so contorted his eyes are watering. He looks as if he is about to explode. He blurts out. Reg: Your wife is ugly! You’re a backwater hick! You daughters a slut and you are not leaving this lot unless its in my Romney Volt! That’s final! End of story! Because if you don’t buy my Romeny Volt niether one of us is leaving this sales lot alive!

Suddenly Reg pulls a grenade out of his pocket and with a wry smile puts his finger through the pin ring.

Reb: So now what are you going to do now big guy!

A man in a big black bus drives by. Looking out the window between practice putts he has been sending down the isle he sees two men. One throwing his hands up in the air turns to walk away. The other is yanking something away from a round object in his hand and reaching for the other man. He smiles to himself as he settles over his next putt and whispers “Job security, gotta love it.”

A few seconds later, in the distance could be heard a faint boom.

Yesterday Newt Gingrich stood before 60+ conservative voices and answered some tough questions. While I understand there are many negatives to the man, the fact that he has no hesitation to enter the lions den is admirable.

His speech started with the obvious:

“if Obama is re-elected America will be a very, very different country from the one we grew-up in.”

Obvious but a oh so important point. This election is very important and this very fact is one reason why people should pause before they pull the lever for this guy. Can he win the general election?

The Speaker then went on to outline the four parts of his 21st Century Contract with America: A set of legislative proposals to shift America back to job creation, prosperity, freedom, and safety; A “Day One Plan” of Executive Orders to be signed on inauguration day to immediately transform the way the executive branch works; A training program for the transition teams and the appointees who will lead the shift back to Constitutional, limited government; and, a system of citizen involvement to help us sustain grassroots support for change and help implement the change through 2021.

…One of the earliest and toughest questions came from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who noted many of the ideas Speaker Gingrich had championed seemed like they might end-up growing government. “How can we be sure, what’s the restraint on you that these ideas won’t end up being more big government?” asked Cuccinelli.

Speaker Gingrich replied to laughter that “there’s nothing to restrain a President from doing something dumb, but I trust the people in this room to tell me if that is the case.” But then he noted more seriously that, “I’m a Federalist. I look to the Federalist Papers and the Constitution to guide me and restrain government.”

…When asked about how he intended to win the general election Gingrich said he expected Obama to have $1 billion to spend, but that he would counter that by challenging Obama to a series of seven Lincoln – Douglas-style un-moderated debates, “…and he’ll say yes. There are two reasons: The first is his ego. Can you imagine him looking in the mirror? Graduate from Columbia, Harvard Law, and editor of the Law Review. How is he going to say that he’s afraid to be on the same podium as a West Georgia College teacher? Plus, if he says ‘no’ I’m going to say ‘the White House is now my scheduler’ and wherever he goes I will show-up within four hours to take apart whatever he said, that’s how Lincoln got Douglas to debate.”

His ability to destroy people in debates is well known and one reason someone might vote for the guy. Everyone knows how important the general election debates are, and his idea of forcing the Lincoln/Douglas style debates is a great idea with his skill.

So then we are left with the question, if he did win the Presidency would he indeed govern as a conservative, or would he turn back to his old neo-conservative ways?

Or do we trust that Romney will govern as a conservative?

Steven Hayward makes a Churchill comparison that is interesting:

But before becoming prime minister, Winston Churchill was often dismissed in similar terms by members of his own party, who complained that “his planning is all wishing and guessing,” that he was “a genius without judgment,” and that he had been “on every side of every question.” His many non-fiction books were even characterized as “autobiographies disguised as history of the universe.” This is not to suggest that Newt is the next Churchill, which would indeed feed Newt’s grandiosity. Rather, it is to prompt us to recognize one important fact and to ask two questions that have heretofore not been asked.

The important fact is this: The example of Churchill (and also Reagan to some extent) shows that we cannot prospectively identify those whom we will later come to laud as great statesmen. Very few leading Republicans thought Reagan would be Reagan, even after the 1980 election, just as Churchill was not a popular choice of his own party in 1940. One of the best studies of Churchill’s pre-1940 career could almost be adapted for Newt, Robert Rhodes James’s Churchill: A Study in Failure.

Two questions must be asked in order to judge whether Newt might have Churchillian qualities (both good and bad) once in office, or whether Romney’s predictable managerial qualities are more suited to the present moment.

