Gingrich Robocall: Romney Forced Holocaust Survivors in Nursing Homes to Eat Non-Kosher Food is False

Newt Gingrich has said more than once that he cannot debate someone who lies.  He had better not look in the mirror or he won't be debating himself.  His latest Robocall is a LIE!  Does the man have any ethics left at all or is it win at any cost?

We need better candidates -- won't someone step up and say they are now running.  A lot of state's ballots have not closed and if a candidate does not get 50% then it will go to the Convention.  Gingrich wanting Santorum out of the race is ludicrous after the way he has acted this last week.  He has gone over the edge and showed the American people what he would be like as President if crossed.  Romney is not much better IMHO.

Gingrich Robocall: Romney Forced Holocaust Survivors in Nursing Homes to Eat Non-Kosher Food
2:05 PM, Jan 31, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK    

Via GOP12, here's a Newt Gingrich robocall going out to Floridians:

"As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher." 

Commentary's Alana Goodman points out that Gingrich's attack is completely false:
Romney never actually “eliminated serving kosher food” to Jewish residents at state nursing homes, especially not in the way Gingrich describes.

In 2002, cuts in both federal and state subsidies to assisted living facilities, combined with the rising costs of maintaining the facilities, caused a couple of Massachusetts nursing homes to consider closing their kosher kitchens. It was an unfortunate decision, but there was never actually a concern that kosher residents would be forced to eat non-kosher food – the facilities were weighing several options, including busing in the food from other nursing homes or hiring catering services.

This is beyond disgusting and shows little regard for the voter by doing an obvious lie for a robocall.   Looks like we have two candidates who will say and do anything to win.  These two candidates are handing Obama all the ammunition he needs to win in 2012 if either Romney or Gingrich is the nominee.

Great job RNC of blowing this election and then you have the nerve to ask for donations.  Unreal!  You should have set down the candidates a long time ago and told them to tone it down and stop the lies but the RNC seems to have preferred to play kingmaker with all the debates.  Now we are left with one big mess and two candidates who most of us don't like.  It is now who is the lesser of the two arrogant jerks acting like school yard bullies.

Tonight the results of the Florida primary will be in and the GOP will be one step closer of walking the plank with a candidate that almost everyone I know is not enthused about.  Won't someone please step up to the plate and say they have had it and throw their hat in the race at this late date?

Alerts

Hide

Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.

Send me alerts for:

Bill Kristol
Fred Barnes
Jay Cost

Your e-mail address:

Confirm e-mail address:

 

Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter.

 

The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

Please include me in third party offers.

 

 

Voters are Ready to Provide the Solution to Government Waste

When I read this paragraph from Scott Rasmussen about his new book The People's Money, I starting chuckling and decided that he may have the answer to the budget crises if it makes members of Congress mad from across the political spectrum.  He may just be on the right track:

By finding budget solutions with public support, the book includes proposals that are sure to offend every faction of the Political Class… and every Member of Congress This is part of a pattern that has been repeated many times in American history with the public a few decades ahead of the politicians and the politicians struggling to defend the status quo. 

Would bet there is one Senator who will be glad to read his ideas -- Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who is one of the few voices in Congress who is willing to take on the special interest groups to cut the budget.  His yearly report is something that should be required reading by every member of Congress as it details the wasteful spending that continues every year.   Wastebook 2011 is no different with examples waste by members of Congress.

Will be interesting to read Rasmussen's new book to see what can be done to stop the huge amount of tax dollars wasted by Congress on various projects that in many cases are part of bringing home the bacon by members of the House and Senate to their district/state.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Voters Are Ready to Provide the Solution In THE PEOPLE’S MONEY , pollster Scott Rasmussen, who charted the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, shows that government spending has gone up every single year since 1954 despite persistent voter demand for spending cuts.  Politicians blame voters for the problem and claim that there is no public support for specific spending cuts. Rasmussen shows that claim to be a lie. The People’s Money  is a call to arms for the people to be heard, an ultimatum for a grossly out-of-touch American political system. Drawing on revelatory budgetary documents and enlightening public opinion polls, Rasmussen lays out a step-by-step budgetary plan with voter support that will reduce spending, cut trillions from the national debt, and eliminate $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare.  It's Rasmussen's job to call on the American people for their opinions. In The People’s Money , Rasmussen asserts that “America’s Political Class wants to govern like its 1775, a time when kings were kings and consent of the governed didn’t matter.” His numbers show that the federal government today does not have the consent of the governed. “Given a choice between serving the voters and bailing out their friends, America’s politicians had little hesitation. They didn’t even try to convince voters that the scheme made sense," Rasmussen points out. "With the bailouts, the Political Class declared war on the very idea of self-governance and moved into open rebellion against the nation.” Based on this understanding, Rasmussen provides clear-headed, heavily researched and data-driven ways to cut trillions from the national deficit with a focus on the three categories that make up the bulk of federal spending (national security, Social Security, and Medicare). By finding budget solutions with public support, the book includes proposals that are sure to offend every faction of the Political Class… and every Member of Congress This is part of a pattern that has been repeated many times in American history with the public a few decades ahead of the politicians and the politicians struggling to defend the status quo. To solve the budget crisis, Rasmussen says, “The United States once again needs a ‘new birth of freedom’ so ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth.’ Our challenge today is to make those timeless ideals work for the twenty-first century.”  THE PEOPLE’S MONEYHow Voters Will Balance the Budget and Eliminate the Federal DebtBy Scott RasmussenPub date: January 31, 2012ISBN: 9781451666106Price: $26.00 • Hardcover • Threshold Editions Source:  Rasmussen Reports Examples of wasteful spending highlighted in Dr. Coburn's “Wastebook 2011” include:  $75,000 to promote awareness about the role Michigan plays in producing Christmas trees & poinsettias.  $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska.  $113,227 for video game preservation center in New York.  $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  $48,700 for 2nd annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival, to promote Hawaii’s chocolate industry.  $350,000 to support an International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy.  $10 million for a remake of “Sesame Street” for Pakistan.  $35 million allocated for political party conventions in 2012.  $765,828 to subsidize “pancakes for yuppies” in the nation’s capital.  $764,825 to study how college students use mobile devices for social networking. Read the full report: here After reading the highlights from Dr. Coburn on Government Waste in 2011, it makes the idea of this book by Rasmussen even more appealing.  After reading the Rasmussen book, The People's Money, I will be posting on here my comments about his book.  After you have read the book, iff anyone else would like to write a review about this book, please send me an email at truesoft.474@gmail.com -- would love to publish your comments.

