Yesterday I linked an article regarding how President Obama is aggressively going after the military vote (a constituency that traditionally tends to vote Republican).

Reuters is reporting that if the election were held today, President Obama would indeed win the military vote by as much as 7 points:

Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show “drooling over firearms,” as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has lined his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina’s January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul “because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement.” In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage “knee-jerk reaction wars.”

Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there.

Read the rest.

Thomas Ricks:

Reuters says veterans report being tired of our wars, are angry about the foolishness of invading Iraq, and worried by the situation with Iran. One says he likes how Obama handled Libya.

On the other hand, 37 percent of vets asked said they disapprove of the way Obama has handled the presidency, vs. just 27 who approve, and everyone else up in the air. So the poll numbers leave me a bit confused.

Mitt Romney is a Republican version of John Kerry, I think — a rich politician from Massachusetts who doesn’t really know who he is but (as James Carville has put it), was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

A U.S. soldier cries as he watches the live televised inauguration ceremony for President Obama, in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. Ali Al-saadi-AFP/Getty Images

While the two front runners still follow the Obama contraceptive distraction down the political rabbit hole, and away from Obama’s record, at least the two “also rans” – Ron Paul and Newt – are trying to remain focused on the winning issues important to voters, needed for a Nov win of the WH… the economy, and by proxy, prices at the pump.

Say what you will about Ron Paul’s idiosyncrasies on foreign policy – and I have – but his efforts to continue driving home foolhardy Fed policies that tank the US dollar and out of control spending need to be heard all day, and every day, until the GOP Convention.

Tag teaming the Paul consistent messaging on monetary policies, Newt’s out of the gate opening remarks at the most recent Republican debate in Arizona zeroed in on another Achilles heel for the WH … the prices at the gas pump, and securing the nation with a self-sufficient American energy policy.

You go back and look at the founding fathers, they’d have had very clear messages. Hamilton would have said you have to have jobs and economic growth to get back to a balanced budget. You’re never going to balance the budget on the back of a highly unemployed country. And so I would be committed, first of all, to a program of jobs and economic growth.

Second, the energy issue is enormous. The leading developer of North Dakota oil estimated recently that, if we would open up federal land and open up offshore, you would have $16 trillion to $18 trillion — not billion — trillion dollars in royalties to the federal government in the next generation, an enormous flow which would drive down prices to $2.50 a gallon, would help us balance the budget and would create millions of jobs.

~~~

We have enough energy in the United States that we would be the largest producer of oil in the world by the end of this decade. We would be capable of saying to the Middle East, “We frankly don’t care what you do.

Both of these candidates have their fingers on the pulse of electorate sensibilities. Whether they were privy to James Carville and Stanley Greenberg’s latest Democrat internal polling at Democracy Corps released the day after the debate or not, their focus could not have been more timely.

Carville, creator of Clinton’s winning catch phrase, “It’s the Economy, Stupid”, has proven his decade ago strategic slogan is timeless… although he’s likely to be chagrined that it’s playing better for the opposition team these days. Still, despite the not so good news in the Dem internal polling about Obama’s invisible recovery not being bought – hook, line and sinker – by the party faithful, the Democracy Corps data opens on a rosy picture:

The President and the Democrats are indeed doing very well at the outset of 2012, and the Republicans are doing pitifully. They are not unrelated. Republicans in Congress and in the primary battles are driving independents into the Democrats’ camp and consolidating and energizing parts of the progressive base. There is improved optimism about the macro economy and the President’s approval rating is up to 50 percent.1

But Democrats should keep their wits. Nearly all the gains have been produced by the Republican slide, not Democratic gains. Both parties and politicians are reviled. And most important, the voter has not seen personal economic gains and Democrats are no more trusted on handling the economy – the heart of this election.

Some of the emerging Democratic messages are on target, but others miss what is really happening and pose considerable risks. The on-target messages set up an effective electoral choice around the middle class, but the off-target ones could give the Republican nominee a platform for challenging the President’s economic record.

The bad news for the WH? No amount of messaging from the bully pulpit is convincing the poll responders that the economy is moving in the right direction, there is progress on job growth, or that “America is Back”. Another party shaker is that the Republicans still enjoy a four point lead over the Democrats on who is the party viewed more favorably for dealing with the economy.

But the good news is that Obama won’t have to significantly change his campaign materials, because the polling results showed the strongest messaging that appealed to voters – including the coveted swing voters – was perpetuating the “middle class warfare” rhetoric. As I pointed out in my December post, Obama Campaign Strategy: Crystal Ball, Unicorns and Houdini Economics, since Obama cannot effectively point to his economic record without using crystal ball “it would have been worse” trajectories, and Houdini economics for the invisible economic recovery, he was going to have to rely on good ol’ Alinsky tried and true approaches… keep the masses who consider themselves “middle class” disgruntled.

This is where Paul’s monetary policy, and Newt’s focus on gas prices and energy reform come into play. And apparently, even Obama isn’t blind to this potential carpet bomb to his campaign strategy. Because out of all of the GOP candidates following the debate, Obama chose to zero in on “also ran”, Newt and his promises about gas prices.

President Barack Obama hit back on Thursday at election-year Republican criticism of his energy policies, offering a staunch defense of his attempts to wean Americans off foreign oil and saying there is no “silver bullet” for high gasoline prices.

Obama sought to deflect growing Republican attacks over rising prices at the pump, blaming recent increases on a mix of factors beyond his control, including tensions with Iran, hot demand from China, India and other emerging economies, and Wall Street speculators taking advantage of the uncertainty.

