DEMOCRATS for SALE

Mitt Romney, Loose Cannon

2012-02-02T12:30:00.000-06:00

This is the best article I have seen to date to describe what conservatives are seeing with Mitt Romney. If you have ever attended one of his events, you can tell he is not comfortable talking to regular people but extremely comfortable around the major donors. Is the reason for USSS protection to keep the ordinary citizens at arm's length? Wish I could say that was my idea but I have seen and heard in on Twitter and other places.

There are people with money who see in the grocery or out shopping and they dress and act like ordinary people. They are friendly, give of themselves and money to the community, and are the type of person you wouldn't mind to have for your next door neighbor. Romney doesn't fit that mold. I have seen it in person and the gaffe's prove the fact he is not comfortable being who he is. That happens when he pretends to be something he is not like pretending to be a conservative when he is a moderate to liberal. You can see right through the facade and why he doesn't relate well to a lot of conservatives.

Can you see Romney out clearing land and chopping wood like President GW Bush used to do at his ranch in Crawford, TX? Romney would be as comfortable in Waco as some of the east coast liberal media with their noses in the air about Waco and Crawford who whined every time they had to make a visit. Thought it was hilarious to hear the whine.

Compare Romney to say Jeb Bush -- both come from establishment families with money but Jeb Bush could move in next door and he would make you feel like he has known you for a long time. Jeb is likable, friendly, not arrogant, efficient and Florida voters like him as they knew he was working for them. Romney is the type to build a 12' fence around his home next to his neighbor, is not a friendly person although he tries to be, and would have gotten beat if he ran for a second term as Governor as his approval numbers were in the 30's.

Read this article and ask yourself why the establishment types thought he would be a good candidate for the Republican Party which leans right:

Mitt Romney, Loose Cannon

posted at 10:17 am on February 2, 2012 by Karl
Newt Gingrich is easily branded as a loose cannon. Indeed, I’ve done it, because it’s true. However, frontrunner Mitt Romney is far from immune from self-destructive gaffes:
Obsessive attention to detail suffuses Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president, from the number of times staff members check the microphones at his rallies to their relentless scouring of Twitter.

But Mr. Romney’s aides cannot always bring that well-known level of discipline to one crucial aspect of the campaign: their candidate’s seemingly endless ability to utter remarks that, to the delight of his critics, sail onto political blogs, YouTube and Twitter.
Romney’s comment that “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” caused Jonah Goldberg to ask “What is wrong with this guy?” and to later answer that “as even he will admit, he’s a late arrival. And, as you might expect, he speaks conservatism as a second language.”

It may be worse than that. As Goldberg also noted, “[t]he frustrating problem with Romney is that his flubs and gaffes either share liberal assumptions or are caricatures of conservative ones.” I would argue the problem is more specific. Romney’s gaffes are rooted in his wealth problem. He alternatively makes comments that feed the narrative of an out-of-touch fatcat or irritate the GOP base with faux populism designed to counter that narrative. Indeed, yesterday Romney said that he was not concerned about the very poor or the very rich, when his concern should be whatever benefits America without regard to class issues. Instead, his sensitivity to the wealth issue causes him to not only disregard the affluent and the poor rhetorically, but to produce a mediocre tax plan and to back indexing the minimum wage for inflation, which ironically hurts the poor.

In short, Romney recognizes his wealth is a political liability and his attempts to address that liability often become an additional liability. His discomfort also feeds the perception that he is inauthentic. Unless he finds a personal comfort level with his wealth and its political implications, all of these problems will linger into the general election, where Team Obama will exploit them ruthlessly.

Source: Please visit Hot Air for more articles like this

GroundHog Day 2012 -- Six More Weeks of Winter

2012-02-02T11:43:00.000-06:00

Groundhog Day 2012: Punxsutawney Phil emerges from his burrow

At 7:25 a.m. this morning, amidst mostly cloudy skies, and temperatures in the low 30s, Groundhog Phil saw his shadow in the little town of Punxsutawney, Pa.

DC GroundHog predicts six more weeks of winter and gridlock

CNN Breaking News: Donald Trump to Endorse Mitt Romney in Las Vegas

2012-02-02T10:09:00.000-06:00

Twelve Minutes ago:

Headline: Donald Trump to back Mitt Romney for president today in Las Vegas, sources with knowledge of endorsement tell CNN.

Last night and up until about twelve minutes ago it was:

Headline: Donald Trump to endorse Newt Gingrich.

If Trump really wanted to make a splash and have some fun, he would say I am endorsing no one and running myself. Boy, would that make some heads explode. Know he is not going to do that but it would be funny if he did. Truthfully, no one knows for sure what Donald Trump will say until he says it. Just remember he is saying it as an Independent as he left the Republican Party when most of the candidates did not want to take part his the debate he was going to moderate.

Whoever gets the endorsement has at least one endorsement from a prominent independent. Probably should be Romney since Romney went the independent route when President received the nomination and was elected.

Does this mean that Trump is firing his good friend Gingrich or is he going to double cross what CNN was told. Your guess is as good as mine, but it is good entertainment and Trump will get the media hanging on to his every word.

Stay tuned for the update on what "The" Donald had to say!

Are Wind Farms Making Nearby Residents Ill?

2012-02-02T09:52:00.000-06:00

Along I-70 in Kansas west of Salina as you head towards Colorado are some huge wind farms but they seem to be out in the middle of nowhere in a fairly hilly area. Seeing the lights at night going round and round would make you want to yell STOP! Even watching those turbines go round and round is almost hypnotizing when you are driving so couldn't feature living near them. Definitely believe that windmills could have an adverse affect on people who live near the windmill farms.

Here in Norman, I signed up for the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company windmill electricity program. There is a huge windmill farm near the Wichita Mountains in SW Oklahoma that came close to being taken out by a tornado last year that swept through the Wichita Mountains. University of Oklahoma and the City of Norman are all part of the wind power program where energy is brought into this area from the windmill farms. My electric bills are low in comparison to people I know from other parts of the Country so maybe it does work if you live in a state with a lot of wind. We get a weekly report on how we are doing versus others on the same program but we also have the smart meters. Norman is doing everything possible to become more energy efficient and it seems to be working.

The jury is still out on the cost factor to the consumer but if it doesn't save money here where the wind blows a lot, not sure about other places. In traveling throughout the states west of the Mississippi River, we have seen windmills not moving many times. Not sure that windmills are the answer but more of a supplement for electricity. One thing I know for sure, I would not want to live near a windmill farm. Not surprised that some people have gotten sick.

Wind Energy, Noise Pollution By Robert Bryce February 2, 2012 4:00 A.M.

In his State of the Union address last week, President Barack Obama touted renewable energy and declared that he would “not walk away from workers” such as Bryan Ritterby, who is employed by a wind-turbine manufacturer in Michigan.

But in their rush to embrace the wind-energy business, Obama and numerous other politicians are walking away from rural residents such as David Enz and his wife, Rose. A year ago, the couple abandoned their home near Denmark, Wis., because of the unbearable low-frequency noise produced by a half-dozen 495-foot-high wind turbines that were built near the home they’ve owned since 1978. The closest was installed about 3,200 feet from their house.

Shortly after the Shirley Windproject’s turbines began operating, the couple began experiencing numerous symptoms, including “headaches, ear pain, nausea, blurred vision, anxiety, memory loss, and an overall unsettledness,” says Mr. Enz, 68. Today, the Enzes are living in their RV or staying with friends. “We didn’t expect any of this stuff,” says Enz, who spent more than 30 years working as a millwright at a paper mill in Green Bay.

Policymakers and health experts are casting a hard eye on wind energy at the same time that the wind industry is desperately trying to convince Congress to pass a multi-year extension of a tax credit that supports it. Without the subsidy, the domestic wind business, which is already being hammered by falling natural-gas prices, will be forced to downsize even further. In December, the American Wind Energy Association issued a report predicting that some 37,000 wind-related jobs in the U.S. could be lost by 2013 if the tax credit is not extended.

That possibility doesn’t faze Wisconsin Republican state senator Frank Lasee, whose district includes the Enzes’ 41-acre property. Last October, Lasee filed legislation that would require the state to investigate the health effects of the noise produced by industrial wind turbines. If passed, the bill– the first of its kind in the U.S. — will impose a moratorium on new wind projects until the study is completed. “I’ve heard and seen enough from people I represent to know that we need a factual study,” Lasee told me recently. In addition to the Enzes, Lasee says he knows another family among his constituents who have abandoned their home because of wind-turbine noise. “We shouldn’t be embracing an agenda that hurts people’s property values and their health,” he said. In mid-January, Lasee filed another bill that could allow cities and counties to establish minimum setback distances between wind projects and residences.

It’s tempting to dismiss the complaints about wind-turbine noise as little more than NIMBYism. And to be clear, not every wind project is causing problems. Further, the most problematic noise generated by the turbines — low-frequency sound (20 to 100 hertz) and infrasound (0 to 20 Hz) — has varying effects. Some individuals feel the effects of the noise quickly and compare it to motion sickness. Others may not feel it at all. That said, the harmful effects of infrasound are well known. A 2001 report published by the National Institutes of Health said that exposure to infrasound can cause vertigo as well as “fatigue, apathy, and depression, pressure in the ears, loss of concentration, drowsiness.”

Furthermore — and perhaps most telling — are the news reports. And there are lots of them. Newspaper stories from Missouri, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Britain, Australia, Canada, Taiwan, and New Zealand indicate that the wind-turbine-noise problem is global and that the frustration among rural landowners is growing.

The wind-energy lobby desperately wants to downplay the problems associated with low-frequency noise and infrasound. That’s not surprising. The industry has no solution for the noise problem, except, of course, to increase the setbacks between wind turbines and residential areas. But doing so would dramatically reduce the industry’s ability to site turbines (and collect fat taxpayer subsidies).

In 2009, the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association commissioned a group of doctors to review the available literature on wind turbines and noise. The two lobby groups published a paper that concluded, “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” It also said that the vibrations from the turbines are “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.” However, that same study also said that extended exposure to unwanted noise can cause a number of symptoms, including “dizziness, eye strain, fatigue, feeling vibration, headache, insomnia, muscle spasm, nausea, nose bleeds, palpitations, pressure in the ears or head, skin burns, stress, and tension.”

To bolster its claims that turbine noise is not harmful, the wind-energy lobby is touting a study released in mid-January by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that largely dismissed complaints about wind-turbine noise. But the authors of the Massachusetts report did not interview any of the homeowners who’ve left their houses because of turbine noise. Instead, they did a cursory review of the published literature.

Shortly after the Massachusetts report came out, Jim Cummings of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, a non-profit organization that tracks noise issues, wrote that the authors of the Massachusetts report “dropped a crucial ball” because they did not “provide any sort of acknowledgement or analysis of the ways that annoyance, anxiety, sleep disruption, and stress could be intermediary pathways that help us to understand some of the reports coming from Massachusetts residents who say their health has been affected by nearby turbines.”

Over the past few months, a spate of reports have been released that provide credence to the complaints being made by the Enzes and people like Janet Warren, who raised sheep on her property near Makara, New Zealand, until a wind project was built near her home. Noise from the turbines caused “loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects” that forced her and her husband, Mike, to leave their property in early 2010.

Among the most important of the recent reports is a decision issued last July by Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal regarding a wind-energy facility known as the Kent Breeze Project. Although the Canadian officials allowed the facility to be built, they said that
this case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.