The Hill: Lawmakers say base closures DOA

The question of whether the Secretary of Defense Panetta is using the threat of a Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) in order to cut the force is rearing its ugly head in this article.  Looks like Panetta is not serious about another round of base closings even though it is suggested in the budget because no numbers have been tied to the process of the BRAC.

Mackenzie Eaglen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that by not attaching a dollar figure to the BRAC round, it appeared unlikely that the Pentagon was that serious about pushing for it. 

As Panetta announced the cuts Thursday, he said the Pentagon “did not want to tie any savings to it because, very frankly, we need the Congress to authorize it.” 

“If we had put numbers in there and then Congress didn’t do it, it would have undermined our whole budget,” Panetta said. 

Is Panetta an honest broker for the Department of Defense?  No is the answer by many people I have talked with who are associated with the DoD.  He is a political animal and will do what is best for the Democrat Party and his boss, Obama.  The cuts in force structure play right to the liberal base of the Democrat Party.

Today we have National Guard and Reserves on almost full time active duty with deployments in and out of the Middle East like they are regular Army.  That is not their mission but the regular military has already sustained so many cuts that they cannot fight a war like in Afghanistan without the reserves and Guard.  How many states have had Guard deployed in the Middle East who return from deployment and six months later are getting set to deploy again?  How many deployments have our regular Army had in and out of the Middle East?  Some are up to six or seven deployments.

The handling of Afghanistan is getting worse not better as more deaths are happening to the military deployed in country.  If we are not in this war to win, then get out.  Sick and tired of a group of politicians and some political generals who refuse to listen to those on the ground who have to do the fighting.  The powers at be sit in their glass houses patting themselves on the back while our military are serving numerous deployments under adverse conditions with one hand tied behind their back due to the Obama Rules of Engagement (ROE).   General Petraeus vowed to "clarify" not change the  ROEs when he was appointed to head the Afghanistan operation before being moved to the CIA and Panetta to Secretary of Defense.  Note it was "clarify" not "change" which means he caved to the Obama faction.

We met a soldier at the Insight Bowl who was home between deployments and would be headed back to Afghanistan as part of his multiple deployments.  His wife had testified before Congress on how the families are being affected and the high incidence of suicide following the deployments.  Under this Administration the families are being left out of the equation.  It is one thing to be an active duty wife with the support around from the base your husband is assigned, but it is another whole story if your spouse is in the reserve or guard and has another job they have to leave to go on active duty.  The Reserve and National Guard were there to supplement not become active duty more than they are not.

The DoD saves money because the Reserves and Guard do not have benefits of the regular service unless they have been activated and are on active duty.  That leaves many families without a true support system.  Does Panetta want more of this with the plan to reduce the active duty force structure?

There is no doubt there is a huge waste of tax dollars in the DoD.  Look no further than the major aerospace companies to find the waste and then in the halls of Congress.  The cuts have to be done with always the thought in mind of what is best for our troops.  McCain put a hold on the new tanker for years which has led to a potential disaster which has not happened due to Boeing and Tinker AFB ensuring that our tanker fleet stays in the air and is well maintained.  That tanker is now more expensive and has created more money being poured into maintaining an aging tanker fleet then should have happened.  In the end it is going to cost the Air Force much more money thanks to one Senator who has it out for the Air Force.

That is a small example but one that is repeated over and over again.  When Congress should take action with the DoD budget, they usually don't but then interfere with contracting and operations when they shouldn't.

Congress needs to get back to being the representatives of the people not special interest.  That would go along way to turning this country around.  Being beholden for campaign contributions to large corporations like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, Wall Street, unions, or special interest groups has given us members of Congress who put the wishes of their donors first instead of what is good for the Country as a whole.  It is on both sides of the aisle.  No way so much money should be spent on campaigns.

It is time to look at the DoD budget through common sense glasses not the rose colored ones that DoD is always right or the black ones that DoD is always wrong and we can save a ton of money for social engineering programs.  Honesty by the DoD and members of Congress would be a good first step.

Lawmakers say base closures DOA
By Jeremy Herb - 01/30/12 07:51 PM ET 

Lawmakers from both parties are signaling they will do everything in their power to stop the Obama administration from launching another round of military base closures in the United States. 

The plan, included in the Pentagon blueprint for cutting $487 billion that was released last week, calls for another round of the Base Realignment and Closures Commission (BRAC), an independent, all-or-nothing approach to closing military bases that was last used in 2005.
The opposition to another BRAC was swift, as lawmakers from Alaska to Maine voiced opposition.  

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) put out a joint statement calling the new BRAC round “dead on arrival.” 

Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) staff convened a meeting last Thursday on BRAC with aides from seven Northeastern congressional offices, according to congressional sources. 

And the Alaska delegation joined with their governor to pre-emptively denounce any move to close the state’s bases. 

“I’ll be using my position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to demonstrate the enormous strategic value of Alaska’s military bases, and oppose any misguided attempt to close them,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska). 

Lawmakers opposing BRAC have pointed to the 2005 round as an example that base closings don’t demonstrate a clear savings and can cost a lot up front.  

But there’s a regional component at play as well. 

The BRAC proposal highlights the underlying tension between Congress and the Pentagon over the $487 in budget cuts, as a reduction of manpower, bases or weapons contracts means job losses in someone’s congressional district or state. 

“Any member of Congress that has military bases in his district, he or she needs to be extremely conscious and aware of the discussion and the debates that are forthcoming,” Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) told The Hill. “You want to make sure that you can be part of the debate if you see a cut coming that you think is not in the national security interest in this country.” 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) suggested there were plenty of overseas bases to close before getting to domestic ones, a sentiment multiple senators echoed after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the cuts. 

It’s not just the base closings that have the attention of Congress. The plan also calls for a reduction of 100,000 troops and cuts to weapons programs. 