~~~

“It’s the easiest thing in the world (to) make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,” Obama said, offering his most comprehensive rebuttal yet of the intensifying Republican criticism.

“What’s harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade,” he said.

~~~

“You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas,” Obama said. “I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill and step three is keep drilling.”

Odd, don’t you think? Most tend to toss a token “atta boy, Newt” out after debates, and casually move on – wasting little time giving serious consideration to a candidate considered political road kill. Obviously, Gingrich struck a nerve.

The wise GOP candidate will recognize that Obama’s community organizer strategy approach is easily rendered impotent by realistic and specific policies that improve the economy. Jobs, more affordable energy, and American independence from Middle East oil, and then watch the “middle class” woes and whining dissipate.

Outside of addressing spending and entitlement reform, one answer to a hefty amount of concerns – jobs, the economy, gas prices, national security and the “middle class” – comes neatly down to the solution with immediate results – our energy policy.

Certainly Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all have vowed increased energy exploration and production. Gingrich has probably been the only one to have tied the production to the economy and national security in such a specific manner – from the money that will be gained from the increased lease revenues, increased consumer spending and business opportunities because of more affordable energy, to foreign policy intervention no longer tied to our national interests for crude from a volatile Middle East. He’s also tied it to infrastructure that pays off when looking towards the future of the Panama Canal, and improving the deep water ports in both SC and FL.

And, of course, most everyone is aware of the positive effects with not only Canadian crude via the Keystone Pipeline, but the added benefits of that transport to Gulf refineries that will be extended to facilitate the Bakken fields resources in North Dakota, and from Cushing, OK.

This is about the time where the perpetual naysayers need to be addressed. i.e. the predictable meme that increased US domestic production will not affect prices at the pump because oil is traded on the world market, or that US crude will not stay in the country.

Before the second point can be addressed, some historic education about the first must be applied. And I’ve found no better single-stop-shopping document than provided by James L. Williams of the energy analysis firm, WTRG Economics – “Oil Price History and Analysis”. It’s impossible to summarize the entire history of the effect on production supply and price controls… pre and post OPEC… in any condensed manner, but I’ll give it my utmost. And it comes down to this…

Throughout history, and with some caveats of events on the world stage and US economic monetary policy, the manipulation and control of production flow to the market and spare production capacity is undeniably entwined with the price per barrel, and has been used for years by oil export nations to raise and lower those prices. Put more simply, supply/demand/competition, and it’s effect on prices, is a historical fact. When the supply is prolific, most especially when the players are non OPEC countries, prices are driven down.

As history shows, when prices would rise to unsustainable levels and demand would diminish, the oil tap would be ratcheted up to crash the prices. This was not always accomplished just by increasing production in the existing states that are oil exporters, because the high prices also spurred on more exploration and production by non OPEC players – contributing to the future benefit of more competition on the world market. It was also a time when private energy investors would tackle energy efficient alternatives… not on the taxpayers’ dime.

Conversely, when the prices were too low, the taps were turned down to stabilize the prices.

Another factor that affects the oil prices and production flow is the status of any of the oil producing nation’s “spare capacity”… or the amount of emergency crude supply that can be turned on tomorrow, should world events disrupt supply. As Euan Mearns observed in a June 2011 post on The Oil Drum, the notable increase in the oil nations’ collective rig counts in Feb 2011 indicated that spare capacities were low. This was also circa Arab Spring uprisings in the oil rich region.

A month before, the Institute for Energy Research also noticed that the OPEC nations’ spare capacity was on another decline.. OPEC’s spare capacity effectively reflects the global condition, since most non OPEC nations, and all OPEC nations but Saudi Arabia, are generally functioning at max capacity.

With a Middle East on the verge of literal explosion, it’s insane to be praying for an uninterrupted supply amidst dangerously fluctuating spare capacity that is not necessarily due to lack of oil field reserve output, but the existing rigs pumping those fields.

As the IER notes:

The inexorable rise in the world demand for oil, coupled with the political upheavals in the Middle East, underscore the narrow margin of spare production capacity. If policymakers want to ease this situation—and thereby take pressure off of oil prices—they should remove legal and regulatory obstacles to further oil production.

J. Michael Sharman at Culpepper, VA’s Star Exponent agreed in his editorial in October, 2011 – “Spare Capacity is the Key to Oil and Gas Prices. At that writing, oil was trading at $88 per barrel.

Oil’s current price is $88 per barrel, which is at least $30 higher than it should be.

The demand for oil in the U.S. has been declining since 2005, and global demand has grown less than 4%. Global oil prices in 2005 ranged from $42 to $58 per barrel. So, under a natural demand-and-supply analysis, the cost of gasoline should not have increased any more than 4% since 2005, for a current price of $60 per barrel, not $88.

And when the future availability of oil is factored into the speculative value of oil today, then oil should be priced even lower than $60 per barrel because global oil reserves have been growing faster than consumption and the ratio of known oil reserves to oil consumption is at a higher level than it has been since 1986.

Instead, reports Reuters news service, investment bank JP Morgan declares, “Our analysis suggests that supply constraints will again be reached by the end of 2013, driving a quarterly rise in our [oil] price forecast to $130 per barrel.”

The “supply constraints” noted by JP Morgan are not a lack of oil or oil reserves, they are an artificial reduction in available supply intentionally created by the OPEC oil producers, primarily Saudi Arabia.

This intentional reduction is often quantified by what is known as “spare capacity,” the petroleum industry’s term for an oil producer’s ability to increase oil production within 30 days and to sustain that increased level for at least 90 days.