In other words, Canadian regulators have stated, on the record, that wind-turbine noise can harm human beings if turbines are built too close to homes. That finding was corroborated, again, in August, in a peer-reviewed article published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Carl V. Phillips, a Harvard-trained Ph.D. who now works as a researcher and consultant on epidemiology, concluded that there is “overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate.” That same issue of the journal carried eight other articles that addressed the issue of health and wind-turbine noise.

In October, a peer-reviewed study of wind-turbine-related noise in New Zealand found that residents living within two kilometers of large wind projects reported lower overall quality of life, physical quality of life, and environmental quality of life. Those exposed to turbine noise also reported significantly lower sleep quality, and rated their environment as less restful. Our data suggest that wind farm noise can negatively impact facets of health-related quality of life.

Alec Salt, a research scientist at the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, has written extensively about the health effects of wind-energy projects. He flatly concludes that wind turbines “can be hazardous to human health.”

Dr. Robert McMurtry, a Canadian orthopedic surgeon, is also pushing for more study; he is among the leaders of a large anti-wind contingent in Ontario. Try as they might, McMurtry’s opponents cannot dismiss him or his credentials. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada and was recently named a member of the Order of Canada, the country’s highest civilian honor.

Ontario has become ground zero in the fight against the wind-energy sector. In September, a Canadian family filed a $1.5 million lawsuit against the owners of a wind project in southwestern Ontario. That same month, CBC News reported that Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment has logged “hundreds of health complaints” about the wind projects there. According to the Society for Wind Vigilance, a group of doctors, acousticians, academics, and health professionals that is focused on the adverse health effects of wind turbines, about 40 families in Ontario have moved out of their homes because of turbine noise. Last month, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the province’s biggest farm organization, said that the push for wind energy had “become untenable” and that “rural residents’ health and nuisance complaints must be immediately and fairly addressed.”

Finding people in Canada and elsewhere who are being victimized by turbine noise is easy. Over the past two years, I’ve personally interviewed, by phone or e-mail, homeowners in Wisconsin, Missouri, New York, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and England who’ve had wind turbines built near their homes. Their health complaints are nearly identical to those made by the Enzes. For instance, Darrel Capelle, a 34-year-old farm hand, lives in De Pere, Wis., with his wife and their two young boys. In October 2010, two large wind turbines were built within a quarter mile of their home. “Sleeplessness with the kids started right after the turbines went in,” says Capelle. His wife, Sarah, now suffers from frequent, intense headaches.

Although the federal government has yet to undertake any broad studies of infrasound and wind turbines, other countries are responding to the surging resistance against land-based wind projects. Among those countries: Denmark, which has become the Green Left’s favorite example of the merits of wind energy. Alas, the Danes themselves aren’t so enthusiastic.

Excerpt: Read More at National Review

Romney’s Gaffe About the ‘Very Poor’ -- OOPS!

2012-02-01T15:49:00.000-06:00

If Romney thinks he is going to pander to the middle class of America, think again. I am sick and tired of pandering politicians especially wealthy ones who cannot relate to the middle class and what they face. Romney is the most out of touch yet we have seen. Donald Trump can make a visit to Oklahoma and relate to people here but Romney has a hard time when he gets around anyone but the elite class. You can watch it as he interacts with people attending his events. As someone said on Twitter, he should be changing his wardrobe if he really wants to relate because even with the open collared look, you can tell the shirts and pants are very expensive. Romney should send out his wife, Ann, to interact with supporters as she does much better. He could take a few lessons from her because when she meets people, they enjoy talking with her.

Romney’s Gaffe About the ‘Very Poor’ Shows Him Courting the Middle Class
by John Avlon Feb 1, 2012 12:57 PM EST

The candidate’s quote about ‘the very poor’ is an instantly classic campaign fumble, but what’s most interesting about it is what it tells us about his desperate attempt to appeal to the middle class.

The occasion was a post-Florida victory lap interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien. Romney was trying to relay a general-election message about how his campaign would be focused on the economic frustrations of the middle class. It didn’t quite come out that way.

Here’s what he said:

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
When O’Brien gave him a chance to clarify, Romney got testy and dug himself in a bit deeper:

“We will hear from the Democrat party [about] the plight of the poor … And there’s no question it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor … My focus is on middle-income Americans.”
This set off a predictable firestorm within minutes. It resonated because it seemed to perfectly capture the unfair caricature of Romney as a distant, out-of-touch plutocrat—not just Mr. 1 percent, but Mr. 0.1 percent. And whenever a quote riffs off established narratives, it quickly takes on a life of its own.

But what’s more deeply interesting might be the intended message he mangled. It offered a glimpse into Romney’s presumably poll-tested general-election strategy—he has essentially accepted President Obama’s terms of debate. This election will be about which candidate can better protect the great American middle class.

Excerpt: Read more at The Daily Beast

This primary is turning into a disaster more and more. Newt Gingrich gave one of the strangest speeches last night that you could not even count a concession speech. Newt keeps arguing that he would do better against Romney without Santorum in the race but

Au Contraire.Newt Gingrich continues to argue that he would have a better chance of beating Mitt Romney if Rick Santorum were to exit the Republican presidential race, but Florida polling shows that the exact opposite would be true. Romney actually expands his lead over Gingrich if Santorum quits the GOP race.

Bottom line is that a lot of Santorum supporters will not go to Newt under any circumstance especially after he chose to ignore the illness of Santorum's daughter. Newt once again has proved this is all about him and he has no empathy for others.

Last night it was revealed it was the nastiest campaign ever in Florida and don't expect that to change. That is not a shocker. If I had my way Romney and Newt would both be gone from the race as two arrogant, nasty people after what we have been observing. Their Super PACs are not helping that perception either.

Romney was given Secret Service protection last night after the large crowds he has been drawing:

According to a federal law enforcement officials Romney’s campaign, which has long traveled with private security of its own, did request Secret Service protection. However sources tell ABC that the campaign did not make the request, but was approached about the additional security steps in the weeks following the New Hampshire primary.

There seems to be two versions of the Secret Service protection request -- even that is not a simple yes or no if the Romney campaign requested protection.

Now it is on to the primary states for February:

February 4, 2012	Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11, 2012	Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012	Colorado (caucus)Minnesota (caucus)Missouri (primary) – *See note below on Missouri
February 28, 2012	Arizona (primary)Michigan (primary)

*Missouri: Missouri will hold a primary on February 7th, 2012, which will not count for delegates toward the 2012 GOP convention. The Missouri Republican Party will hold a caucus on March 17th, 2012, which will determine the delegates sent to the 2012 GOP convention –

Best news is that there are 21 days until the next debate! Finally a break in debates. Have to admit we don't understand why a state would pay for a primary like Missouri that means absolutely nothing as they have a caucus that counts on March 17th. Just adds to this screwy primary schedule.

Is Romney going to be the eventual winner? Who knows the way this whole primary has gone. The real winner in all of this so far is Obama unfortunately. When you start supporting a candidate because the media polling tells you he is the best candidate to beat Obama, then you have a problem with support which will not be near as deep as when supporters choose a candidate because they believe in what that candidate has to say. More and more Republicans are mad at the candidates we have to choose from thanks the powers at be who think they know more then the voters. Horrible decision on the part of RNC and the people who pull their strings.

The one thing we would bet on is that this nasty primary continues to be nasty. That seems a foregone conclusion from the comments last night and today. At least Florida residents can go back to their regular programming until after Labor Day when they will be clobbered with campaign ads again. They can enjoy the quiet while it lasts!

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

2012-01-31T15:11:00.000-06:00

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?

Voters are Ready to Provide the Solution to Government Waste

2012-01-31T12:30:00.000-06:00

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

2012-01-31T12:01:00.000-06:00

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’

2012-01-30T16:21:00.000-06:00

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!

2012-01-29T18:47:00.000-06:00

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

2012-01-28T08:00:00.001-06:00

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

2012-01-27T12:13:00.001-06:00

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

2012-01-27T11:20:00.000-06:00

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

2012-01-27T11:09:00.000-06:00

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

2012-01-27T10:14:00.000-06:00

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.

The Truth on Gingrich is Finally Coming Out

2012-01-26T12:21:00.000-06:00

The truth on Gingrich and his relationship Reagan is finally seeing the light of day. Many of us remember the brash, arrogant, young Congressman Gingrich who considered himself always right and who would join the Democrats in going against Reagan on the floor of the House. Have never forgotten this statement and was convinced my memory was correct that Gingrich was the one who had said the following:

in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

When you read this article, keep in mind as you read Gingrich's other statements against Reagan that today he proclaims he and Reagan were close and he is carrying the Reagan mantle. That is turning into revisionist history and frankly is a lie. Been searching the last few days for the real details on Reagan and Gingrich as I could remember they were not what Gingrich was portraying. Then this afternoon up pops this article by Elliot Abrams in my inbox.

We lived in SoCal during a good part of the Reagan years so our newspapers and broadcast news covered the former Governor a lot and what was happening in DC. I remembered being furious at the Republican Congressman from Georgia at the time when they showed him on the floor of the House trashing Reagan and after reading this article it all came back.

IMHO as President, he would have a total adversarial relationship with Congress and would be signing executive orders right and left to stick to Congress because he could. He would get even with every Republican who endorsed someone else -- would be willing to bet on that one.

Why is Newt Gingrich running? Is this because his latest wife wants to be First Lady or he wants the trappings of being President? He has put the Republican Party in a bad position to have a candidate running who had to resign as Speaker -- it doesn't seem to phase him at all. Maybe this article by Abrams will finally wake people up to the real Newt Gingrich not the phony who is running around pretending to be Reagan like. After reading these comments Gingrich made about Reagan, he has a lot of chutzpah to be linking himself to Reagan thinking no one would figure it out. Thanks to Abrams the truth is out in the open.

January 25, 2012 4:00 A.M.Gingrich and Reagan In the 1980s, the candidate repeatedly insulted the president.By Elliott Abrams

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.”

Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Excerpt: Read More of the attacks on Reagan by Gingrich at National Review

Rubio Blasts Gingrich TV Ad as "Inflammatory" and "Inaccurate"

2012-01-26T10:07:00.000-06:00

You want dumb? Go into Florida and make Senator Rubio mad who is probably the most popular Senator in Florida in years. Senator Rubio is correct about the ad. It is also time to lower the rhetoric. TV ads like this are being run by a SUPER PAC IMHO. These SUPER PACs supporting various candidates are out of control as they put ads on the air with no fact checking at all. The ads are to severely damage the other candidate but they are ending up damaging their own candidate when they don't check facts.

It looks like the two leading contenders for the nomination didn't learn one thing from the Rubio campaign for Senate in 2010. He had some of the most positive ads and speeches I have seen in a campaign in years. One of very best speeches was this one on American Exceptionalism during his campaign on August 17, 2010. Rubio is class all the way -- shame it hasn't rubbed off on our two leading candidates Presidential candidates. Decided to repost Senator Rubio's speech from the 2010 campaign trail so people can see what a candidate who truly appreciates America has to say. It is a pleasant change from what we have been subjected to in this primary. This is why he was such a good candidate and now a Senator who actually listens to his constituents.