The first question is whether we require someone utterly unconventional to match up to the circumstances of the moment. The same negative qualities that kept Churchill from high office in the 1930s — his resolute stubbornness, his unconstrained and unpredictable imagination and occasional recklessness — paradoxically made him the best person to lead the nation when it reached the point of extreme crisis in May 1940. But the crisis had to reach the extreme before the Churchill option became thinkable.

Even the outbreak of war in 1939 didn’t immediately lead to the thought that Churchill should become prime minister. And even after the invasion of France, it wasn’t clear that his mixed qualities would prove a source of reassurance to the nation, or a formula for success in the war. Is Newt’s long-time embrace of “radical change” what is necessary to address the fiscal crisis of our time? One reason a large portion of the Tea Party has embraced Newt, his mixed record notwithstanding, is that he appears to be the only candidate who will both argue for and attempt to implement the large changes necessary to right our listing ship of state.

“The Conservatives have never liked nor trusted me,” Churchill wrote in the 1920s. According to King George VI’s biographer biographer, the king was “bitterly opposed” to Churchill’s becoming prime minister. He remained a figure of suspicion within his own party even after he became prime minister in 1940. The description of cabinet secretary John Colville sounds like much of the Newt-angst of conservatives right now: “In May 1940 the mere thought of Churchill as Prime Minister send a cold chill down the spines of the staff working at 10 Downing Street. . . . Seldom can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment . . . so dubious of the choice and so prepared to find its doubts justified.” “This is not the last war administration by a long way,” a leading member of Churchill’s own party remarked. Another Tory MP, Peter Eckersley, wrote: “Winston won’t last five months! Opposition from Tories is already beginning.” MP David Kier wrote in his diary a month after Churchill took office: “The more I think of the position, the more uncertain the future of Winston’s present Government is.” One Conservative-party grandee wrote that “I regard this [Churchill as PM] as a greater disaster than the invasion of the Low Countries.”

As the British learned, he was anything but a disaster. But nominating Newt is a huge risk. I guess it comes down to whether we are willing to take that risk. As Mata wrote earlier in her excellent post, the liberals are predicting a landslide if Newt is nominated which actually has me wondering, as Mata is, are we on to something with Newt:

What I want is someone who sees the way out of a fiscal disaster, and won’t take crap from either side. They must be fearless from political assault and threats. I’m not interested in them putting their personal popularity or legacy first. I don’t expect a perfect individual… especially from a politician. But don’t do the dance of blame. Own up, and move on. And most importantly, they have to be a believer of this nation’s free market and capitalist economic foundation.

If the mutual hatred by both sides for Newt is any indication, it may be that Newt is just the guy. He’s certainly adept at being a scrapper, and is not beaten down easily. And it should be the responsibility of the Tea Party conservatives, and those who may end up putting him in office, to make sure he holds true to small government and fiscal responsible beliefs.

Man o’ man…times like these I really wish Sarah had entered.

We’ve all speculated about the impact of a candidate vs Obama just by watching how the Dem elected ones and media respond. The more the libs and media obsessed with daily headlines, proliferating drip campaign scandal suggestions, the more conservatives knew we were hitting a nerve. The question has always been, can the drip scandal headlines gain traction? With Palin, it was clear they feared this outsider and her enthusiastic support that added life to an otherwise dreary acceptance to a McCain nomination.

Yet Palin was a polarizing figure within the conservative movement herself, inviting surgical and unfavorable scrutiny not only from the opposing party and the media, but from “moderate” conservatives who felt she was uninformed and too radical to be the VEEP.

Flash forward to 2012. With a bevy of GOP candidates who have taken turns exciting the base, only to fall from grace for one reason or another… and faced with the ever present “anyone but Romney” attitude… we find ourselves with Newt, surging in the latest Iowa “post Cain” poll from the New York Times/CBS News. The infamous ostracized one is leading Romney by the nose – literally – at 31-29. Even when the past favorite dark horse, Herman Cain, was factored in, Newt still came out on top with 28%, trailed by Romney with 18%, and Ron Paul at 14%.

There is no doubt that conservatives see no Ronald Reagan in the slim pickin’s here. Nor can any stand out as perfect or few sans flaws. If they aren’t laden with baggage, they lack the ability to inspire, or to debate effectively.