~~~

David Fyfe, of the International Energy Agency, says the spare capacity for OPEC is just over 3 million barrels per day (“b/d”), on current OPEC production levels of around 30.1 million b/d.

The Wall Street Journal says the Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Saudi Aramco, is currently producing about 9 million barrels of oil a day and has the immediate capacity to produce at least 12 million barrels a day. Thus, the spare capacity for just Saudi Aramco is 3 million barrels per day.

The other members of OPEC, says The Wall Street Journal, are already producing at their full capacity. In other words, OPEC’s entire spare capacity is Saudi Aramco’s spare capacity.

The Oil and Gas Journal reports, “In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia considered an increase in capacity to 20 million b/d, but dropped the idea due to US support of Israel against Palestine.” Then, when oil prices shot up in 2008 to $147 per barrel, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali al-Naimi said the kingdom was preparing plans to raise the country’s production capacity to 15 million barrels a day.

Now, with oil hovering around the $80 per barrel price, Saudi Aramco chief executive Khalid Al Falih has released a statement that “There is no reason” to increase spare capacity.

Again the US consumer finds themselves “over a barrel”, so to speak… held hostage by a single country’s grip on their oil to control the price merely by turning the tap – and the defined levels of spare capacity – down. But with US domestic sources, effectively countering these policies with their own spare capacity volume, the power wielded by the Saudis is significantly diminished merely by the presence of competition.

Needless to say, Obama and the Democrats resistance to US resources adding to the world’s supply – which would force prices downward and strip away most of the pricing power from nations in an unstable region – can only be described as self destructive.

Now that it’s been shown that the world’s collective supply does indeed affect pricing, as demonstrated by history, the second naysayers talking point can be addressed…the false claim that US domestic crude would be sold elsewhere, and our nation wouldn’t benefit.

This, of course, makes not a whit of sense. Refiners are going to purchase their oil required to meet US demands at the best price possible. With all prices driven down by the increased competition, the savings on transport, and not being subject to any interruptions by Middle East despots, or penchant for violence, why would they not first opt for stable US domestic sources?

It is also a fact that the US prices for oil have always been traditionally lower than the world market. Again, per the WTGR Economics historical analysis, since 1970, the US average price was $34.77 per barrel compared to the world average of $37.93.

Are these prices of a long ago era? Not at all, as WTRG’s Mr. Williams points out:

Prices in the mid $30s seem exceptionally low by today’s standards. However, when the current President of the United States [Obama] took office the price was $35.00 per barrel. By the end of 2009 prices had doubled bringing the average for 2009 to $56.35 or $57.00 in 2010$.