Some critics of the cuts have said their concerns are tied to national security and maintaining the strength of the U.S. military. The most strident critics have warned of a hollowed-out force. 

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said that Virginia, along with California, Texas and Florida, would likely be hit the hardest by the cuts to the Pentagon, as they are the biggest military states.
In Virginia, the new strategy could lead to a carrier and ships leaving Virginia’s shores, Forbes said. 

He emphasized that he’s concerned about the national-security implications of the military cuts first, and the regional concern is tied to that.

“The reason I’m concerned about regional impact is sometimes I don’t think we do a very good analysis,” Forbes said. “We say we’re doing something for economic reasons, but we don’t realize the huge economic impact it’s having and the problem the impact is creating.” 

Anticipating the reaction in Congress, Panetta said the effect of the new Pentagon budget, which would cut $259 billion in the next five years, would be felt from coast to coast. 

“Make no mistake: The savings that we are proposing will impact on all 50 states and many districts, congressional districts, across America,” Panetta said.  

A former congressman, Panetta said he had been through BRAC before. “I know its weaknesses and its failings,” he said. “But I have to tell you — there is no more effective process to make it happen than using the BRAC process.” 

(snip)

As Congress debates both the Pentagon cuts and the potential BRAC round, some lawmakers and analysts said they didn’t expect regional arguments to have much weight, because they would be coming from every part of the country. 

“There may be some folks who go at it purely on a regional basis, but I think those arguments are going to fall pretty flat,” Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) told The Hill. “If you can couch them in terms of what’s best for defending the country, then the regional stuff will take care of itself.”   

Excerpt:  Read More at The Hill

Pat Buchanan: Reagan White House saw Newt as ‘something of a political opportunist’

Interesting article by Pat Buchanan.  When it came to light in the last few weeks that Newt Gingrich was the Chair for Rockefeller in GA against Barry Goldwater, it was a shock since President Reagan was a huge Goldwater supporter and conservative while Rockefeller was a liberal:

Reading this article by Pat Buchanan it struck me that he is correct that Gingrich is an opportunist and his attempt to try and carry the Reagan mantle is hollow like everything else he touches.  He brags about the Contract with America but then turns around and tries to get Republicans to abandon certain of its principles like raising taxes.  When 11 conservatives had the audacity to tell him no, he hauls them before the caucus to subject them to ridicule.  At the end of the day, history shows Gingrich lost the war with conservatives in Congress who were elected in 1994.  Joe Scarborough has been quite vocal that Gingrich has tried to rewrite history about what he (Gingrich) had to say about President Reagan and now along comes Pat Buchanan adding his voice to those of others on Gingrich.  

Gingrich, Palin, and others attacking other candidates and the media for negative campaigning is getting really old.  Detest the thin skin of some Republicans and looks like Rush Limbaugh has now weighed in as well. 

I am getting tired of the whining about 'negative' campaigning.  What in the world is campaigning if it is not this?  It has always been this way.  Romney is outspending Gingrich by $15million to $3million. He doesn't have a microphone like I do, but I just ignore critics.  

I am not a huge fan of Rush but in this case he is right.  All this whine about the media and the negative campaigning shows that Gingrich is another one of the Republicans who can dish it out but cannot take it just like Sarah Palin and her refusing interviews because she might get asked a gotcha question.  I don't remember Reagan complaining about the media.

Successful Republican politicians learn to use the media to their advantage instead of complaining about it.  Like Ronald Reagan.  He was a master at using the media.  Ever hear Reagan whine about the media?  Here is a pretty extensive list of Reagan quotes.  None of them are about the media.  Complaining about the media in politics is like complaining that water is wet.  Stop complaining and start swimming

When I read that paragraph above at Red State, I burst out laughing as it is so true.  Love the "Stop complaining and start swimming" part.  That was one of my biggest complaints about Palin when she couldn't answer a question was her immediate response of blaming the media which makes a candidate look weak and whiney which is what we have been seeing out of Gingrich for the last week.

Pat Buchanan: Reagan White House saw Newt as ‘something of a political opportunist’Published: 3:48 PM 01/28/2012 | Updated: 11:44 AM 01/29/2012

Over the last week, several people that worked in the Reagan administration have come forward and countered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s claim that he is a “Reagan Republican.” These people say Gingrich “wasn’t on board with a lot of what President Ronald Reagan tried to accomplish during his two terms.” 

And although that claim has been disputed by other Reagan administration officials, former Reagan communications director Pat Buchanan told “The McLaughlin Group” this weekend that Gingrich wasn’t seen favorably by those in the administration. 

“[I]n the Reagan White House, Newt Gingrich was considered quite frankly by a lot of folks to be something of a political opportunist and who was not trusted and who had played no role whatsoever,” Buchanan said. “He was a Rockefeller Republican in the great Goldwater-Rockefeller battle, where conservatism came of age.” 

Buchanan also theorized that Gingrich stumbled in two debates this week because he was caught off guard by all these people who turned on him. 

“I do think this, though. Newt has been pounded merciously,” Buchanan said. “He had people he worked with basically turn on him and dump on him down there in Florida, which somehow I think may have had some role in the fact that the great fighter and battler of South Carolina had no fight in him whatsoever in the Monday and Thursday debates in Florida.’ 

“He let Mitt Romney punch him silly. And he has lost all his momentum. And John, I’m not going to make any predictions because I thought the battler of South Carolina would win Florida, but Romney is surging and it looks like Romney may win Florida. And if he does, it’s all over.” 

Later Buchanan reiterated his criticisms of Gingrich, recalling his opposition to Reagan’s 1986 veto of a South African anti-Apartheid sanctions bill and about how Gingrich used it to score points against Reagan. 

“I don’t think he has a core,” Buchanan said. “I don’t think he has a fundamental, ideological and political core. I think, look he moved, he was a Rockefeller Republican, he comes up — I remember meeting him in ’78 when he came to town, you know he is knocking Reagan. … 

Reagan believed that sanctions on South Africa would cripple the economy that the Africans would inherit. So it was a tough decision. Reagan vetoed it. And he scored points off us by you know voting for the sanctions and doing that. I don’t think he has an ideological core. I think he moves from one issue to another to another.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/28/pat-buchanan-reagan-white-house-saw-newt-as-something-of-a-political-opportunist/#ixzz1kyacqnpd

Originally thought I could support Gingrich, but after talking to some people who knew him best and reading about the facts not the rewritten history by Gingrich, I cannot in good conscience support a man that I am not sure where he really stands after traveling around with Pelosi and Daschle on Global Warming and getting on board with Hillary on healthcare when she was in the Senate.  He asks us to swallow too much koolaid like he was an historian for Freddie MAC or that he was a huge supporter of Reagan when the facts speak otherwise.   