But my mind has been a’swirl of late, watching the bipartisan hatred mount furiously over the unlikely ascent of Newt. While he’s hardly a “Nixon” in his past, he’s certainly been excoriated almost as severely over time. Newt, himself, has done little to abate this criticism. In fact, when Newt’s campaign imploded this past summer, with staffers leaving en masse to jump on the Rick “the chosen one” Perry’s campaign, the complaints were rife with criticism and complaints about Newt’s lavish lifestyle and spending, combined with what appeared to be a lackadaisical attitude towards a serious campaign. When the Gingrich’s took off on a vacation, that was the staff’s final straw.

But Newt didn’t flinch… didn’t quit. Nor has he made any attempt to shirk the responsibilities of his early campaign extravagant debt. Tho there are those that have observed Newt may have violated campaign reporting regulations, even his former staffer, Rick Tyler, speaks favorably of Newt, saying ““Newt will pay them, I’ve got no question in my mind about that. He’s got integrity, and he pays his debts.”

Obviously, Newt tackles his flaws not by trying to avoid them, but by trying to remedy them. During his House ethics investigation, he admitted that “In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee”. You have to give someone credit who steps forward and admits errors and/or perceived wrong doing. Then again, the IRS absolved Newt of any tax avoidance, despite the House ethics committee suggesting that was the case.

One of the problems I have had with Newt has been the same with other conservatives… are we talking about an establishment GOPer in wolf’s clothing here? But today’s establishment GOP hates Newt almost as much, if not more, than the liberals. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out yesterday, the elected elite of both parties are sharpening their long knives for Newt. Establishment Republicans are looking at him like an arch-neoconservative. And on the other side, liberals are all over the press, beside themselves with giddiness at a Newt nomination, saying it would result in a “landslide for Obama”.

Really? Count me as a skeptic, but when I hear that the left is giddy about a candidate, predicting landslide, I’m wondering if we aren’t on to something.

One of the things that both the left and right Joe Blow voter share is this elitist crony government mentality. And those that actually have a handle on real politics, aside for toeing party lines, have a healthy distrust for both. So I listen when pretend conservatives Congressional insiders, like like Joe Scarborough, equate Newt with Glenn Beck. If you are willing to diss Joe’s justifiably “conservative” credentials, Byron York did a round up on the beltway insiders, ready to badmouth Newt.

Of course it’s the Washington insiders who have the most actual experience dealing with Gingrich. Just look at what Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, who served with Gingrich in the House in the 1990s, said about the former speaker on Fox News Sunday. “I’m not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich’s having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership,” Coburn said. “I found it lacking often times.”

“There are all types of leaders,” Coburn continued. “Leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people they are leading and a different standard for themselves. I just found his leadership lacking and…I will have difficulty supporting him as president of the United States.”

Gingrich has also taken flak from another former colleague, Rep. Peter King. “The problem was, over a period of time, he couldn’t stay focused,” King said of Gingrich a few days ago. “He was undisciplined. Too often, he made it about himself.”

It’s more than just former colleagues. If one were to survey politicos, journalists and others who lived through Gingrich’s years as speaker in Washington, there would likely be a near-consensus that Gingrich will blow up his candidacy through some mixture of arrogance and indiscipline. Those insiders simply don’t believe there is a New Newt. Old Newt, the Gingrich who alienated many of his colleagues back in the 90s, will reassert himself soon enough, they believe.

I also listen when I hear right leaning pundits, like Ann Coulter, warn us that Newt can’t be elected. Maybe, unlike her former paramour, Chris Christie, Newt rejected Ann… dunno. But Ann’s not alone in trying to push the nomination towards an Obama’lite candidate from the present field. One of WaPo’s token conservatives, Jennifer Rubin, also warns that Newt’s “most likely to kiss up to the liberal elite”.

Then there’s the opposition career politician’s disdain for Newt – like Democrat House Rep, James Clyburn, who says Newt “flies off the handle” and he can’t “envision” working with him. Barney Frank, on his way out the door, says a Newt nomination would be “the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater.”