Speculators, dealing with futures, could also be reined in simply by moving the Keystone Pipeline forward, which connects Cushing, OK to the Gulf refineries.

Historically, the price of NYMEX crude typically traded near the Brent price with a small premium. Since late 2010, Brent and NYMEX prices have diverged with West Texas Intermediate at Cushing, Oklahoma selling often selling more than $20 below Brent and other comparable crude oil. While continually quoted in the U.S. media as the oil price, oil at Cushing is not currently representative of world oil prices. The reason for the discount is high stocks of oil at Cushing with a limited number of refiners that can be served by pipelines out of Cushing.

Additional oil from Canada and the Bakken formation in North Dakota caused the local supply to exceed demand of the refiners served by pipelines out of Cushing. This resulted in oil stocks to building to 1.5 – 2.0 times the normal level. High stocks at Cushing depressed the local price, but not the price internationally. A return to the normal price relationship with WTI at a modest premium to Brent awaits improved pipeline access between Cushing and the refineries on the gulf of Mexico.

Oh yes.. while we’re debunking the professional “greenies” amongst us, it seems that Alberta’s reserves, once written off as on their imminent deathbed, are booming once again. That ought to sufficiently pique the ire of the Peakniks… LOL

The last large influence (although these aren’t the only factors) on prices is where Ron Paul’s outspoken criticism of the Federal Reserve comes in, as well as the uncontrolled spending of an irresponsible Congress. Because oil is traded based on the value of the US dollar, even if they purchase in Euros, a stronger dollar translates to lower oil prices. And while it doesn’t effect supply and demand, it most definitely affects futures and speculators.

This means we, as a nation, have two major problems. The first is that the debt and spending that our Congress refuses to address with any modicum of serious intent requires a Federal Reserve policy that encourages a weaker dollar so that the debt is repaid with cheaper currency.

And this is exactly what the Fed has planned – an announced intent to devalue the US dollar by 33% over the next 20 years.