Rubio Blasts Gingrich TV Ad as "Inflammatory" and "Inaccurate"
2:05 PM, Jan 25, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

The Miami Herald's Marc Caputo reports:

Sen. Marco Rubio scolded Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign over a Spanish-language radio ad that accuses rival Mitt Romney of being “anti-immigrant.”
“This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,” Rubio told The Miami Herald when asked about the ad.
“The truth is that neither of these two men is anti-immigrant,” Rubio said. “Both are pro-legal immigration and both have positive messages that play well in the Hispanic community.”

Rubio's comments here, along with his statement yesterday that Mitt Romney is "no Charlie Crist" and a "conservative," have fueled some speculation that Rubio is really pulling for Romney while officially remaining neutral. That could be--there are plenty of pro-Romney folks in Rubio world. But Rubio takes a strong position against illegal immigration. And for Gingrich to call Romney "anti-immigrant" is to call Rubio "anti-immigrant" as well. Rubio was defending himself today as much as he was defending Romney. Yesterday, he was simply responding to Gingrich's claim that Romney is just another Charlie Crist. Romney endorsed Rubio before Gingrich did, so Rubio must have felt obliged to speak up.

******
Note: Former Governor Crist left the Republican Party when he couldn't win the nomination for Senate -- didn't do well in the general either. As an independent and former Republican, he has connections all over Florida but his staffers from the past would be Republican. Going after Charlie Crist in Florida is not the way to win this election. I think Newt has some of the dumbest advisers or he is not listening. I am not sure which but his strategy in Florida is a mess. Pandering to Hispanic voters on amnesty is stupid when you don't have a plan. Promising some citizenship when joining the military is already a path to citizenship which obviously he didn't know.

The problem I see in this election is that the two leading candidates are as arrogant as they come and they think voters are stupid. Newt took the wrong message from SC IMHO -- voters didn't want to be told who the nominee was going to be after three primaries so they decided to put a log in the road of Romney. If we had better candidates, I would be willing to be the outcome of SC would have been different.

How did the Republican Party end up here? That is a question that is being asked all over with many different answers. What we really have is a group of former and current office holders who didn't want to run this time for a variety of reasons so we are stuck unless some miracle happens and we get an Open Convention or someone else gets in the race who many voters would welcome in the Republican Party both of which have pretty slim chances of happening.

Republicans are in the process of shooting themselves in the foot once again. It is utterly amazing how many times the Republican Party has done this and frankly we need new leadership to keep from happening again.

Washington Times Fact Check on Obama State of the Union

2012-01-26T09:06:00.000-06:00

This is only page one of four of fact checking by AP on President Obama's State of the Union Tuesday night. That might be a record for AP Fact Checking. This is one area where the AP excels -- Fact Checking no matter the speech or the debate. They do an excellent job of giving the facts in contrast to what was said.

President Obama looks to have done a retread speech of past programs which is not surprising because how he is going to do a State of the Union when the facts are not favoring him and his reelection. This speech has been panned as lackluster. You can see why because the speech doesn't match the facts and he probably knew it wasn't going to go over well.

Will any President ever be honest about the State of the Union. More and more they have turned into political speeches over the years. Why don't they just send in a report on the State of the Union instead of doing all the theatrics? The ratings are getting lower and lower for State of the Union speeches and debates. That should give some people a clue that Americans by and large are fed up with the politicians of both parties and don't want them coming into our living rooms via the TV when they they have trouble with the truth from both sides.

This should not bode well for Obama but in this reality TV era, people will forget by next week if not already what he said.

FACT CHECK: Obama pushes plans that flopped beforeCalvin Woodward, AP
January 25, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — It was a wish list, not a to-do list.

President Barack Obama laid out an array of plans in his State of the Union speech as if his hands weren’t so tied by political realities. There can be little more than wishful thinking behind his call to end oil industry subsidies — something he could not get through a Democratic Congress, much less today’s divided Congress, much less in this election year.

And there was more recycling, in an even more forbidding climate than when the ideas were new: He pushed for an immigration overhaul that he couldn’t get past Democrats, permanent college tuition tax credits that he asked for a year ago, and familiar discouragements for companies that move overseas.

A look at Obama’s rhetoric Tuesday night and how it fits with the facts and political circumstances:
___
OBAMA: “We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.”

THE FACTS: This is at least Obama’s third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year’s State of the Union speech. And he’s now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.
___
OBAMA: “Our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

THE FACTS: That’s only half true. About half of the more than 30 million uninsured Americans expected to gain coverage through the health care law will be enrolled in a government program. Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, will be expanded starting in 2014 to cover childless adults living near the poverty line.
The other half will be enrolled in private health plans through new state-based insurance markets. But many of them will be receiving federal subsidies to make their premiums more affordable. And that’s a government program, too.
Starting in 2014 most Americans will be required to carry health coverage, either through an employer, by buying their own plan, or through a government program.
___
OBAMA, asking Congress to pay for construction projects: “Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

THE FACTS: The idea of taking war “savings” to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand. For one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been largely financed through borrowing, so stopping the wars doesn’t create a pool of ready cash, just less debt. And the savings appear to be based at least in part on inflated war spending estimates for future years.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times

McCain blasts Gingrich on earmarks

2012-01-25T13:53:00.000-06:00

One thing about Senator John McCain is his ability to tell it like it is and the reason his bus was called the Straight Talk Express in 2008. Don't always agree with him especially when it comes to the Air Force but I admire him for taking on earmarks and pork over the years. If anyone is an expert, it is John McCain. When he talks about someone being a porker or earmarker, listen, because he tells it like it is. He doesn't mince words either.

Another item is the Super PACs and 527's. Been hearing for sometime that there will be scandals coming out when this election is over if not before. There is way too much money propping up candidates and have to believe there is coordination going on between the Super PAC and the candidates. Super PACs don't seem to follow any rules and neither do the 527's. Any time you cannot discover who is donating and how the money is being spent, then you have a real problem on your hands. Candidates don't care if it comes out after as long as they get elected.

Ethics is not a word that can be used with this election, but then ethics has not be a strong suit of some of the candidates for a long time. All you have to do is watch the ads and cringe. Lies mean nothing as long as it gets a candidate a couple of points jump in the polls or votes in the primary.

The bold in the article is mine. McCain's words match those of others serving in the House during the time Gingrich was Speaker. McCain is right there is a reason they won't support Gingrich and time the American people woke up to why.

McCain blasts Gingrich on earmarks
By Cameron Joseph - 01/25/12 12:41 PM ET

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) slammed Newt Gingrich on earmarks in a Wednesday afternoon conference call hosted by Mitt Romney’s campaign.

“Speaker Gingrich set into motion the largest explosion of earmarks in the history of Congress,” McCain said. “I was there, I saw the earmarks explode, I saw the corruption that it bred, and I saw the incredible waste of taxpayer dollars.”

McCain, long a foe of earmarks, endorsed Romney before New Hampshire’s primary. The attack line on Gingrich was the same one he used on Rick Santorum shortly after he endorsed Romney.

He also said there were two reasons why many House Republicans who served with Gingrich had come out for Romney in recent weeks. “One is because of his electability issue, which is substantiated by the polls,” McCain said. “Also, the fact is he was a failed Speaker: He could not have been reelected as Speaker of the House. His leadership style was a major factor.”

McCain also downplayed the importance of immigration in the GOP primary but warned that Republicans had to do a better job at reaching out to Hispanic voters.

“Quite honestly, the issue of the Hispanic vote is an issue for Republicans in the upcoming election and something we need to address,” he said, pointing out that he’d done poorly with Hispanics in 2008.

The Arizona senator beat Romney in the 2008 GOP presidential primary, and the two were known to have had a testy relationship on the campaign trail.

They still disagree on campaign finance. Just days after McCain endorsed Romney, the former Massachusetts governor harshly criticized by name the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms.

McCain said he was “ashamed” of the Supreme Court’s ruling that allowed unlimited donations from people and corporations to outside groups, calling the super-PACs that have emerged “disgraceful.”

He said that there would likely be a “major scandal” to come from the super-PAC spending and blasted a super-PAC supporting Gingrich, arguing that a “casino owner” giving $10 million to help the candidate was not “what our Founding Fathers had in mind.”

But when asked about why he was backing Romney, who disagreed with him strongly on the issue, he said it was not the most important thing. “We’ve never agreed on every issue. I think the important issues right now are jobs, the economy and national security,” McCain said.

“I’m pleased to support him,” he said, adding that he looked forward to discussing campaign finance reform further with Romney.

Source: The Hill

NOTE: I don't have a candidate left in the race so I will call it like I see it in the days ahead. When you start reading about an 'open convention' as the only way to save this election for Republicans on various sites and Twitter, there is a real problem brewing and people like McCain know just how bad it could get. I believe that Senator McCain should have called a press conference on his own not been hosted by Romney. He has plenty to say without involving Romney. Someone in the Romney camp frankly doesn't have a clue about how to run a campaign.

Wall Street Journal Hits Two Homes Following State of the Union

2012-01-25T13:29:00.000-06:00

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has probably the best analysis we have read today about the President's speech last night. The WSJ also has a companion piece, Romney's Fair Share, which is also excellent. IMHO the WSJ has hit two home runs with these articles and background information.

The WSJ comparing Obama versus Reagan is germaine. During the Carter years, interest on mortgages rose to 16 - 18%, couldn't sell your home, interest on all debt was at an all time high but your interest on savings and Certificates of Deposit was high. Short term CD's became very popular during the Carter years as a way to make some extra money from interest to combat the very high inflation numbers. Then President Reagan took office with a plan and his optimism that America's better days were ahead and he turned out to be right. How do those Reagan years compare to Obama:

Provided by Wall Street Journal

WSJ: The ... chart compares rates of quarterly growth during the Reagan and Obama economic recoveries. The comparison is apt because both recoveries followed deep recessions in which the jobless rate reached more than 10%. Once the Reagan recovery got cooking, in 1983, growth stayed above 5% for 18 months and never fell below 3.3% for 13 consecutive quarters.

In the Obama recovery, growth has never exceeded 4% in any quarter and fell off markedly in mid-2010 through the third quarter of 2011. For the first nine months of 2011, growth averaged less than 1.2%. The economy finally picked up again in the fourth quarter, but still at a rate that is subpar for a recovery that long ago should have become robust and durable.

These are the facts and in normal times, Obama would be facing an impossible task to get reelected, but the Republican Party has come to the rescue with the four candidates remaining. The way this primary has been set up with all the nastiness and debates thanks to the RNC, it has been proven that the old nickname for Republicans "The Stupid Party" is alive and well.

Republicans had candidates running with so much baggage that in good conscience they should not have run but I guess felt entitled. Clinton seems to have destroyed the model for at least somewhat ethical and honest candidates running because we are getting flawed candidates from both parties. It was amazing to me that Hillary ran with Bill along after he was disgraced as President. No one seemed to care. Have we now morphed into reality TV instead of taking serious the type of candidate we nominate?

Democrats are going to be able to frame this general election debate against Romney in terms the average taxpayer will understand. Take a typical retiree who has worked 40 years with a good retirement income and social security. He pays income tax on most of his retirement at the 28% rate even though he is retired. Now look at Romney whose majority of income is from investments and his rate is approximately 15% because of his capital gains and his investment income is in the millions. Then try to tell the retiree that the tax system is fair.