Hummm…. do I think that Barney Frank, or any other Democrat, are anxious to pass on valuable inside tips to an obvious loser in a landslide election? Hang no… can’t say I’m that gullible. If these guys thought someone was an obvious loser, they’d be silent as the grave. Don’t want to mess up a sure thing, right?

Call me crazy, but some things are starting to add up here for me in one bizarre possibility. I’m not happy with the GOP establishment elite. I’m not happy with conservative pundits, pushing a new version of McCain, just to win. And I’m certainly going to pay attention when Democrats tell me they are giving me good advice when they say Newt is an Obama landslide in the making.

Seems that all the people on my nerves, also don’t like Newt. Is there anything to that?

What can be said positive about this unlikely insider-outsider? Well, despite all the shortcomings, he certainly led a GOP House with budget cuts, capital gains cuts, and welfare reform with a Democrat President. Of course, he did have the help of a GOP Senate. He was also not afraid to allow a government shutdown to fight for what he believed in. Don’t see that nowadays, right? Newt knows his way around the system… which can be both positive and negative. And he’s unquestionably a formidable debater, which will have great impact in the Presidential Debates that run up to the elections.

While he’s far from perfect, he doesn’t avoid or lie about his abundant and obvious flaws. He admits it, takes it in stride, and shuffles on down the road for his chosen direction. In fact, there is little about Newt that we already don’t know. The big question is, is it acceptable, and can he be effective in this precarious moment in time for our nation?

And he sure doesn’t take guff from the other side, either. Newt, being a (current or former?) insider, knows the game well. So when Pelosi attempted a power play, suggesting a quasi “October surprise” that was supposed to lynch Newt, he immediately called her on the carpet and forced her hand, saying that if Pelosi was thinking she could release investigation material not already public, she was in violation of House rules, and needed serious disciplining.

It didn’t take long for Pelosi’s attorney to tone down the former Speaker’s threats, saying that her threats… er, “comments”.. have been misconstrued.

“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.

A day later, her legal beagles released the link to the full investigation documents, all of which have been available for more than a decade, and do not alter history in the slightest.

I dunno… you got to love a guy who not only doesn’t cower in the face of the Democrat’s power”house”, but also knows how to sling that mud back faster than you can say “Obama lost”.

On the flip side, there is no doubt that Newt faces adversity from not only the conservative and liberal elite or media opposition, but conservative voters themselves – filled with mistrust on flip flops and questions… i.e. the couch potato ad with Pelosi, which he has since admitted was a “dumb idea”.

Then there’s the reality that Newt is no loveable personality. Other than the political leanings, Newt possesses an arrogance not dissimilar to our current Oval Office denizen. Of course, the only difference is Newt is relatively unabashed about his arrogance, while Obama is more sly and slithery.

And now, even the Romney camp is in defense mode.

Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed “moderate” publication**, The Atlantic, assures us that a Newt nomination is the death of the Tea Party and principles. (**Note: Since James Bennett, of New Republic and NYTs history, came to be editor, I’m not entirely sure I give the Atlantic a “moderate” label these days…) Oh my… do we risk the death of the Tea Party with a Newt nomination? The fear tactics abound…

But there’s one thing to consider. I don’t want a candidate popular with the GOP establishment. I don’t want a candidate today saying they are a “uniter, and not a divider”. We’ve had a humble, likeable guy in Bush. Both Obama and Clinton were arrogant, tho Clinton was far more likeable with a genuine talent for delivering speeches with humor… sans teleprompters.

The ugly reality is there are no guarantees. A candidate’s lip service today doesn’t always translate to performance in office. Any one of them could cave to any given situation with a stubborn and divided Congress, unwilling to give up their bad spending habits.

What I want is someone who sees the way out of a fiscal disaster, and won’t take crap from either side. They must be fearless from political assault and threats. I’m not interested in them putting their personal popularity or legacy first. I don’t expect a perfect individual… especially from a politician. But don’t do the dance of blame. Own up, and move on. And most importantly, they have to be a believer of this nation’s free market and capitalist economic foundation.

If the mutual hatred by both sides for Newt is any indication, it may be that Newt is just the guy. He’s certainly adept at being a scrapper, and is not beaten down easily. And it should be the responsibility of the Tea Party conservatives, and those who may end up putting him in office, to make sure he holds true to small government and fiscal responsible beliefs.

But then, we don’t have many choices, do we?