Already said that there was no way I could support Mitt Romney and feel that way as much today as I did six months ago if not more today.  He is not conservative and has flipped so much on issues not sure he knows where he stands.  

Will the Republican Party end up with brokered convention or will another candidate step forward that the grassroots can support.  I have seen more people post in the comment section that if any of the four candidates is the nominee they are staying home.  That would hurt our House and Senate candidates.  In fact, the latest generic poll shows the Dems 1% ahead of the GOP for Congressional seats.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Democrat in their district’s congressional race if the election were held today, while 40% would choose the Republican instead.  

There are two things at play here.  First is the lack of good Conservative Republican leadership in Congress and second is the way this primary season has been handled by the RNC who is owned by Bush 41 and the establishment with their surrogates like Karl Rove calling the shots.  This group took out other candidates along the way who were more conservative then any of the four who are left.  Shame on the RNC for having all those debates with liberal moderators which favored Romney and Newt and their prowess in debating.  All of a sudden the debates became the way to weed out conservative candidates.  You can lay a good part of the blame at the RNC and Fox News with their crooked debate in Orlando which started the downward spiral for debates.


For the first time in several years, Democrats are back on top the generic ballot for Congress and can understand why when you see what the RNC has managed to accomplish in this primary -- give us candidates that the grassroots don't like and basically tell us to get on board to beat Obama or we are not Republicans.  Some of the emails I have gotten frankly have made me more against the RNC then ever which says a lot.


Someone better wake up and realize that we could lose a chance at the White House and the Congress if we are not careful.  This may go down as one of the most disgusting Presidential primaries that I have ever witnessed with the RNC calling the total shots and being in the tank for Mitt Romney who is not conservative which has left us with the #2 candidate Gingrich who is only conservative when it is to his advantage or he would not have been paling around with Nancy Pelosi on global warming.  Here is the ad by Pelosi and Gingrich on global warming:





What are conservatives to do about this Presidential Primary?  One path is to vote for one of the candidates like Santorum who is the most conservative or even Ron Paul and hope we end up with no one getting 50% of the vote and have a brokered convention.  Another avenue is to vote for Romney and end this charade and move on to House and Senate races.  Frankly Romney as the candidate would make it easier to Keep the House and Take and Senate because most Democrats are no more enthused to vote then Republicans.  With Gingrich, Clintonites will come out in big numbers to vote against Gingrich and give at least one of the Houses and perhaps both back to the Democrats.  Personally I am voting for Santorum in my state hoping for a brokered convention but even then I would expect the RNC to blow it.


It is time for the RNC Chair Preibus to resign after this debacle of a primary season which we don't expect to happen but it would show that the leaders of the Republican Party understand how mad conservatives are at what we have been witnessing during the Presidential primary.  I am not holding my breath because I think the ethics at the RNC are missing in action with all these debates meant to elect Romney, or we wouldn't be in this mess!

Florida Primary - My Two Cents!

Extremely happy that I don't live in the State of Florida and have to put up with this Republican Primary with the ads all over my TV.  Must admit that if I was voting in FL, I would vote for Rick Santorum as being the most Presidential of the group.  Have a much better impression of Ron Paul today then when the race started as he is really a funny guy.  He brought some comic relief to the otherwise nasty debates in Florida.  Only Paul and Santorum seem to care about the issues in the debates as the other two kept getting nastier and nastier.

This idea that anyone should claim the Reagan mantle is ludicrous starting with Newt Gingrich.  We have seen the Congressional record, seen him play up to Democrats and liberals, and watched him try to jettison conservatives when he was Speaker.  He is radioactive IMHO with some of his comments.  Newt is not electable as he will bring out the Clinton Democrats in the general election who want to pay him back for Clinton.  All you have to do is ask my neighbors and stand back for the explosion of what they think of Gingrich.  They have zero respect for him and yet don't like Obama.  One neighbor asked how we could have such bad candidates, and had to tell them no one wanted to run this time against Obama so we are left with these four.

It is time for candidates to be themselves and stand on their own two feet instead of trying to be like Reagan because frankly none of this group measures up.  Too much time is spent on trying to pretend they are Reagan when there was one Ronald Reagan and none of the four can stand up under the microscope in comparison to Reagan.  Find it demeaning and irritating to hear this every time in the election.  President Reagan left office in January 1999 and this is 2012 which is 23 years later with new problems.  Just like Obama is not like Jimmy Carter, our candidates are not like Ronald Reagan.

Gingrich talking about character now is laughable.  Kind of a reminder when Herman Cain who has his own women problems endorses Gingrich.  Shows someone who is so arrogant that they don't understand how anyone would possibly think their private life is not appreciated by many voters especially women.  Now he wants Santorum out of the race according to reports today in Florida.  Talk about going after a candidate when he is going through a hard time with the fact his youngest daughter who has a major disability was admitted to the hospital last night.  Gingrich is turning into the poster boy for arrogance and all about me, me, me.  It is not becoming.

Right now my heart and prayers go out to the Santorum Family and my vote in Oklahoma is going to Santorum who is one of the two adults in the debates.  My #2 choice for voting would go to Ron Paul who is also more grown up acting then the other two.

Wouldn't give you two cents for Gingrich or Romney but have to admit that Romney doesn't get on my nerves when he talks near as much as Newt.  Romney doesn't complain all the time that someone is picking on him either.  If Newt cannot take the heat from the media in the primary or the other candidates, why does he think it will get better in the general?  His whining is what turned me off when he was Speaker.  Will never forget that temper tantrum he threw when Clinton made him go off the back of AF One after returning from a funeral.