So last night he (Obama) took credit for the shale gas revolution he had nothing to do with and proposed new policies to "spread the wealth around," as he famously told Joe the Plumber in 2008 before he took the words back. We thought he meant it then, and now he's admitting it.

Perhaps this will work if Republicans nominate a standard-bearer who is damaged, or too cautious or guilty to challenge this politics of envy. Mr. Obama clearly has Mitt Romney and his 14% effective tax rate in his sights The President will try to portray Mr. Romney as Mr. 1%, and if the Republican settles for defending the current tax code, he will lose. He needs a tax reform proposal of his own, as well as the self-confidence to argue for it in the same moral terms that Mr. Obama will attack him.

Do not believe that Romney will have the capability to argue for tax reform in a meaningful manner that will sell people on his plan because he has not touted a tax plan except exploring value added tax (VAT) which is a non-starter. Romney taking so long to release his income tax forms has also hurt. Then when you discover that Romney has $32M in off shore retirement accounts, it is not going to go over with the average taxpayer that feels fleeced every April 15th.

As we learn from Kudlow interview below, not only Mitt Romney but Newt Gingrich has also played around with the idea of a VAT.

Then we discover from the WSJ that Newt's income isn't exactly how most people get their income:

Releasing his own tax documents, which Mr. Romney tried to avoid, is at least a tentative step toward political recovery, and he has been far more transparent than his Republican rivals. Mr. Gingrich owes his political re-re-resurgence in part to his demand that Mr. Romney disclose his finances, but Mr. Gingrich's own tax returns reveal little since he routes all his lobbying and other income through shell companies like Gingrich Holdings Inc.

Does Newt route his income through shell companies to avoid paying taxes on the income at the higher rate? We have no idea.

There are more regulations on the way from the Obama Administration that will cost the taxpayer even more -- when does it stop? Why has Congress been unable to overturn any rules or regulations? Are Democrats that linked to Obama, they are afraid to challenge these rules and regulations even when they hurt the residents of their State.

Mr. Obama's regulators also currently have some 149 major rules underway, which are those that cost more than $100 million. The 112th Congress hasn't been able to kill a single major rule. The most it has been able to do is extend the Bush tax rates—which helped the economy by avoiding a tax shock—and slow the rate of increase in federal spending. This President has been "obstructed" less than anyone since LBJ.

As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama is trying to campaign as an incumbent who is striving to help the economy but has been stymied at every turn by Congress. Not even MSNBC can believe this. For two years he had the largest Democratic majorities in Congress since the 1970s and achieved nearly everything he wanted.

What Obama has wanted, he has pretty much gotten since being elected President no matter what he says for his reelection. His plans have not worked plus the number of new regulations and rules have led to the increase in the deficit, but he blames Republicans for blocking his plans. WHAT? Most Republicans are mad because the current House keep caving in to Obama and the Democrats and are asking WHY? Is it because the Republican led Congress' has had leaders since 1994 who are not 'small' government types and don't see anything wrong with some of his big government ideas?

Under Newt Gingrich, he made deals with the Democrats while ignoring the conservatives in the House. Is that what we would get under a big government Gingrich as President?. We have had enough of big spending by this President and the Congress to last a lifetime. Time for someone to stand up and tell the President and the Congress to stop spending and demand a true budget with cuts out of Senate who has not passed a real budget in 1001 days. Even when members of Congress have an agreement to cut, they find a way around. No wonder the voters are mad at both parties who share the blame

JANUARY 25, 2012, 6:43 A.M. ET

The State of His Policies

Obama has done nearly everything he wanted. That's the problem.

President Obama delivered a State of the Union address Tuesday night that by the account of his own advisers is more campaign document than a plan for governing. He's running against Republicans in Congress, Reaganomics, wealthy bankers and inequality.

Normally a President at the start of his fourth year would be running on his record, accentuating the legislation he's passed. Mr. Obama can't do that with any specificity because the economic recovery has been so weak and the legislation he has passed is so unpopular.

(snip)

Meantime, as Mr. Obama begins his fourth year in power it's a good moment to recount the economic record that he'd rather not talk about. The President inherited a deep recession, but in political terms that should have been a blessing. History shows that the deeper the recession, the sharper the recovery, and Mr. Obama was poised to take credit for the economy's natural recuperative powers. Instead, we've had the weakest recovery since the Great Depression and stubbornly high joblessness.

(snip)

The New Yorker magazine this week has posted on its website a 57-page memo that economic adviser Larry Summers wrote to Mr. Obama in December 2008. It lays out nearly his entire agenda for the "stimulus," reviving housing, the auto bailout and saving the financial industry. If anything, the memo overstates what would be needed to stabilize the financial panic, but nearly all of the stimulus spending priorities that the memo deemed "feasible" made it into law. They simply didn't work as promised.

The Pelosi Congress also passed ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, cash for clunkers, the housing tax credit, and much more. The only Obama priority it didn't pass was cap-and-trade, which was killed by Senate Democrats.

(snip)

Mr. Obama clearly has a spring in his step these days, figuring that the public hates Congress and thinks Republicans run it, that the GOP will field a weak presidential candidate, and that he can fool the public into believing only Mitt Romney's taxes will rise if Mr. Obama wins a second term. He has only one big obstacle: his record.

Excerpt: Read More at The Wall Street Journal

Will someone please tell us why Romney is running and didn't release his tax returns before getting in the race? Anyone with an ounce of brains would have seen a problem with them in relation to the average voter which is most likely why they were not released. Romney should have had a firm plan in place that dealt with the tax code before getting in the race since his only job seems to be running for President since 2007.

JANUARY 25, 2012

Romney's Fair Share

The candidate's tax return is an argument for tax reform

If Mitt Romney's 2010 tax bill were merely his pretax income, he'd still be a member of the 1%—in other words, the government takes more of his wealth every year than 99% of Americans earn. But what the world really learned from the tax returns the GOP candidate released yesterday is that he is a walking argument for pro-growth tax reform.

The details of Mr. Romney's six IRS schedules, eight forms and 69 income statements—totaling some 547 pages—are by now familiar. The Bain Capitalist made $21.7 million in 2010 and an estimated $20.9 million last year. He doesn't merely belong to the group President Obama disparages as "the rich." He's actually rich. Mr. Romney's effective tax rates are 21.2% in 2010 and 17.6% in 2011 as a share of adjusted gross income, and 13.9% and 15.4% as a share of taxable income, respectively. He still pays a lot of taxes—about $3 million in 2010 and an estimated $3.2 million in 2011.

As the White House delights in pointing out, Mr. Romney nonetheless paid much less than the top marginal income-tax rate of 35% on wages because almost all of his income came from his investment portfolio, which is held in three blind trusts. Some 58% of his 2010 earnings—$12.6 million—were long-term capital gains, taxed at 15%. Given this political posturing, it's surprising that Warren Buffett's secretary merely scored a ticket to the first lady's box at last night's State of the Union, rather than the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

We don't recall the combined effective 13.1% rate of John and Teresa Heinz Kerry leading to a national debate about the tax-free treatment of municipal bonds in 2004, but then Mr. Obama doesn't have much else but Mr. Romney's taxes to run on. Anyhow, if Mr. Romney thought he could change the subject and avoid an argument about government and income inequality, last night the President told him he couldn't.

(snip)

Mr. Romney could begin by pointing out that the rich aren't nearly rich enough to pay for Mr. Obama's agenda, let alone the government we have. According to IRS data, only 8,273 taxpayers other than Mr. Romney made more than $10 million in 2009. Since the U.S. already has one of the most progressive tax codes in the world, Mr. Obama will need to target middle-income earners of far less means than Mr. Romney. And as ObamaCare's bills come due, he will.

But more to the election point, Mr. Romney should put his own returns in the trophy case as evidence of the need for a major tax reform: Lower, flatter rates and a broader base will generate more jobs and economic growth. It might be reasonable, for instance, to treat carried interest as regular income in the context of lowering the corporate rate to something that is remotely competitive world-wide.

The problem isn't that Mr. Romney is paying too little, but that Mr. Obama wants everyone but his voters and green business cronies to pay too much.

Excerpt: Read More at The Wall Street Journal

We have a President who wants to turn the economy around with throwing money at the situation which hasn't worked in the past three years plus raise taxes, Mitt Romney who is wealthy and pays a smaller percentage then most retirees in income tax, Newt Gingrich with shell companies to not pay as much tax, Rick Santorum who does his own taxes which we applaud but was a big spender in Congress, and a perennial candidate, Ron Paul, running. Think some of the people are correct that we need an Open Convention to choose our nominee or face disaster.

This should be a lesson to all Republicans that they need to demand change at the RNC or in four years, we will be facing this again. Tell the big donors to take a hike in the primaries so we have ads that are truthful and the Super PACs hold their ads and money until the general election where it counts instead of what we have seen this year which is millionaires and billionaires swaying the election with no vetting of candidates just someone they like. They have given no regard to how that person would be as President. This is a horrible way to elect a candidate.

Republicans also need to provide the American voter a clear and concise reason why they should vote for Republicans for the House and Senate. One word works for me -- gridlock! Time to get some 'real' conservatives elected not just those who tout the conservative line just to get elected and turn into big Government types after taking office. We need to do a better job of vetting candidates before we vote in the primary so we get the good candidates. Fortunately, the RNC doesn't have the final say on Republican House and Senate races whose reelection committees are very good.

Gov Fallin (R-OK) Reacts to State of the Union Address

2012-01-25T13:02:00.000-06:00

Today I have been reading comments and articles that sum up President Obama's State of the Union. Maybe I am prejudice because I think we have the best Governor, but once again Governor Fallin's press release is reasoned and on point.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 25, 2012

Governor Mary Fallin Reacts to State of the Union Address

OKLAHOMA CITY – Governor Mary Fallin today released the following statement following President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address: “Tonight we heard the same thing from President Obama that we’ve been hearing since he took office: proposals for more spending and bigger government. Like in previous speeches, the president paid lip service to reducing the federal deficit, but has not presented a serious plan to do so.

“Unfortunately, it is American families and businesses that are bearing the brunt of these failed policies and stale ideas. Almost two million more Americans are out of work today than when the president was sworn in. Even when his administration is given a golden opportunity to aid in significant economic growth – as was the case with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and its 20,000 shovel-ready jobs – it is squandered. Unfortunately, it seems the president is intent on continuing down a path that will only lead to more debt and less job creation.

“It is clear by now that President Obama believes more taxes, more spending and more borrowing is an effective recipe for economic success. This is especially frustrating because Oklahoma has proven the opposite to be true. By reducing our income tax, balancing our budget, pursuing a pro-business legislative agenda and supporting the production of American made energy, we have benefitted from impressive job creation, double digit growth in tax revenue and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.

“The president’s policies are failing. States like Oklahoma, on the other hand, serve as a reminder that small government, conservative solutions are succeeding in creating jobs where the White House is not.”
###

Scott Brown for Senate in Massachusetts

2012-01-25T08:00:00.001-06:00

Please check out Senator Scott Brown's new site at Scott Brown.com

GOP lawmakers mark 1,000 days since last Senate budget

2012-01-24T17:20:00.000-06:00

Looks like the Senate Democrats have a different version of what a budget entails then the rest of us:

The Senate Budget Committee, chaired by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), released an analysis asserting that the deal reached in August to raise the debt ceiling was, for all intents and purposes, a budget.