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

~~~

But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.

The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.

Not only stealing 10% of the value of American’s savings, but think of it’s effect on oil prices.. and with no US energy self-sufficient policy on the horizon?

Thus it becomes even more frustrating to hear Obama, scoffing at the suggesting of drilling and utilizing US oil supplies, when he doesn’t seem to possess the intelligence to put two and two together. In fact, a weak dollar was defended by Obama’s former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, in her May 2011 op-ed in the NYTs. Her reasoning? A weak economy is not conducive to a strong dollar. Yet she seems unable to comprehend the carousel that happens when the weak dollar only contributes to making a weak economy, weaker.

All said, is Newt’s promise of $2.50 per gallon gas at the pump possible? Or is it “the phony election-year promise” as Obama claims? It is most certainly possible – and with headroom. As pointed out above, the price per barrel when Obama took office was about $35. The average price of a gallon of gas in those same “good ol’ days”? $1.84 for regular, $2.24 for diesel.

What it would take would be a plan that Newt specifically lays out for consideration… develop the areas that can be done without changing existing laws within the regulatory agencies, increase the leases, put the Keystone pipeline on the move to benefit crude coming from ND, OK and Canadian sources, and immediately reverse the restrictions that oil executives have claim have brought the US to the “energy abyss”.

The immediate result would be shovel ready jobs, a different speculation on oil futures, and the “middle class warfare” argument that even Michelle Obama says is nothing new evaporates with an economy genuinely rebounding.

But I’m equally sure that Obama will continue to push Newt’s $2.50 per gallon as a “phony election-year promise” by banking on the average American voter’s short term memory loss… and the O’faithful will dutifully follow.

Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:

…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!

Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.

While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.

That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.

With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)

And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.

PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.

The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.

Yeah, I know it’s only New Hampshire. We all knew Romney was going to take that state. But good grief, imagine if the choice was between these two?

Wow! What a nightmare.

But hey, at least we have Santorum way back there, and don’t forget about Perry!

Sigh…

Mitt Romney cruised to a solid victory in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, picking up steam from his first-place finish in the lead-off Iowa caucuses and firmly establishing himself as the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination.

“Tonight we made history,” Romney told cheering supporters before pivoting to a stinging denunciation of President Barack Obama. “The middle class has been crushed … our debt is too high and our opportunities too few,” he declared – ignoring the rivals who had been assailing him for weeks and making clear he intends to be viewed as the party’s nominee in waiting after only two contests.

His Republican rivals said otherwise, looking ahead to South Carolina on Jan. 21 as the place to stop the former Massachusetts governor. Already, several contenders and committees supporting them had put down heavy money to reserve time for television advertising there.

Even so, the order of finish – Ron Paul second, followed by Jon Huntsman, with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum trailing – scrambled the field and prolonged the increasingly desperate competition to emerge as the true conservative rival to Romney.

To cap off this “terrific” night we have the crazy uncle telling everyone to get the hell off of his property:

Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.

“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy,” campaign chair Jesse Benton said in a statement.

And in the end, with this field of candidates, it sure looks like Romney will be nominated, and I couldn’t agree more with Rush, Sarah and Donna Brazile on this….he will have a tough time against Obama:

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s 2008 all over again and we may very well be looking at four more years of the worst President this country has ever seen.

Open Secrets reveals Ron Paul’s top 3 contributors as being the following:

US Army $24,503
US Air Force $23,335
US Navy $17,432

Unfortunately, this doesn’t really tell us how many individual donors contributed. Isn’t it the case that Open Secrets only counts those (around 11,270) who give $200 or more (FEC- $250?)? I think about a third of donors don’t bother listing their workplace on their contribution form. And a combined $65,000 in military campaign donations accounts for very little as a percentage of the millions that the Paul campaign has raised.

In 2008, much was made by the Paul Bearers regarding military contributions (supposedly) going to Ron Paul. The same thing is happening again:

A posting on his campaign website the same day he appeared on “NewsHour” sheds a little light. Headlined “Ron Paul Campaign Raises Most Donations From Military,” it says that Paul has “raised more than any other current presidential candidate in donations from members of the military. Of those donors who indicated their occupation and employer, Paul topped the other contenders.”

Back in 2008, I blogged the following:

Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?

(Applause)

Is he talking about “donors identified as affiliated with the military,”?

Like everything else Ron-con-related, I believe he is spinning the results of this.

As the reporter in the Houston Chronicle says,

“many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate.”

More importantly, the amount of contributions are incredibly small, hardly proving much of anything. Beth adds in the Outside the Beltway comment section:

Also not understood by the obsessed Paulbots and other assorted antiwar nutters: the fact that “military employees” includes civil service employees of the various services. That means a GS-7 who works at Whatever Air Force Base in BFE, Idaho has their employer listed as “Air Force.” For all we know, not one of those people is someone in uniform. I’m sure there are some, but it certainly is not all, nor is it indicative of some big antiwar sentiment in the military. For Paultards and Sullivan to extrapolate that idea from this is laughably absurd.