The longer this has gone on and other candidates have dropped out of the race, the more arrogant that Gingrich has become.  He doesn't play well with Hispanics in Florida even a little which has showed up in his rallies with Hispanics where few show up.  Pandering is not working with the Hispanic community.  The approach of Gingrich or Romney is not playing well although the Gingrich ad infuriated the Cuban community like I cannot believe.

Personally will be glad when this primary is over in Florida and after Nevada there is about a month before any more debates and voting.  Then it is Super in Tuesday in my state.  I would be just as happy if none of the candidates showed up in Oklahoma and didn't bother to run ads.  Just forget we exist please!

Please keep the Santorum Family and their daughter Bella in your thoughts and prayers.  Cannot fathom what it would be like to have your young daughter with so many problems.

Joe Scarborough: The Newt I know

This falls in line with what we have been hearing from Dr. Coburn about Newt which we have highlighted.  When Dr. Coburn says Newt would be the last person he would vote for as President, then you want to stop and really look into that candidate.  Joe Scarborough a former colleague of Dr. Coburn in the House has weighed in on Newt Gingrich running for President.  It is about time the men who knew Newt best when he was Speaker went public so the voters can get an insight into the man running for President. The Newt I know By: Joe Scarborough January 27, 2012 01:05 PM EST

Yeah, yeah. I know. Newt Gingrich had a lousy week and will probably lose the Florida primary on Tuesday. But for those tempted to once again predict the speedy collapse of his campaign, consider yourselves forewarned. I’ve known this guy long enough to realize that the only three species destined to survive a nuclear holocaust will be cockroaches, Cher and Newton Leroy Gingrich. I first met Gingrich 17 years ago at a Destin, Fla., fundraiser held in my honor a few weeks after Newt declared that I was too conservative to win the general election. But after I won the primary against the moderate woman he anointed, there he was in Florida looking supremely bored and a little put out that he was having to sit through another politician’s speech. In the ensuing years, I found the mercurial maverick to be inspiring and maddening, disciplined and self-indulgent, forward thinking and short-sighted, gifted and dumb — sometimes all within the same hour. (snip) But Newt was right and we were wrong. The Gingrich Revolution overtook Washington (with a huge assist from Bill Clinton’s overreaching agenda) and good things followed. Within a few years, Congress passed the first balanced budget in a generation, welfare reform, tax cuts and meaningful congressional changes. If Newt’s story ended there, I might have a Gingrich 2012 sign in my front yard. But unfortunately, it does not. Three years into his speakership, the man who helped draft the Contract With America began trying to undo some of that document’s key provisions. The government shutdown had badly damaged the speaker’s brand and he went to work trying to raise his 27 percent approval rating. In April 1997, Gingrich told The New York Times he was ready to be a kinder and gentler Republican by negotiating away the very tax cuts that he had once called “the crown jewels of the contract.” Soon, conservatives were being pressured to vote for big spending appropriations bills. In his final speech from the floor of Congress, Newt Gingrich lashed out wildly at the same freshmen who had made him speaker — mocking us as cannibals who made up “the perfectionist caucus.” It was the last time Newt would attack the most conservative members of his caucus from the lofty perch as speaker. In 1997, ten of my fellow classmates had led a coup attempt against Gingrich, shutting down the House over the speaker’s efforts to violate the Contract with America by swelling the number of committee staff members. Conservative stalwarts like Steve Largent, Tom Coburn and Matt Salmon joined me and seven others to demand a cut in spending and a promise to hold firm on tax cuts. Newt did not take the rebellion lying down. He immediately summoned the sergeant of arms to drag the 11 rebels down to a Republican caucus meeting in the bowels of the Capitol basement, where Newt lined us up in front of a packed room of seething House members who were now missing the first day of their Easter recess because of our insurgency. Gingrich then began screaming and demanded that the 11 of us account for our behavior. He then taught me a political lesson I will always remember: Never willingly hand the microphone over to your enemies. Especially when the first rebel to speak was elected to the NFL Hall of Fame and one of People Magazine’s Most Beautiful Men Alive. As Steve Largent grabbed the microphone, the crowd of GOP members was still shouting insults. But by the time he stood behind the podium, even our most hostile opponents grew quiet. Steve spoke softly about how he signed a contract with the Seattle Seahawks and remembered shaking the hand of the team’s owner after the deal was done. A few years later, the NFL Players Association went on strike. But Largent told the mob, who were now transfixed, that he crossed those picket lines because he signed a contract and gave his word. Largent told the group that a few years later, the NFL players went on strike a second time and he was once again one of the few NFL players to keep reporting for work. For Steve, it was a matter of principle. The beautiful NFL Hall of Famer then quietly moved in for the kill. Turning to the Speaker, who a year earlier had been named Time Magazine’s person of the year, Largent said, “Newt, you were the one who drafted the contract and then told us to sign it. Now, you’re the one pressuring us to break it. But Newt, if I wasn’t intimidated by the thought of 250 pound linebackers who wanted to kill me every time I crossed the field, why would I be intimidated by you?” And with that, the speakership of Newt Gingrich was over. A year later, he would be driven from power and sent into a political wilderness from which he emerged 14 years later on a Saturday night in South Carolina. Gingrich’s precipitous fall from power was the result of arrogance, self-satisfaction and a fatal tendency to flit from issue to issue — and even from core conviction to core conviction — in the seeming belief that if he spoke well enough (and used as many adverbs as possible), no one would notice that he was doing something he had equally eloquently (and equally adverbially) opposed before. Let’s be clear: Gingrich is an important figure. Regardless of what happens in Florida and beyond, he will be remembered as the man who brought the Reagan Revolution to Congress. Yet it will also be recorded that Newt compared the Great Reagan with Neville Chamberlain, dismissed Reaganomics as flawed and called Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union an utter failure a few years before the U.S.S.R. was relegated to the dustbin of history. These unpleasant facts do not stop Newt from trying to embrace the same policies he once denounced (one wonders if he even remembers the contradictions at this point), but that’s what makes my former colleague so fascinating. And so troubling. A Gingrich campaign is always a high wire act without the net and sometimes, the main actor in this manic routine actually makes it to the other side. But after his listless march through the Sunshine State, even I wonder how many more performances remain. A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001. Excerpt:  Read More at Politico  This is a glimpse into the 'get even' mentality of Newt Gingrich against conservatives but it didn't work in the House against the 'rebels' who would not given in on their core principles.  To this day, you are not going to back Senator Coburn down who was part of this group.  It also shows that Gingrich is willing to sell out core principles if it will raise his numbers.  That is not someone you want in the White House.