That is not how budgets are supposed to work in the Senate but when you have nothing else to hang your hat on, guess you will grab onto to anything. Why didn't the Senate consider the budget bill from the House they passed in April 2011? What happened to the Obama budget for FY 12? It seems like all this Administration and Democrat Senate want to do is pass continuing resolutions so the agencies/departments can be funded at the same rate. Guess the Democrats are afraid to make actual cuts preferring to spin their actions.

How long will it take the Senate to do a budget for FY13 that begins October 1st, 2012, or is this going to be the case they don't have enough time since it is an election year? The American people need to tell the Democrats in the Senate to do a budget this time or get out of the Senate. Head of the Budget Committee Conrad is retiring so maybe he is providing the Democrat rhetoric knowing full well he couldn't get reelected so he retires. North Dakota should be a pickup for Republicans in the Senate. It would put us closer to taking back the Senate and actually doing a yearly budget.

One Thousand Days without a 'real' Senate budget and the Democrats don't seem to see a problem. Bet they would if it was reversed and Republicans had not done a budget. Voters need to look at the House where they passed a budget in April, but the Senate refused to hear or vote on the House budget. It is important to realize the House Budget Committee Republicans are doing their job and need reelected.

Cannot believe it is time for another State of the Union by the President with all the rhetoric included in his teleprompter speeches. How is Obama going to spin the Keystone Pipeline decision not to build that even Democrats in Middle America don't understand or will he ignore as it doesn't fit his agenda? Cannot remember the last State of the Union I watched -- probably in 2005. I prefer to read the speech and the fact checking. Tomorrow, we will report on the reaction by people who do watch the Obama State of the Union.

GOP lawmakers mark 1,000 days since last Senate budget
By Bernie Becker and Erik Wasson - 01/24/12 12:33 PM ET

Senate Republicans slammed their Democratic colleagues on Tuesday for not passing a budget in exactly 1,000 days, accusing Democrats of shirking their duty in a period of soaring deficits.

Four senators at a Tuesday news conference said President Obama should be more of a leader on reining in deficits. GOP lawmakers have for months pointed out the time elapsed since the Senate last passed a budget.

“It is imperative that we get our federal budget under control and the first step – the minimum thing that Congress should do – is follow the law that it passed to put discipline on itself,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who also called the lack of a Senate budget “a national scandal.”
Johnson also said that he would procedurally tie up the Senate if the chamber hasn’t passed a budget by April 15, a move he also made last June to protest the budget situation.

“The other side really does need to put their plan, their budget, on a piece of paper,” Johnson added. “Not just say that they’re for a grand bargain, not just say they’re for fiscal control.”
Republicans’ latest push on the issue comes the same day that the president is scheduled to head to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union address.

GOP aides said that it was a coincidence that the president was invited to speak to Congress on the 1,000-day anniversary of the last Senate budget. Obama also delivered his 2011 State of the Union address on the fourth Tuesday in January.

For their part, Senate Democrats on Tuesday pushed back on the GOP claims that the Senate had not cleared a budget plan.

The Senate Budget Committee, chaired by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), released an analysis asserting that the deal reached in August to raise the debt ceiling was, for all intents and purposes, a budget.

The Budget Control Act (BCA) included caps on discretionary spending and examined entitlement programs and revenue, the analysis said. “Republican rhetoric aside, Congress did pass a budget,” the fact sheet added.

"Either they don't know what they did or they are misrepresenting what we all did," Conrad said on the floor.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that Democrats should be embarassed to claim the budget act as their blueprint because it "fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems."

"If the BCA is their answer to fiscal sanity and preventing a debt crisis, then heaven help us," Ryan said.

The office of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) pointed out that Senate Democrats did write a budget resolution but refused to mark it up in committee last year.

Sessions said that the U.S. still faced a dire debt situation, even with the caps included in the debt ceiling deal and the automatic cuts scheduled to go into effect due to the failure of the deficit-reduction supercommittee.

“The limits that we have are not sufficient,” Sessions said. “They were the best that could be accomplished under the circumstances, with the threat of a government shutdown.”
In all, the debt-ceiling deal will lead to north of $2 trillion in spending cuts, while bipartisan commissions have said that the U.S. needs more like $4 trillion in fiscal restraint over a decade.

“Is it not the responsibility of the president, the chief executive office, to tell the American people that the $2 trillion is not enough?” Sessions said, hours before Obama's State of the Union address.

Source: The Hill

Editorial Cartoon of the Day!

2012-01-24T15:04:00.000-06:00

None of the Above after Reading Fact Check on the Debate!

2012-01-24T15:01:00.000-06:00

When I started this site, I vowed that I was going after Democrats that sold out for money but also Republicans were also not immune from being a target. Last night's debate showed why that was a good policy on here. I am calling it like it is including the fact that Rick Perry ran a horrible campaign even though I am a big supporter of his plus he ran against all odds with the trashing he took from the Bush 41 group in support of Romney. Small gaffes became major issues thanks to that group and even Fox News was laughing that they had stacked the deck in the Orlando debate.

Since I have have taken the time to step back and look at the candidates, it occurred to me last night that Perry, Huntsman, and Pawlenty said what they believed in the debates and on the campaign trail because they were honest with integrity and not going to sell out for votes by trying to change the narrative or rewrite history. Their experience far outweighs what is left but looks like experience was not the key in this race -- it is the underhanded dirty tactics along with major donors buying candidates that are the hallmarks of this race.

Former New Mexico's Governor Johnson's experience is right up there as well but the RNC wouldn't let in the debate because he didn't poll high enough while he wasn't even on the list of a lot of polling companies. How do you get people to know a candidate when don't allow them the debates at all? Same thing happened to Alan Keyes in 1996. Once again it was a Bush 41 establishment candidate, Bob Dole, running who ran a horrible campaign. See a pattern here.

Last night's debate showcased Republican candidates who are still running for President. Decided to check out Fact Check sites for those of you who had better things to do like do dishes or feed the dog. One of Gingrich's gaffes actually got the 'Pants on Fire' meter from Politifact which I am not sure I have ever seen in a debate before.

The statement by Gingrich saying electric co-ops and credit unions are "government-sponsored enterprises" like Freddie Mac in the debate last night was not a new one from him but it is still wrong. Repeat a lie often enough and maybe people will believe but there is a slight problem. Many of us belong not only to a Federal Credit Union like Navy Federal but also have belonged to an electric co-op like they have in in Texas or Oklahoma for years. NFCU goes to great lengths to tell you they are not associated with the Navy or the DoD even though they are located on a lot of the bases as a service to the military and DoD civilians. Our funds are insured by the NCUA just like funds in banks are insured by the FDIC. They are not in the same category as Freddie Mac -- not even close. My electric and phone co-ops from Texas still send a check every year for excess profits that are divided between the members. When is the last time Freddie MAC sent out checks for too much profit?

For Gingrich to keep trying to say they are the same is a cover-up for the truth that he worked for the head of lobbying group of Freddie Mac. If he cannot tell the truth about that, then why would we expect him to tell the truth about much else. How can Newt claim to have four balanced budgets when he resigned under duress in 1998 as Speaker and then didn't run of office in 1998. Two of the budgets were after he was no longer Speaker? As we are finding out, he is not the friend of truth, but then neither is Romney or Santorum as we will get to later in this post. First we are looking at what Gingrich said last night compared to the truth from PolitiFact and New York Times Fact Check:

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Newt Gingrich says electric co-ops and credit unions are "government-sponsored enterprises" like Freddie Mac.

Newt Gingrich on Monday, January 23rd, 2012 in a Republican presidential primary debate
Gingrich repeats claim that Freddie Mac, credit unions are ‘government-sponsored enterprises’

Often criticized for his lucrative work for Freddie Mac, Newt Gingrich has compared the mortgage giant to government-sponsored enterprises such as credit unions and electric co-ops.

He said it again in a debate in Tampa on Jan. 23, 2012, in an effort to portray Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association, as a benign entity that serves citizens -- not an out-of-control bureaucracy that brought down the housing market, as his rivals maintain.

"Government-sponsored enterprises include, for example, telephone cooperatives, rural electric cooperatives, federal credit unions. There are many different kinds of government-sponsored enterprises, and many of them have done very good things," said Gingrich, who collected more than $1.6 million in fees from the federally chartered mortgage company.

PolitiFact has checked Gingrich's claim that electric coops and credit unions are government-sponsored enterprises and found it’s not true.

In the last debate before the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich had to explain another wrinkle in his past dealings with Freddie. One of the panelists asked him about his words from 2007: "I like the GSE, or government-sponsored enterprise like Freddie Mac, model."

Gingrich defended his position, much the same way in that debate, saying "when you look for example at electric membership co-ops, and you look at credit unions, there are a lot of government-sponsored enterprises that are awfully important and do an awfully good job."

How valid is the comparison?

There is one similarity between a GSE and a credit union or an electric co-op. Neither pays federal or state income taxes. But Patrick Lavigne, spokesman for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), said GSE "is not a term that I’ve heard applied to electric coops before."

In fact, the term GSE applies to just a handful of very particular institutions. It takes a specific act of Congress to create one, usually to ease the flow of money to a certain industry, like housing or agriculture. Glossaries like Investopedia define GSE’s as "(p)rivately held corporations with public purposes created by the U.S. Congress to reduce the cost of capital for certain borrowing sectors of the economy."

When the White House submits its annual budget, it includes the GSE’s, and the list isn’t long. There are the Agricultural Credit Bank and Farm Credit Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. And that’s it. No electric co-ops. No credit unions.

The 2012 White House budget explains that Congress chartered Freddie Mac in 1970 to facilitate "the flow of investment dollars from the capital markets to mortgage lenders and ultimately, to homebuyers."

A credit union or an electric co-op is created completely differently. They come into being when a group of local investors pool their money. The country’s very first credit union was started in 1908 by a priest in Manchester, N.H., to provide credit to factory workers in textile mills. Washington played no role at all.

Later, the federal government offered both funding assistance and regulatory guidelines. Local co-ops and credit unions need to apply to a government agency for recognition as a nonprofit, member-owed entities. And that’s another difference. Freddie Mac is owned by stockholders. Co-ops are owned by members, the people who use them. Levine, with the NRECA, says electric co-ops started in the 1930s when "farmers would each throw $5 into the hat and then ask Washington for a loan for a transformer or some power lines."

Back then, and today, those loans would come with a very low interest rate, but Freddie Mac was treated even more favorably. It was formed with a direct line of credit from the federal Treasury for more than $2 billion. "They could borrow money cheaper than anyone except Uncle Sam himself," said Kathleen Day, a former Washington Post reporter who covered GSE’s for over two decades.

The deal for Freddie Mac got even better. Thanks to that intimate association with the federal government, Day says "the markets perceived them as something that was backed by Washington and invested at a very low cost ... That’s what allowed it to grow."

Our ruling

Gingrich spoke of credit unions and electric cooperatives as if they were the same sort of entities as Freddie Mac. We find no support for that and do find major differences in how they are created and operate compared with GSEs. Congress created Freddie Mac, as it does every GSE, by passing a specific law to bring it into being. Freddie Mac has stockholders and a direct line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. The term, Government Sponsored Enterprise, applies only to a handful of financial entities listed in the federal budget.