Furthermore, if one compares the 3rd Quarter statistics of Paul and McCain regarding the contribution amounts of those who do not list their employer, 100 dollars worth was given to Ron Paul’s coffers, compared to that of McCain’s: 2,244,223.39. Out of all of that money, how much of that could have been donated by active and retired veterans? Or “Affiliates” of the military? We don’t know. But it seems clear, by the paltry $100 given by the person(s) not listing employment, that the Ron Paul supporters are overwhelmingly listing their employment when making contributions.

Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard writes,

among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000–out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren’t even active duty.

So yes, Andrew [Sullivan], those tasked with fighting this war do get it, which is why they aren’t donating to Paul. The only real report we have on political contributions from active duty military in this election cycle has Paul taking in just over $19,000, and that’s only counting donations larger than $200. So, maximum, we’re talking about 90 active duty soldiers who we know have actually contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign. The rest is pure speculation, and the Chron‘s tally of $63,440, with its average of $500 per donation, is unlikely to be populated by many of the guys who are “actually fighting this war.”

I have no doubt a number of active and retired military support Ron Paul and are attracted by what he seems to represent: Limited government and fiscal responsibility, conservative use of our military, and apparent loyalty to the Constitution, channelling the will of our Founding Fathers. That’s a seductive message for many Americans- especially the patriots willing to have their blood spilled on behalf of our country.

As this NYTimes piece notes:

Mr. Paul’s national security positions draw raves from many veterans, students and others who believe his noninterventionism would curtail a dangerous trend toward military adventurism and strengthen America’s influence and prestige while diverting resources to pay down the national debt. In interviews at Paul campaign events this week, many said they embraced his national security proposals, rather than reluctantly accepting them.

“He would get us out of our difficulties overseas,” said Tony Snook, a retired Army sergeant first class wounded in a rocket attack in Basra, Iraq, in 2007 who came to a raucous Paul rally that drew 500 people on Wednesday night in Des Moines. “You should choose your fights wisely,” he said. “If it’s not there, don’t invent something, don’t shed blood needlessly.”

But I think it’s a slick bit of propaganda for him and his supporters to push the Paul Reverist meme that the majority of those who actively serve (and those inactive) are overwhelmingly pulling the lever for an ArPee presidency (The NYTimes article itself admits there’s no way to actually verify the claim).

His passionate and energetic (as well as cult-like followers) supporters are the same rabid enthusiasts who manipulate straw polls and who in 2008 fervently defended their Constitutional Messiah whenever and wherever he was disparaged across the blogosphere (FA had a lot of fun back then, stirring up the Ronulans with one anti-ArPee post after another):

First, none of the hype about Ron Paul ever translates in to reality and actual wins. Much hype is made of his straw poll wins, online poll wins, text in poll wins.Did any of this translate in to any election wins? NO! It was all smoke and mirrors hype.

It would follow that all of this is hype too. All part of the Paulbot scheming attempts to create the aura that Ron Paul is contending and winning.

Maybe Ron Paul does garner a lot of supporters from our military. But it’s not provable. We only have flawed and incomplete (easily manipulable) records and anecdotal evidence (driven by vocal and passionate activist supporters) to go by.

U.S. Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen, right, cheers on GOP presidential candidate Texas Rep. Ron Paul, left, in Ankeny, Iowa, on Tuesday

Full disclosure: I’m a Paul supporter. I say that as an American, not as a representative of any armed force. I don’t agree with everything he thinks, but I believe in the Constitution and THAT is my thermometer for judging candidates. Only because I know how the political system works can I not be worried about his crazy thoughts that I don’t agree with. But, this post isn’t about whether or not Paul is a good candidate or would make a good president. I’m not going to argue that.

There are things that Ron Paul and his supporters are doing that are simply beginning to get under my skin. He is using the military to further his political ambitions, even though he wants to gut us. In a recent campaign flyer, Paul used an image of troops that appear to either be in a combat zone or a training environment; doesn’t matter, the troops were in uniform.

Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 specifically states:

A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may…register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces…[and may]…Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.
…
A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not…Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties recognized by the Federal Elections Committee or as otherwise authorized by the Secretary concerned.

Now, having read what I quoted above (or what you read if you went to the entire link), take a look at this recent campaign flyer Paul sent out:

These guys are obviously in the military as their all wearing the OCP (Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern) uniform. They also appear to be in a tent, which furthers the assumption that these guys are representing the Army. One could easily argue that these Soldiers didn’t know the photo would be used in a campaign flyer and that they did nothing wrong. Fine, but then there is this interview of Army Reserve Combat Engineer CPL Jesse Thorsen out of Des Moines, Iowa that is a BLATANT violation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Look, I got that a lot of troops support. I’m one of them. But, we don’t need to be getting stupid with it. It’s like we’re Paul’s personal shock troops. He’s a man that doesn’t make you immune from punishment for violating the rules. These Soldiers can’t use the weekend warrior excuse if they’re wearing the uniform. Once you put that uniform on, you represent the United States Army, whether you’re National Guard, Army Reserve, or active status.