DID: Rapid Fire 2012-01-27: FY13 DoD Budget Guidance

The Defense Industry Daily.com sent out some highlights in an email  from the new FY13 Department of Defense Budget Guidance briefing on what the DoD sent to the President for submission to Congress.  

Found it interesting that there is going to be another Base Realignment and Closure Committee (BRAC) process started in 2014-2015.  This explains Senator Brown's comments earlier about making sure Hanscom AFB, MA, is prepared for for the BRAC.  He has been joined by other members of Congress from New England for the fight.  My recommendation would be to get with Senator Olympia Snowe who was successful in her challenge to the BRAC on the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine and the Naval Submarine Base in New Groton, Connecticute.  Both bases had flawed data the Pentagon gave the BRAC about the two installations.  Once Senator Snow presented the real facts, the BRAC voted to take the two off the list. 

The same thing happened to the B-1 base, Ellsworth AFB, in South Dakota where Senator Thune did the fighting.  The powers at be at the Pentagon wanted to consolidate all the B-1's at a base in Texas which was beyond stupid as Dyess AFB, TX, where they were to relocate had only one runway.  Many people associated with the DoD were wondering why the planners would put all the B-1's we have in the inventory in the same location.  In the Ellworth AFB was also removed by the BRAC when Senator Thune presented the real facts.

During the visit with one of my Senators, was told to my face by a retired three-star General that the Pentagon never makes a mistake when I asked the question why these three locations were on the BRAC list.  I told him in the research that had been done it showed flawed data from the Pentagon but he said once again the Pentagon never makes a mistake.  Talk about arrogance.   He turned out to be wrong and the data from the Pentagon was very flawed.  The BRAC agreed that the Pentagon had used flawed data.  

The installations who end up on the BRAC submittal from the Pentagon need to do their homework because the Pentagon does make mistakes and the proof is in the last BRAC process.

We will keep you advised of the status as the FY 13 DoD Budget goes to Congress in February.  The one thing is clear is that there are going to be cuts.  The question is how much and to what programs.  Here is the brief analysis of what lies ahead in FY 13 for the Department of Defense:

Rapid Fire 2012-01-27: FY13 DoD Budget Guidance

Top Pentagon officials gave a briefing yesterday (1/26/12) on major budget decisions ahead of the FY13 President Budget request coming on Feb. 13. Highlights among the outlined priorities [PDF]:

• A relatively stable topline at $613.4B, made of a $525B baseline plus $88.4B overseas contingency operations (OCO). The former is a couple billion dollars below the FY10 actual budget and reflects a 5% decrease from the FY12 request, but in reality is just $6B below what DoD ended up getting last year. The OCO funds are 25% lower than last year’s $117.8B request but they remain at a pretty sizable level now that troops have left Iraq. Again, a significant part of the cuts Panetta and House Republicans have most vocally objected to are actually found in a) reductions vs. baseline growth previously projected by DoD – as opposed to net cuts – and b) a drop in war funding which arguably makes sense when you’re withdrawing troops from combat.

• Force and infrastructure adjustments, starting with a new base realignment and closure (BRAC) process. The last one dates from 2005 and wrapped up only very recently. Well, almost. Also, the start of a 5-year process that aims to lower active troops to 490,000 for the Army and 182,000 for the Marines; and a 10% reduction in the number of Air Force tactical air squadrons from today’s 60. A new BRAC is sure to open a whole new can of worms in Congress.

• Slowing down JSF procurement – again – to allow for more testing and address the laundry list of issues outlined in the latest DOT&E report [PDF]. This decision reflects the conclusions of the Concurrency Quick Look Review [PDF] that talked of a “lack of confidence in the design stability” and of the “concurrency driven consequences of the required fixes.”

• Retirement or divesting of 27 C-5As, 65 C-130s and 38 C-27s. Cancellation of Global Hawk Block 30 (not the whole program). Early retirement of 7 cruisers; delayed or reduced production of 14 ships, spread between LHA, LCS, JHSV, Virginia-class sub. Termination of the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS). Reduction in JAGM funding. Focus on JLTV rather than HMMWV Recap.
• Adjustments to pay raises shouldn’t start until 2015. Health care fees, co-pays and deductibles for retirees on the other hand will start to rise earlier. Beyond that, DoD is asking Congress to establish a commission to review military retirement. What could go wrong with that?

DID will obviously follow budget developments closely as they unfold and further details are made available. For reference, the FY12 DoD budget documents are found here. In other news:

• Lockheed Martin reported sales growth of 1.8% to $46.5B for 2011. Aeronautics is where most of the growth was, followed by electronic systems, while information and space systems saw a slight drop in sales. The company’s total backlog grew by 3% to $80.7B. The 8-K filing or press release don’t detail how much of that number is funded, and there’s the question of actual F-35 delivery rates in the next few years. As of the end of 2010 the funded backlog amounted to 64% of the total, based on that year’s 10-K filing.

• Raytheon’s AGM-65E2 laser Maverick passed its testing, clearly the way for delivery and use of the back-in-production missiles.

• The Defense Acquisition University published its Better Buying Power (BBP) learning materials. 

CEI: Obama and the Chevy Volt

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has the facts once again with this article about the Chevy Volt: OBAMA & THE CHEVY VOLT - MARLO LEWIS Globalwarming.org: Did GM and Feds Collude to Hide Green Car Battery Fires?  At a hearing Wednesday morning (1/25/12), GOP members of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs opined that General Motors (GM) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) colluded to withhold information from the public about battery fires in the Chevy Volt, the plug-in hybrid car lavishly subsidized by the Obama administration as part of its bailout of the auto industry, the Washington Post reports.  NHTSA began to investigate the green car’s safety risk in June after a test car caught fire, but waited until November to inform the public. Subcommittee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called the delay “deeply troubling,” particularly because the Government owns 26.5% of GM shares and an expanding market for electric vehicles is critical to the administration’s plan to raise fuel economy standards to 54.5 mpg.   View the full commentary on Globalwarming.org If you are thinking of buying a Chevy Volt, you might want to think twice and do some research.  It figures a so called 'green car' like the Chevy Volt would have a battery catch fire setting the test car on fire and polluting the air.  Why did they wait so long to warn the public about a Government Motors car?  The NHTSA didn't hesitate on Toyota but then again the Obama Administration didn't own a part of Toyota.