None of those characteristics apply to credit unions and electric cooperatives. Once again, we rate Gingrich’s statement Pants On Fire. Source: Politifact

Politico: “Romney kept at it throughout the first half of the debate, criticizing Gingrich for having been rebuked by his GOP colleagues in the House, earning money as an advocate for Freddie Mac and teaming up with Nancy Pelosi to talk about global warming.” (Alexander Burns, “Republican Debate: Mitt Romney Mauls Newt Gingrich In Florida,” Politico, 1/23/12)

The New York Times: “During an answer from Newt Gingrich about his time as a consultant, Mr. Romney pounced. It was the first time that the former Massachusetts governor went after Mr. Gingrich — directly — with fervor. And he wouldn’t let go. The back and forth exchange, with Mr. Romney unloading one after another accusation, went on for several minutes. Mr. Romney accused Mr. Gingrich of being an influence peddler. He accused him of being paid by Freddie Mac. He said Mr. Gingrich had lobbied Republican lawmakers on health issues while getting paid by health care companies. He accused him of falsely claiming that he was paid to be a historian. And he did them all to Mr. Gingrich’s face.” (Michael D. Shear, “In Shift, Romney Pounds Directly And Relentlessly On Gingrich At Debate,” The New York Times, 1/23/12)

Associated Press: “Romney says that companies don't spend that much money for history lessons and that Gingrich's time since leaving office has been spent trading on his connections.” (“Romney: Gingrich Didn't Earn Millions As Historian,” Associated Press, 1/23/12)

Associated Press: “Newt Gingrich…flubbed his own history in Congress on Monday night when he claimed the nation ran four consecutive budget surpluses during his time as House speaker.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Gingrich Flubs History In GOP Debate,” Associated Press, 1/23/12)

Los Angeles Times: “When Gingrich first won a seat in Congress, Romney said he had begun his own career in the private sector. As Gingrich left the House to become ‘an influence peddler,’ Romney said he was running the Olympic Games and beginning ‘a very successful turnaround’ in Massachusetts. And, as Romney said he was ‘fighting cap and trade’ and supporting Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to overhaul Medicare, Gingrich was ‘sitting down with Nancy Pelosi on a sofa’ and accusing Ryan of ‘right-wing social engineering.’" (Michael Memoli, “GOP Debate: Aggressive Romney Calls Gingrich An 'Influence Peddler',” Los Angeles Times, 1/23/12)

The New York Times: “Newt Gingrich Released A Contract That Is Mostly Legal Boilerplate, And Contains No Details About The Advice He Gave...” (Trip Gabriel And Mike McIntire, “Gingrich Releases a Freddie Mac Contract With Few Details,” The New York Times, 1/23/12)

The New York Times: “Mr. Romney Accused Mr. Gingrich Of Being An Influence Peddler. He Accused Him Of Being Paid By Freddie Mac. He Said Mr. Gingrich Had Lobbied Republican Lawmakers On Health Issues While Getting Paid By Health Care Companies. He Accused Him Of Falsely Claiming That He Was Paid To Be A Historian.” (Michael Shear, “Romney's Relentless Assault,” The New York Times, 1/23/12)

Politico: “Gingrich - adamant that he wasn't a lobbyist as he explained why he only released one year of his Freddie Mac contract, which dated back to 1999 (he uttered something about going through a confidentiality process) - volunteered that at his firm they'd brought in a ‘lobbying expert’ to explain to his team what qualified as lobbying and what didn't. … But why one would hire a ‘lobbying expert’ other than to explain to staff how to walk up to the ‘bright line’ Gingrich described, but not legally cross it, was not clear.” (Maggie Haberman, “Newt's Unforced Error,” Politico, 1/23/12)

(Maggie Haberman, “No Debate Applause Hinders Newt,” Politico, 1/23/12)

(Press Release, “Newt: Lobbyist? Sure Looks Like It. Liar? Yes.,” Ron Paul For President, 1/23/12)

Politico: “Mitt Romney came ready to fight. The former Massachusetts governor assailed Newt Gingrich from his very first comments in Monday’s debate in Tampa, saying that the presidential election is ‘about leadership’ and reminding voters that Gingrich ‘had to resign in disgrace’ from the House of representatives. … Gingrich’s response: benign neglect.” (Alexander Burns, “Mitt Bombards Newt With 'Disgrace,' 'Influence Peddler',” Politico, 1/23/12)

The Associated Press: “Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich clashed repeatedly in heated, personal terms Monday night in a crackling campaign debate, the former Massachusetts governor tagging his rival as an "influence peddler" in Washington…” (Steve Peoples, “Heated Charges, Counter-Charges In Florida Debate,” The Associated Press, 1/23/12)

PolitiFact: “PolitiFact.com Rating: False” (Louis Jacobsen, “Newt Gingrich Repeats Claim That He Balanced The Federal Budget Four Times As Speaker,” PolitiFact, 1/23/12)

Next up Romney. Must admit I was shocked when Romney talked about putting a carrier in the Gulf -- we have had carriers there for sometime and as one leaves, another enters the Gulf through the Straight of Hormuz. How does Romney think we handled the No Fly zone in Iraq if we had no carriers there? Obviously no one in his campaign knows anything about the military and how it works. Shame on them! Fact Check at the NY Times was used as they have some of the best fact checkers.

American Presence in the Persian Gulf

If there has been one major theme to the foreign-policy debate among the Republican candidates, it has been a race to show who — save for Representative Ron Paul — can get tougher on Iran and its suspected nuclear weapons program.

But it is possible that President Obama already has a tougher plan in place in the Persian Gulf than Mitt Romney is imagining. He said that to counter the Iranian threat, “we ought to have an aircraft carrier in the gulf.”

In fact, White House and Pentagon officials say they keep an average of 1.8 carriers in the gulf at any one time now — that allows one to go off station periodically — and have built up antimissile defenses around Iran.

- David E. Sanger

Dodd-Frank and Small Banks

In condemning the new Dodd-Frank law tightening regulation of the financial sector, Mitt Romney cited the law’s negative effect on smaller community banks in particular. But lobbyists won exemptions for community banks from many if not most of the Dodd-Frank limitations on banking. A top lobbyist for the sector publicly described the legislation as beneficial for smaller banks because it leveled the playing field with bigger banks and set a limit on their size.
- Jackie Calmes

Size of the U.S. Navy

Mr. Romney repeated a statement he has made before, and it is still wrong, or misleading at best. “Our Navy is now smaller than at any time since 1917,” he said.
Nonpartisan fact checkers at PolitiFact have described the claim as “pants on fire” wrong, calling it “a statement that, despite being close to accurate in its numbers, uses those numbers in service of a ridiculous point.”

In a lengthy explanation, PolitiFact concluded: “A wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel. Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones, comparing today’s military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an egregious comparison of apples and oranges.”

Moreover, given the long lead times for major military acquisitions, if the Navy or other military services were woefully small, that development would have begun long before Mr. Obama took office.

- Jackie Calmes

NY Times is right that the Obama Administration cannot be blamed for weapon systems not being in the inventory as it takes years to get them from design to production and then into the inventory. One of the planes that was needed desperately by the Air Force was a new tanker which was delayed for years by Senator McCain who seems to always be mad at the Air Force. It is still years away from being in the inventory so the depot at Tinker AFB, OK, is doing everything possible with the help of Boeing to keep our current tanker fleet flying.

It is obvious with the four candidates left that none of them have a clue how the Department of Defense works or they wouldn't make some of the dumb comments we are seeing.

Just shake my head at how bad these four candidates are collectively. If this is the best the Republican Party has, we are in real trouble in 2012. When I can sit and pull apart the answers and go looking for the links, then so can the Democrats. It is going to be like taking candy from a baby.

Then we have Rick Santorum who was asked few questions in comparison to Romney and Gingrich but the ones he was, he blew several of those according to NY Times Fact Check:

Santorum and Terri Schiavo

Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, was asked about his involvement in the case of Terri Schiavo, the young Florida woman who suffered brain damage in 1990. After her husband filed a petition to remove her feeding tube, a state court ruled in 2000 that she was in a persistent vegetative state. Her feeding tube was removed but then reinserted after her parents appealed the ruling.

After the tube was removed once again, Congress intervened in 2005, enacting a law allowing for the parents’ case to be heard in federal court.

Tonight, Mr. Santorum said he “didn’t call for Congressional intervention, I called for a judicial hearing” to review a case in which the parents, who were constituents of his from Pennsylvania, and Ms. Schiavo’s husband were on different sides.

But a New York Times Magazine article in May 2005 about Mr. Santorum said he “not only pushed the Senate to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, but he also traveled to Florida and prayed with her parents.”

- Katharine Q. Seelye

Rate of Illegal Immigration

Rick Santorum said the rate of illegal immigration in the United States was dropping.
That is correct. Illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America has dropped sharply in recent years.

In 2010, the number of apprehensions by the Border Patrol along the Southwest border dropped to 448,000, the lowest number since 1972, and a decline of 35 percent in the two years since President Obama took office, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The decline under the Obama administration accelerated a drop in border apprehensions that began under President George W. Bush. Since 2005, apprehensions at the Mexican border are down 61 percent. The apprehensions figure is widely accepted as a rough guide to the number of immigrants crossing illegally.

The Mexican census has reported a sharp drop since 2008 in the number of Mexican migrants leaving Mexico. During the Obama administration, the population of illegal immigrants from Mexico living in the United States has dropped by about 500,000, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

- Julia Preston

Santorum's Loss in 2006

Mr. Santorum said that when he lost his re-election bid for the Senate from Pennsylvania in 2006 – by 18 percentage points – it was a “meltdown” year for Republicans and that at least he “stood tall for what I believed in.”

It was a bad year for Republicans, but Mr. Santorum omitted at least one factor in his loss that infuriated conservative voters: he had endorsed Senator Arlen Specter, then a Republican, for re-election in the 2004 Republican primary over a conservative, Pat Toomey.

Mr. Santorum has said he supported Mr. Specter because Mr. Specter, who supported abortion rights, had agreed to support President George W. Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court. Mr. Specter has said there was no such agreement.

- Katharine Q. Seelye

At the end of the day, I am asking myself why we have such a group of bad candidates and most importantly why would I vote for any of the four is the question:

Romney -- moderate to liberal -- changes his stances (lies) to fit the audience pretending to be conservative but was for mandated healthcare and believes his sons' service in a Mormon mission was the same as being in the military -- that last one is why he won't get my vote not to mention neither he nor his advisers seem to know much about the military. Also don't have a clue where he stands on issues today and how he would stand on them as President. He is all over the place and is extremely arrogant toward regular people. Keeping money off shore to avoid taxes is not something I want in my candidate for President. Romney has no clue how most of Americans live because he never takes the time to come out of his elitists bubble to find out how we think or live. His Town Halls are made up of Mormons and staffers who can ask questions.

Gingrich -- arrogant, unethical, and lies about the past bragging up his time as being a Reagan consultant when he wasn't as he is only mentioned as a young Congressman in Reagan's papers. He also said he supported Barry Goldwater when he was Rockefeller's main person in Georgia. Facts have a way of coming to the surface when you try to use names. He was also for healthcare mandates and traveled around with Pelosi and Daschle supporting global warming -- any way to to earn a buck so he can maintain his lifestyle for his new wife. She was a Congressional aide he was having an affair with as Speaker but we are not supposed to talk about how unethical that was even though it went on for six years and it was the second time he had an affair with someone while still married. Don't know about anyone else, but I can probably overlook a short time affair but six years during Monicate when he was trashing Clinton? Give me a break!