After this interview, Paul invited Thorsen onstage and explain why Thorsen support the candidate…IN UNIFORM! Paul should know better than that. There is nothing wrong with Thorsen working on Paul’s campaign since he’s a reservist, but doing the interview and then appearing on stage with the candidate in uniform was a blatant violation. And it looks like he’ll justly be punished for it:

Army reservist who appeared in uniform on national television in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul during Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses could face harsh penalties from the Defense Department for violating military rules against politicking.

Service officials confirmed Wednesday that they are looking into possible violations of the department’s rules governing troops’ political participation by Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, an Iowa-based reservist.

My buddy, Joel Arends, from Veterans for a Strong America, weighed in as well.

“We need troops and veterans at the table, and we need them to be part of the election process,” he said. “But we don’t need troops to be violating regulations. It’s all about common sense, and most troops understand that we cannot mix the use of a military uniform with political campaigns.”

Ironically, I was debating with Joel just a couple of days about about the flier above when he sent out a press release criticizing it. We ended up agreeing on most of the violations, but now that I’m talking about it publicly I want him to know I support his efforts to expose what Paul is doing wrong in using troops to further his campaign objectives.

Disclaimer: These are my opinions and my opinions alone. I support Ron Paul as an American from Texas, not as a representative of any Armed Force or government. If you don’t like my opinion or my voting preferences, sucks to be you. Take out your pacifier and put on some big boy shoes. Welcome to greatest country on earth: The United States of America!

It’s a close one:

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney waged a seesaw battle for supremacy in Iowa’s Republican presidential caucuses late Tuesday night, the opening round of a campaign to pick a challenger to President Barack Obama.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul ran third.

Returns from 93 percent of the state’s 1,774 precincts showed Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, and Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, in a near dead heat, a fitting conclusion to a race as jumbled as any since Iowa gained the lead-off position in presidential campaigns four decades ago.

With 93% reporting:

Santorum: 25%
Romney: 25%
Paul: 21%
Gingrich: 13%
Perry: 10%
Bachmann: 5%
Huntsman: 1%

Sarah Palin didn’t endorse anyone, and to my chagrin she said people shouldn’t marginalize Ron Paul:

**smacks forehead**

Yes, some of his fiscal policies are great but if there was ever a candidate that needed to be marginalized it’s Ron Paul. Can’t agree with Sarah on this one.

Update:

Nate Silver:

Based on a county-by-county extrapolation of precincts that have yet to report, the final total would be Mr. Romney 30,286 votes, Mr. Santorum 30,201 votes. Needless to say, it may still be some time before this race gets called.

However, even though Mr. Santorum has a very small lead right now, the remaining precincts look to be ever so slightly more favorable to Mr. Romney.

The WaPo has the 6 counties to watch:

1. Dallas County

Why to watch it: This is the big suburban county in Iowa, and is one of the fastest-growing counties in the United States. It was the closest county in the state’s GOP caucuses in 2008, going for Romney by a mere four votes out of nearly 4,000 cast. It also happens to be the only county near Des Moines that Romney won, while Mike Huckabee racked up huge margins in the central part of the state.

What to watch for: Romney needs to expand his margin of victory here and hope that growing population means growing turnout. Particularly if he loses neighboring Polk County (see below), he would love to be able to make up a lot of those votes in Dallas County and then focus on his more traditional bases of support in the eastern and western parts of the state.

2. Dubuque County

Why to watch it: An eastern Iowa county firmly in Romney’s wheelhouse, Dubuque is heavily Catholic and pro-life. In fact, it was one of Romney’s best counties in the state, giving him 42 percent of the vote despite qualms in other parts of the state about his Mormon religion.

What to watch for: Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has made much of his Catholic faith and consistently pro-life record. Somehow upending Romney in Dubuque — or making it close — would be a very good sign for Santorum.

3. Johnson County

Why to watch it: Johnson is the home of the University of Iowa and, with it, scads of young voters. (A corollary: Story County, which includes Iowa State University). Young people turned out for then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, but will they come back early from winter break to take part in the Republican caucuses?

What to watch for: Given his reliance on young voters, Texas Rep. Ron Paul must do well in Johnson (and Story) if he wants to have a chance statewide. He took 15 percent in Johnson and 12 percent in Story in 2008 and must do much better this time to win. He probably needs to win both to have a chance at victory.

4. Polk County

Why to watch it: No list of counties to watch would be complete without the biggest county. Des Moines-based Polk County will account for upwards of 20 percent of the statewide caucus vote, and has recently been a pretty decisive electorate, giving one candidate a significant margin of victory (i.e. more than 10 percent). It gave then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush a 2,400-vote win out of less than 15,000 votes cast in 2000 and netted Mike Huckabee a near-3,000-vote margin in 2008.

What to watch for: This was one of the few more urban areas where Romney struggled in 2008, taking just 23 percent of the vote. Given the sheer number of votes at stake, he’s got to at least make it close. A win here would be a really good sign for him, virtually guaranteeing a victory statewide.

5. Sioux County