Tech Dirt: Once More, With Feeling: It Wasn't Silicon Valley Or Google That Stopped SOPA/PIPA, It Was The Internet

Once again the grassroots of America rose up and said "NO!" this time to the Stop OnLine Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate that were winding their way through Congress.  Google and others did their objections to these two bills in a bold way with blacking out their sites for a day, but in reality it was you and me along with millions of internet users who called and wrote their members of Congress to stop these bills who got the job done.  Members of Congress got the message loud and clear.

When Senator Rubio pulled his support as a co-sponsor, the house of cards started falling for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) who were pushing theses acts.  As more members of Congress joined the Senator in pulling their support, these two bills got shelved for now.  The two trade organizations pushing these bills were vocal in the fact they represented all of Hollywood and the recording artists.  Turns out that wasn't true as tens of thousands of the people represented by these groups did not want these Acts passed in Congress any more than the rest of us.

We have to remain vigilant to make sure these two acts don't arise from the ashes.  We also need to be more vigilant on the laws that are passed by Congress.  The Grassroots needs to start tracking what our Senators and Representatives are agreeing to with the President and keep making our voices heard.  This isn't over yet as we have just won the battle and now it is up to us to win the war.

Once More, With Feeling: It Wasn't Silicon Valley Or Google That Stopped SOPA/PIPA, It Was The Internet 

by Mike MasnickThu, Jan 26th 2012 8:45am
from the wake-up-folks dept 

Over the last week, after SOPA and PIPA were put on life support, we've noticed an incredibly tone deaf response from the supporters of these bills, lashing out at the wrong parties and trying to figure out where to place the blame. The usual target has been "the tech industry," by which they usually mean "Google." That's why the MPAA's Chris Dodd wants to sit down with "tech companies" at the White House to discuss this. It's why the head of the movie theaters' lobbying group, NATO, brushes this whole thing off as Google "flexing" its muscles. As we've said all along, that not only misses the point, and is totally tone deaf to what happened, but it pretty much guarantees the wrong response from supporters of the bill.

Larry Downes has a great piece over at Forbes making this point and tracing back who really "stopped" SOPA and PIPA (full disclaimer: Downes gives me unnecessarily nice billing in the piece, providing too much credit for my early coverage of the bills). The key point that he makes is that this wasn't about "tech companies" or "Google" rising up -- but about internet users. And until the bills' supporters understand this, they're going to make the same mistakes over and over again:

The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA don’t even know who stopped them cold. But supporters of the proposed laws are retrenching anyway, preparing to launch a new assault on an enemy it hasn’t identified.

Given both their arrogance and ignorance, it goes without saying that the content industries are unlikely to avoid similar catastrophes in the future, let alone find a way to work collaboratively with a political force they don’t know—or believe–exists.

This is the message that many people are trying to get out there, and which keeps getting dismissed. Perhaps an even stronger point was made by the many, many people "in Hollywood" who came out against the bill as well. Take a look at what the Future of Music Coalition had to say on the matter, highlighting that anyone who thinks this is "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" is missing the point in a big bad way.

Unfortunately, some folks seem to be missing that point entirely, and are clinging to the idea that the SOPA/PIPA kerfluffle was simply Big Content vs. Silicon Valley.

We beg to differ.

Among the millions of people who voiced concerns about the scope and application of these bills were many copyright owners. We’re talking tens of thousands of arts and culture reps and even individual artists like MGMT, Trent Reznor, Amanda Palmer, Jason Mraz, Zoe Keating and more. What does this tell us? That a lot of folks with skin in the game are uncomfortable with Washington trade groups like the MPAA and RIAA claiming to represent their interests.

This isn't about "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley." This is about "the internet" vs. the old way that things were done (artificial scarcity, backrooms and gatekeepers). Misunderstanding that key point will lead to the same mistakes again and again. Understanding this presents a clear path forward.

Wes Pruden: Off to the moon with randy Newt

When I got this in my Friday morning email, I couldn't quit laughing as Wes Pruden has tapped into what so many of us have thought about Gingrich.  The last two debates have solidified what I remembered about his grandiose ideas being off the wall.  In today's environment we need cuts in Government not growth.  Gingrich was NEVER a small government Conservative.  If you don't believe me, ask the members of the House who served with him.  Even his trying to join himself at the hip with President Reagan has failed miserably.  Guess he figured that no one was going to do the research.

That was another miscalculation just like we now find out that Gingrich told John King he would provide friends to ABC to back him up against his second wife but then told the voters of SC he never said that.  Yesterday it was admitted that he did say that he would provide friends to ABC to back up his side.  So we have a candidate in order to score points with the electorate takes on John King, the CNN Moderator, and lies.  Not smart at all for the person who touts himself as the smartest man in the room.

Gingrich finally met his match with Wolf Blitzer as he tried the same crap he did with John King but Blitzer wasn't budging and continued to ask the question.  Gingrich came across as petty.  He tried to use the media as his whipping post to get conservatives to his side who detest the mainstream media.  Blitzer has been around too long and is too savvy to bite.

Wes Pruden has done an excellent job of covering Newt Gingrich and his grandiose ideas like a "Moon Colony" that could become a state if they had enough people.  Think there are probably a lot of other countries who would object to the moon becoming a state.  Cannot believe I am even writing that.