Santorum seems to be a nice guy but I cannot get over his endorsing Specter over Toomey in the Senate race in PA and then Specter turning Democrat. Toomey was the choice of that race, and he now sits in the Senate. I doubt if he is going to endorse Santorum.

Paul -- proverbial loser in the race who is there to get his ideas out.

Last night on Twitter several were talking about if Romney loses Florida, we are going to need a smokey background to get a good candidate because Gingrich will get beat very bad by Obama as the voters remember him railing against Clinton on Monica while having an affair. Maybe the Bush 41 group should have thought about that before pushing Romney so hard.

People in SC should not be near the first of the primary season with an open primary. SC elected Newt they told exit polling because he went after the media. What a lame reason to vote for someone. When none of the candidates had a cheering audience like they planted at the other debates, Newt didn't do so well with his one liner quips. Romney came out like a bulldog last night. At the end of the debate, I just wanted all four of them to go away off my TV for good.

Now I am supposed to vote for one of these four? Not happening as come November I am going to be looking at other candidates like former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson who is running as a Libertarian. I am not Libertarian but I like what I see because he was a two term Governor and understands immigration better than the four men on stage at last night's debate. I would have to believe he also understands we already have aircraft carriers in the Gulf. My neighbors who I asked this morning in my own poll knew about the carriers.

Can also state that I will not give one dime to the RNC until they figure out how they blew this race with so many debates, favoritism toward states, and support of Romney which has not gone unnoticed by the people in Middle America. We understand the debates with liberal moderators was a set up for Romney -- doesn't take a genius. In the end all the debates have been doing is showcasing what bad candidates are in the race.

The way the RNC Chair is elected along with national committee people having to fund their own trips needs to end. We need to get the best and brightest person we can find to head the RNC and represent our states at the RNC. The following needs to happen in the primary in 2016:

Move states who went for a Democrat for President to the back of the pack
Move Open Primary states to the back of the pack
Move states allowing independents to vote to the back of the pack
Reward Closed Primary States who voted for a Republican in 2012 for President

It is so wrong for two states to be the first caucus and first primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire, when both have gone blue in past elections especially NH which has been trending Democrat since 1960. For those two states to demand that candidates spend so much time in their states ignoring others is ludicrous when in the general election their chances of going Democrat are extremely high. Shows a very weak Republican National Chairman and Committee that this was done away with years ago when problems of those states even being Republican surfaced.

There has to be a better way and it is time that it is found before 2016 turns into another disaster which I believe the RNC is capable of doing if this year is any indication.

Brown, Warren agree to anti-super-PAC pledge, other candidates could follow

2012-01-23T12:23:00.000-06:00

Will this work? We certainly hope so after what we are seeing in the Presidential race with the big money PACs leading the way to chaos and disaster. Republicans have a candidate that could not raise enough money to fit his campaign lifestyle so some billionaire comes forward and says he will support him the whole way. Another candidate when he got in the race came from the Koch Brothers', Americans for Prosperity, so he didn't have to work for donations or go to fundraisers, then there is the candidate who is wealthy but gets a lot of his donations from Wall Street and K Street.

Money has bought and paid for the top two candidates but that is not unusual especially for one of them who sells access to himself for money and travels in a lifestyle fit for a future king although Prince William and Princess Kate travel less lavishly it seems. They didn't take a ski trip this winter because it was too lavish under the economic circumstances of England while our candidate went on a trip to Europe for fun and relaxation during the beginning of the campaign.

The big money in the Republican race is turning it into a fiasco with the four candidates left. Is this the best the Republican Party can do? If it is, this Country is in trouble when we have trouble seeing the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to fundraising at all costs and being bought and paid for by big donors.

It is a sad commentary on today's Republican Party leadership who have the ethics of a gnat with this primary or they would not have scheduled so many debates with liberal moderators and would have given all candidates a fair shake including the former NM Governor Gary Johnson who asked to be in the debates. He was told by the RNC who controlled the debates that he had to get a percentage of the polling but his name wasn't on most polling ballots. How do you get recognition if you are kept out of debates? You don't. What was the RNC afraid of with Johnson? He might tell the truth about immigration as he and Perry teamed up against the rest with the truth not fabrications we saw.

We certainly hope that the Massachusetts Senate race is the beginning of candidates telling these Super PACs and 527 groups to stay out of their state. The Republican large groups like Crossroads and the Koch Brothers have no more accountability then George Soros. Doubt if this is what SCOTUS had in mind for Citizens United but it has created a mess where only the big donors are heard.

It is time to take all limits off donations and account for every last penny with full disclosure or cap what outside groups can spend on a candidate. How is Obama raising $1B and who is he going to be beholding after this election? It is obscene and no candidate is going to get $1B without some "creative financing"
going on but we have no real rules currently so no way to stop it except voluntarily for now.

We applaud Scott Brown and Elisabeth Warren for coming to this agreement. Once again we ask "will it work?" Only time will tell but it is time the elites took a backseat to the American voter instead of their trying to buy elections for their hand picked person.

Brown, Warren agree to anti-super-PAC pledge, other candidates could followBy Justin Sink and Josh Lederman - 01/23/12 09:39 AM ET

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) and his Democratic rival, Elizabeth Warren, have reached a groundbreaking agreement to deter super PACs and outside groups from dominating their Senate race with millions of dollars of ads, Brown said Monday.

The agreement marks the first attempt by candidates to wrest control of their races back from groups over whom they have no direct control, and could set a precedent for other races. It also comes almost two years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case that unleashed the flood of outside spending.

"This is a great victory for the people of Massachusetts, and a bold statement that puts Super PACs and other third parties on notice that their interference in this race will not be tolerated," Brown said in a statement to The Hill. "This historic agreement means the candidates will be in control of their own campaigns and accountable for what is said."

Excerpt: Read More at The Hill

Sen. Mark Kirk suffers stroke, undergoes surgery for swelling

2012-01-23T11:58:00.000-06:00

Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Kirk (R-IL) as he starts into the recovery phase of his stroke. He is very fortunate this was caught and the necessary procedures taken. We hope to see him back in the Senate after his recovery as his stance on issues has been pretty well reasoned especially when you consider he comes from Chicago. He is a breath of fresh air from the political world of Chicago. Good Luck to the Senator for a full recovery.

Sen. Mark Kirk suffers stroke, undergoes surgery for swelling
By Daniel Strauss - 01/23/12 12:09 PM ET

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.) was hospitalized Saturday after experiencing a stroke, his office said Monday.

Kirk's office said he suffered the stroke on Saturday and underwent surgery on Monday to reduce swelling in his brain.

"On Saturday, Senator Kirk checked himself into Lake Forest Hospital, where doctors discovered a carotid artery dissection in the right side of his neck. He was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, where further tests revealed that he had suffered an ischemic stroke," Kirk's office said in a statement. "Early this morning the Senator underwent surgery to relieve swelling around his brain stemming from the stroke. The surgery was successful.

"Due to his young age, good health and the nature of the stroke, doctors are very confident in the Senator's recovery over the weeks ahead," his office said.

Kirk was elected to the Senate in 2010, winning the seat that was formerly held by President Obama. He has focused much of his attention on foreign affairs since coming to Washington, recently co-authoring an amendment that would impose additional financial sanctions on Iran.

In December, Kirk endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

— This story ws last updated at 12:33 p.m.

Source: The Hill

Carville to GOP: You have a disaster on your hands

2012-01-22T12:05:00.034-06:00

Have no idea who is going to win the South Carolina primary but at this stage in the race, it doesn't matter as Obama and his people have their opposition research people in a slap happy mood. Many who have done ops research in the past would be doing an Irish jig at the thoughts of who the Republicans were about to nominate in the coming months -- a northeastern liberal who ran as a liberal Republican in 2002 to win the Massachusetts Governor's race or former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich:

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday (1/21/97) to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

Then he carried on an six year affair with a Congressional aide before finally leaving the House in 1998 and getting a divorce in 1999 all during Monicagate when he was talking about President Clinton's lack of morals. How ironic as Gingrich was one who filed an ethics complaint against the Democrat Jim Wright of Texas who had to resign as Speaker in 1989.

Carville to GOP: You have a disaster on your hands
By James Carville, CNN Contributor
updated 2:41 PM EST, Sat January 21, 2012

Editor's note: James Carville is a Democratic strategist who serves as a political contributor for CNN, appearing frequently on CNN's "The Situation Room" as well as other programs on all CNN networks. Carville remains active in Democratic politics and is a party fundraiser.

(CNN) -- Memo to Republican Establishment:

I would send this memo to each of you individually, but I'm not sure exactly who you are. I've been told that you exist and that people like my colleagues Bill Bennett, Karl Rove, and Bill Kristol are charter members of it.

I am assuming you are out there and I assume there are more than three of you. At any rate, I thought I'd take a moment to catch up with you and make some observations on how things are going for your party.

Let me break it to you gently -- you've got a first-class disaster on your hands. I know you boys thought this thing would work out and you would be able to whip the Republicans in line to fall in behind Mitt (I assume you are all males but if there is a female in the establishment, I apologize.)

Not going too good, is it fellows?

It's been a terrible time to be a Republican. There have been many moments during this process that have caused me great joy. Certainly the events of Thursday, ending with the CNN debate, and even the Fox debate Monday night, have helped ease the pain of my beloved Tigers' and Saints' recent defeats.

I mean, most people thought it was kind of a watermark when your Tea Party gang booed the golden rule. You know, I've spent some time in Philly and they have always thought they were pretty radical because they actually booed Santa Claus and Willie Mays. Philly, I've got news for you -- you ain't got nothing on South Carolina Republicans. They just aren't buying any of that do-unto-others garbage.

I actually thought my favorite moment of this delightful process was when one of your eight front-runners, Herm Cain, (as Sarah Palin calls him) actually ran an ad with his campaign manager endorsing him. (Rove, why didn't you think of that in 2000? Imagine the headline: "Rove endorses Bush.")

The climax of that delicious ad is when he actually takes a drag on a cigarette. But my favorite thing about Herm's campaign manager is that he is the only person in the history of the world that was actually barred from political consulting. Let me tell you, I've been in this business for quite a while and I've never known of anyone other than Mark Block to be suspended from practicing this profession.

At any rate, let's talk a minute about Mitt. He was your guy -- he was methodical, meticulous, married once. He has completely blown himself up over an issue that everyone knew was coming. Have you had a chance to look at John McCain's research operation on Mitt? Wow. And let me assure you, that thing has been supplemented, expanded, and annotated. God only knows about the Obama people -- they've got a billion dollars! And how about my friends over at American Bridge (the Democrat-leaning political action committee)? Clearly Mitt is merely in the beginning of this tax-return, financial-disclosure, Cayman Island (and God only knows what else) fiasco.

Your new front-runner is one of your old front runners, Newt Gingrich. I would like to take a moment to revel: I cannot personally tell you how pleased I am to see old Newt rise to the top after listening to all of your nauseating, sickening lectures on the evils of government and the importance of family values.

Now, you guys have to deal with a $1.6 million Freddie Mac consultant (who says he wasn't a lobbyist) who has been married three times. Hope you, at least, enjoy the Super Bowl. It could be your last hurrah for a while.