Why to watch it: Sioux, located in the far northwestern corner of Iowa, has the highest Republican registration (by percentage) of any county in the state. It’s also widely regarded as the home county of Iowa’s social conservative movement. In 2008, Huckabee carried it with a massive 53 percent.

What to watch for: Sioux has to be Santorum country today. While it’s hard to imagine Santorum matching Huckabee’s lofty percentage from four years ago, the higher he can get his number, the better indicator it will be that he has unified social conservatives behind his candidacy.

6. Woodbury County

Why to watch it: This Sioux-City based county in western Iowa is Romney’s base. He netted more votes here (500-plus) in 2008 than in any other county, despite the fact that it’s just the sixth-biggest county in the state. But Rep. Michele Bachmann and Santorum have both been making a serious play for this part of the state.

What to watch for: Romney has only visited the northwest part of the state a couple times this year, and he’s spending his last few days elsewhere in the state. But if his base holds in an area where he hasn’t really spent much time and he wins by as much as he did last time (15 percent) that’s a very good sign for him.

And the final polls:

And then there is the turnout:

As three candidates – Romney, Paul, and Santorum – now vie for the chance to take home the blue ribbon from the Iowa caucuses tomorrow night, there are just two numbers to watch that will likely tell you all you need to know about who ultimately comes out on top. And they both have to do with turnout.

A little history: in 2008, the expected turnout for the Republican caucuses was 80-85,000 voters. Back then, the Romney campaign reportedly identified nearly 50,000 Iowans who backed Mitt, and worked using a normal political assumption that half to two-thirds of those would show up to caucus for him — giving him around 30,000 votes total. Under the assumed result of 85,000 votes cast, that would have given Romney 35% of the vote – enough to win the caucuses outright.

Well, Romney got his 30,000 voters out in the dead of winter on January 3, 2008, but as we all know, the assumptions were shattered as over 118,000 people voted that year (a record number of votes for any Republican caucus in history). Where did the extra voters come from?

Quite simply, from evangelical churches – the informal but passionate, under-the-radar “organization” that propelled Mike Huckabee to victory. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, consolidated and encouraged evangelical support like no other candidate has been able to do, and in the process flipped the entire caucus on its head.

Under “normal” circumstances, the percentage of evangelical voters participating in the Iowa caucuses is around 35%. In 2008, that number nearly doubled to 60%. There were literally more evangelical voters at the caucuses in 2008 than there were in 2000 and 1996 combined. To put that in a little more perspective, more evangelicals voted for Mike Huckabee in 2008 than voted in total for all the candidates in 2000.

In 2012, however, nobody expects evangelicals to comprise 60% of the caucus attendance this time around. In fact, the Des Moines Register poll shows evangelical turnout in the state back down to normal levels – they have it pegged at 38%.

Just thirty-eight percent – a decline of 22% from four years ago. Why? Because there’s no Huckabee on the ballot this year. There is no evangelical preacher who naturally and overwhelmingly connects with that community of people. This year, the evangelical vote is splintered — or at least, was splintered until Rick Santorum started his flavor-of-the-month surge.

Now evangelicals, following the lead of Bob Vander Plaats and a few other prominent religious leaders, have someone they can line up behind. It is by no means anywhere close to the support Huckabee enjoyed in 2008, and the religious vote is still more splintered than it was back then, but Rick Santorum’s caucus strategy has got to be to maximize the percentage of religious voters who turnout tomorrow night.

If exit polls show evangelical voters around 35% of the electorate, Rick Santorum cannot win. If they approach 45% or 50%, however, he could pull this thing off.

This report from New Hampshire is a telling sign….too bad most of them are Romney signs:

The sheer number of Republican yard signs in New Hampshire is staggering.

…the signs are everywhere, and not just on empty lots and medians. They’re on front lawns and in the windows of businesses. They’re in every neighborhood and in front of every type of house.

Barack Obama is in big trouble.

I know, I know: It’s a Republican primary. And, of course, “yard signs don’t vote.”

But signs on front yards are a very public expression of political opinion. A yard sign is an extremely accurately measure of that single voter’s comfort level with a candidate or a party.

And people in the swing state of New Hampshire are very comfortable letting their neighbors know that they’re voting Republican this year.

My how things have changed.

The author describes how many might think this sign is no sign at all but if you have ever lived in a blue or purple state you would understand that the opposite is true. Putting a sticker on your car in a blue area meant getting accosted by neighbors and friends about how wrong you are in your political beliefs. I’m sure many of the readers have been through the same thing. So if someone didn’t feel to strongly about the election coming up, they just skipped putting that sign in their yard, putting that sticker on their car. If the opposite is happening, it’s a sign.

We all experienced this in 2008. If you just followed the media, Facebook posts from long-lost friends and, yes, the yard signs, you would never have guessed that someone other than Barack Obama won 46% of the vote in 2008. (His name was John McCain.) In “polite company” in purple states (and on the “purple state” of Facebook) it was just assumed that you were with Obama.

…But there are also signs up all over the capital city of Concord – a Democrat stronghold. Concord isn’t “purple.” It’s deep-blue town in a purple state. The Republicans who live there personify the “I sometimes vote Republican, but…” mentality.

Concord is full of Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum signs. They’re in every neighborhood. They’re brazenly posted in shop windows. There are more Republican signs in Concord, New Hampshire than I have ever seen.

Swing-state Republicans take note: 2012 will be different.

Too bad we have the relief pitchers on the mound this time. Or as Zombie calls them, the Unfunny Charade.

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?