Off to the moon with randy Newt   By Wesley Pruden The great entertainers of our time turn out to be presidents and the men who would be president, and this week most of them are in Florida. This is as good as vaudeville ever was. Newt Gingrich, under siege by ex-wives and trying hard to keep track of the various versions of an autobiography-in-progress, nevertheless soldiers on in his mission to restore family values and “morality” to the nation. Ever the deep thinker of big thoughts, Newt may be looking for a getaway as critics retrieve highlights of his checkered past. He recalled this week in Cocoa Beach how he had once introduced something called the Northwest Ordinance for Space, the “weirdest thing” he had ever done. But he stands by what it called for, though accounts of his remarks sound like satire. With Newt, you never know. “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?” Gingrich once asked former Sen. Majority Leader Bob Dole. “I think the number is 13,000—when we have 13,000 Americans living on the moon, they can petition to become a state. ... By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American. We will have commercial near-Earth activities that include science, tourism and manufacturing. “I accept the charge that I am an American and Americans are instinctively grandiose because we believe in a bigger future. ... I want you to help me both in Florida and across the country so that you can someday say you were here the day it was announced that of course we’d have commercial space and near space. Of course we’d have a manned colony on the moon that flew an American flag.” Back on the ground in Florida, Newt continues to try to put to bed his reputation with his wives, if not the wives themselves. Just when he thought he was in a friendly forum in Miami, another pesky television correspondent asked him why he led the Republican campaign to impeach Bill Clinton for zipper disease when he was losing a struggle with his own zipper. Soon he and the interviewer, Jorge Ramos of Univision, were sparring over something that sounded a lot like what the meaning of ‘is’ is. “No, I criticized President Clinton for lying under oath in front of a federal judge,” Newt said, “[for] committing perjury, which is a felony for which normal people go to jail.” The interviewer cut him off, never easy for someone talking to Newt: “However, at the same time you were doing the same thing.” “No, I wasn’t. You didn’t hear my answer. Look, I have been through two divorces—“ “I understand,” the interviewer said. “But people think that’s hypocritical to criticize President Clinton for doing the same thing that you were doing at the same time.” That was then, and Newt had rather talk about how he and Ronald Reagan worked miracles of statecraft. Reprising in Florida his earlier remarks at the Reagan library in California—in a digression from a boast that he had helped the Gipper “create millions of jobs while he was president”—he bragged that he also “helped defeat the Soviet empire. “I’ve done a movie on Ronald Reagan . ... Callista and I did. We’ve done a book on Ronald Reagan. You know I campaigned with Reagan. I first met Reagan in ‘74. I’ve very happy to talk about Ronald Reagan.” But Newt’s war stories about soldiering with the Gipper are more romantic fiction than remembered actual fact. On the eve of the Gipper’s summit with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, Newt called it “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with [Neville] Chamberlain at Munich in 1938,” and he later said the Reagan administration had failed to meet the Soviet challenge and “the burden of failure frankly must be place first upon President Reagan.” Newt was not, as the record demonstrates, someone a president could “go to the wall with.” Newt, like Ron Paul, is most popular with young voters. They have no personal remembrance of his history, of his performance in the events that shaped his reputation. He has a sharp tongue that delivers clever one-liners, a talent never prized in presidents. Newt does not wear well. Two years after he was Time magazine’s Man of the Year one public-opinion poll found that only 14 percent of the voters still liked him. Columnist Mark Shields tells of an exchange—perhaps apocryphal, like so much of Newt—between Newt and Bob Dole, who had the sharpest tongue in town. “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?” Newt asked. The senator replied: “It saves them time.” Wesley Pruden is the editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Some of the comments I have gotten back from sending out this article go right along with my chuckling.  As I have been surveying people I have known for years, there is not one who would eagerly vote for Gingrich for President.  Most are afraid if he got the nomination that Democrats would turn out in big numbers costing Republicans the House and a chance to take back the Senate after the way he treated Clinton and then was forced to resign as Speaker himself for lack of ethics and morals.  Most people think he is splitting hairs on Clinton and see him as carrying on a six-year affair with a Congressional staffer while going after Clinton.

That is the one reason why I kept asking why he was running with all his baggage and am still asking that question.  It makes no sense except as a means to make more money or sell more books.  There is no way he could have thought all of this wouldn't come out unless he is that arrogant to think people wouldn't research or in a lot of our cases, remember.  People who do opposition research leave no stones unturned -- with Gingrich it would have been very easy to discover the facts.

I said openly he had too much baggage to get the nomination several months ago and even questioned why Gov Perry endorsed him recently.  When former House Member Joe Scarborough interviewed former colleague and now Senator, Tom Coburn, about Newt, you knew there was going to be more to come from the band of conservatives that Gingrich tried to silence.  Dr. Coburn discusses in his 2003 book, "Breach of Trust" about how erratic Gingrich was as Speaker and had this to say in his Oklahoman interview:

Coburn was part of the 1994 freshman class that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in 40 years. According to Coburn, Gingrich ultimately abandoned the principles that drove the Republican resurgence and failed to keep promises to slash spending. 

“From the perspective of many members of the class of 1994, it was Gingrich who had drained the lifeblood from the Republican revolution with some of his political decisions,'' Coburn wrote.
....

Coburn said Gingrich usually made freshmen feel “as if we didn't have much value because we didn't know anything about the political game in Washington. … It would not take long for us to become ‘the conservatives' to him.”

It is not only the members of Congress who served with Newt going after him today but it is the people from the Reagan years that put up with his criticizing Reagan on the floor of the House which is in the Congressional   Record, it is the reporters that he was so short with when he was asked questions, but most importantly it is the American people who remember Gingrich and his arrogance as Speaker when he shut down Government, when he whined that Clinton made him go out the back of Air Force with the other dignitaries flying back from a funeral instead of out the front with Clinton, and when he played nice with House Democrats and tried to shut out the new Conservative Congressmen we had elected.  

Bottom line is that the baggage has finally caught up with Gingrich.  What is he going to do?  Strike out more against the media and other candidates and will he realize the gig is up?  Wouldn't take bets one way or the other.  

When this whole primary season is looked back on there are going to be a lot of people who have to answer for the disaster it has turned into over the months of debates.  Is it possible that once again the Republican Party is going to blow an election for President?  Highly possible unless something changes which unfortunately we don't see on the horizon.

Now the time is fast approaching when the big push shifts to the House and Senate races run by the National  Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and leave the Presidential race to the Republican National Committee (RNC).  We will be highlighting those candidates of the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Young Guns of the House in the weeks ahead.  One interesting race already is the moderate Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin versus the Conservative Mark Neumann in the Republican Senate Primary.  Our bet is on Neumann after doing some research -- he is the type of candidate we need as a Senator to help fight Government waste and abuse.