PS -- As my former boss once said, I feel your pain. That's why I didn't mention Rick Perry.

Big Government: Incompetence, Mismanagement Hamper Republican Conference

2012-01-22T08:00:00.001-06:00

Those words, incompetence and mismanagement, could be used to describe the Republican Primary from the beginning when the new chair was more interested in what was happening in the Wisconsin recall elections then the RNC. Then Chairman Preibus and his consultants got the bright idea that debates were the way to go with liberal moderators but then it favored Romney at the beginning which is what the handpicked Establishment Chair of the RNC wanted. Wonder how they like the primary now as more and more conservatives are saying 'none of the above.'

As the request for donations and presence at campaign events hit the mailbox, noticed that the amount required to attend events has been on the rise starting in 2008 but even then there were events you could attend for $50 but now the events starting out a $1,000 leaves out most people out. The day I donate $1,000 to a candidate with one check, someone needs to check my sanity no matter who the candidate or organization. Since the Citizens United ruling the people hosting these fundraisers are only going for big donors many of them who have already closed their checkbooks due to the way the RNC and others are running this primary.

We have a few fundraisers here who believes it is more important to fill up a room then have everyone make the big donations. It adds a lot more to a campaign then to have to admit no one was donating so the event was cancelled.

We filled up an event in Norman for Dr. Coburn in 2004 that you could not walk in the room without bumping into someone. The person in charge of fundraising asked two of us for help in getting people to the event even if they didn't donate. We not only packed the room but donations were much more than expected. We had no minimum as we knew we had some big donors but we needed people to give Dr. Coburn a boost right before the election. Taught me a lesson that it is more important fill a room with a group of small donors and a few big donors because everyone opened their checkbook that evening as they got caught up in the excitement. But what do we know as Super PACs have taken over.

This is an example of what requiring a $1,000 will do to your event -- get it cancelled.

Incompetence, Mismanagement Hamper Republican Conference

by Charles C. Johnson
Poor Planning Makes For Poor Attendance at Southern Republican Leadership Conference

Earlier today The Associated Press ran with this headline: “Gingrich cancels campaign event, poor attendance.”

But the lack of attendance isn’t because Gingrich isn’t popular, it’s because the event cost too much and the attendance is way too low, with the lowest tickets fetching a $1,000 a head. Sponsors who spoke with our team in the field said that promoters had misled them as to the number of tickets sold, telling them on the phone that more than 2,000 tickets had been. The event, in other words, was a total flop. There were barely a few dozen people in the huge College of Charleston arena.

Part of the problem was the organization for the event. A source we spoke to told us that the promoters didn’t even have an agenda until the event was underway and that nobody was there to greet people. “There wasn’t even anyone there to tell us whether to go to have our events,” the source said. “I would be ashamed if my name were associated with it.”

Below the sponsors pack it up because of lack of interest.
Sponsors packing it up at SRLC
Source: Big Government

Tech Dirt: MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought

2012-01-21T11:14:00.000-06:00

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is showing thanks to Senator Chris Dodd (D-NH) just how bought and paid for some of our politicians are by Hollywood. We would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those donations went to Democrats starting with the President and Dodd in the Senate but until we get the facts, we are not ruling out some Republicans either.

Over the coming weeks we plan to cover which candidate campaigns are the recipients of the major donors like the MPAA, the aerospace companies, Wall Street, K Street, lawyers, etc. It is time for the American voter to see where the candidates are getting their money in this 2012 election in order to make up their mind if they want to vote for a bought and paid candidate.

If this is campaign finance reform, beam me up because the big money in this campaign is worse then ever. MPAA is determined to get their internet bills passed so anyone who thinks that the Stop On Line Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House or Protect Intellectual Property (Protect IP) in the Senate are dead, think again. We have to remain vigilant and elect candidates this fall who are not in the hip pockets of big donors and throw out the ones who are. This is a direct threat from Senator Dodd for MPAA. Can someone please tell me why Connecticut kept electing this jerk? Must have brought home a lot of pork and earmarks over the years is all I can say.

The good news is that Senator Dodd is retiring from the Senate at the end of this session. Anyone want to bet he goes to work full time for MPAA?

MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought

from the sickening dept
by Mike MasnickFri, Jan 20th 2012 6:25pm

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what's happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News to explicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is. If Dodd, as he said in yesterday's NY Times, really wanted to turn things around and come to a more reasonable result, this is exactly how not to do it. It shows, yet again, a DC-insider's mindset. He used Fox News to try to "send a message" to politicians. But the internet already sent a much louder message... and, even worse for Dodd, he bizarrely sent his message in a way that everyone who's already fed up with this kind of corruption can see it too. It really makes you wonder what he's thinking and how someone so incompetent at this could keep his job.

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward. That's apparently not Chris Dodd.

Public Knowledge issued a fantastic statement that not only highlights the ridiculousness of Dodd's threats, but also the hypocrisy of the Hollywood studios on this issue:

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.
Source: Tech Dirt

.With Hours to Decide, Few Are Willing to Commit

2012-01-21T10:40:00.000-06:00

That same lethargic response is most likely the same across America as voters are feeling they have to settle for a candidate because of all the shenanigans of this Republican Primary. It started with the RNC deciding candidates should debate as the way to get them to meet voters which has turned into a disaster and forced good people Tim Pawlenty out of the race thanks to the continual sniping of Bachman which she continued against Governor Perry who also left the race. Republican debates sometimes back to back with liberal moderators turned into a bad joke. Bachman forgot who she was or never was this big conservative because she carried the water for Romney as she went after other candidates with biting attacks. It also has not gone unnoticed that Ron Paul has been carrying the water for Romney by going after the other candidates as well.

What were Paul and Bachmann promised. We know Bachmann wants to run for Senate so was she promised help from Rove and Crossroads along with the Koch Brothers to help her win the Senate? What has Paul been promised by the Romney camp to keep him going after others. The establishment decided to play dirty to get their man Romney elected and it has infuriated voters who understand what is happening, but what are the choices who are left that you would want to walk over glass to vote? Don't see any still standing who would make me want to even go out in a thunderstorm to vote this time.

This is the first race that big money thanks to that strange ruling by SCOTUS on Citizens United has allowed the big donors to run the races openly. One billionaire can keep a candidate in the race which is flat out wrong. This whole primary is one big mess -- we will lay the chaos and voter irregularities at the feet of Bush 41 and his cartel of establishment donors, Karl Rove his puppet, Koch Brothers and their political arm Americans for Prosperity, Fox News with Roger Ailes, Drudge, and Rasmussen whose polling is all over the place to prop up the flavor of the week. The biggest joke on some sites over the years has been Rasmussen changing his results at the last minute to be nearer the results of the election.

Then we have the so-called conservative pundits who work for Clear Channel which is owned by Bain same as Fox News radio who claim they are conservative and support the biggest moderate to liberal in the race, Romney, saying he has changed. In only five years removed from being Governor of Massachusetts, we are expected to swallow the koolaid that his core principles did a 180 to make him more conservative. I have swampland for sale in the Arizona desert if you believe that one.

Something has to be done with the primaries. So far we have voter fraud in the first two states and what can we expect from SC today?

In South Carolina, the primaries are open, meaning registered Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Saturday and still vote for their own party in the presidential election. Some more conservative Democrats and independents will be doing just that.

The order of primaries needs changed so we don't have blue states giving our candidate momentum or those with open primaries. We might as well go back to the days of the brokered conventions and back room deals which turn out to be more honest then what we see today.

When you reach the bottom line, you realize that the three candidates with the experience to be a conservative President have all left the race -- Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Perry. What does that say about our selection process -- it is has broken down completely. We cannot trust the voting process to give us one man one vote so how we can trust the results of the Republican Primary?

Count this life long Republican as one person who thinks the way the RNC/DNC run the primaries as the reason we don't get better candidates. Honesty and integrity are two words which are missing at the RNC and DNC which has voters on both sides up in arms. The passion for the candidates in the Republican Party has not been there from Day One. Then we realized what was happening with Rove and other consultants pulling the strings for the establishment. If they had followed through with no candidates from 2008 running, we would have seen a much fairer race but when Romney got in the race, ethics and integrity went south as the establishment had their candidate. Then we had the Fox pundits jump in with Dick Morris making the comment the media was going to choose the Republican candidate. I hate to admit he was right.

Looks like the Republicans of South Carolina for the most part share that apathy toward the candidates. Voters are mad at both national parties, the President, and at members of Congress who want to spend our tax dollars foolishly on boondoggles of their choosing.

Botton line is that we need a better way to choose our nominees by allowing the American voters to decide, not the wealthy donors, not the media including the pundits, and not the pollsters. Anyone with good ideas on how this can be done better needs to start speaking out as the primary selection process has reached an all time low in 2012 surpassing 2008 which we didn't think possible but we were wrong.

Where do conservatives go next? My recommendation is to volunteer for House and Senate races because we need to Take the Senate and Keep the House. We elected some really good people to the House in the last election like Cong Allen West of Florida, Cong James Lankford of Oklahoma, and Marco Rubio also of Florida for starters who are not only standing up for conservative principles but listen to their constituents as evidenced by Marco Rubio pulling his support for the internet privacy bill. We need more in both houses so don't let the Presidential race get you down, get energized by helping elect good conservatives to the House and Senate -- they need your help and your donations.

With Hours to Decide, Few Are Willing to Commit

By KIM SEVERSONPublished: January 20, 2012

BELTON, S.C. — Heidi Trull does not usually allow customers to talk politics or religion at Grits and Groceries, her restaurant here in the farmland that defines the northwest corner of the state.

People’s opinions are usually too strong. And a heated argument can ruin a good dish of Carolina shrimp and grits.

But Friday afternoon, less than 24 hours before the state’s Republican presidential primary, her ban on political talk did not matter one bit.

No one had found a candidate they liked enough to argue for.

From country restaurants like this one to suburban shopping malls in Spartanburg and espresso bars in Greenville, voters facing four options in the Republican primary seemed to shrug and say, “I haven’t decided.”

As South Carolina residents began voting today, polls were showing Newt Gingrich gaining ground on Mitt Romney while Ron Paul and Rick Santorum battled for third place. But those polls do not always reflect what is happening on the ground, particularly in a region that has emerged as a coveted electoral battleground.

Thursday’s debate swung some undecided voters from one camp to another and back again. A relentless barrage of political ads only added to the confusion.

Thus, in a state known for its fickle, independent political nature, people appear to be waiting until they step into a voting both to decide.

“I said I was going to vote for Newt, but now I don’t know,” said Kathy Matasavage, 53, who moved here nine years ago and waits tables at Grits and Groceries. “All of these ads and debates are just so negative. You think you have your mind made up, and then there is craziness and more craziness.”

Thursday’s debate, which pivoted partly around demands that Mr. Romney release his tax returns and accusations by one of Mr. Gingrich’s former wives that he had asked for an open marriage, had an effect.

Kim Raines, 35, who was shearing a schnauzer named Dickens at a pet grooming shop in Spartanburg, was all set to vote for Mr. Gingrich until she heard part of an interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich, that was shown Thursday after the debate.

“I’m a cheated-on woman, so Newt getting in that scandal was a big thing to me,” she said. So now Ms. Raines, who has two children, is leaning toward Mr. Romney because he seems more of a leader.

Conversely, the interview and Mr. Gingrich’s combative response to questions about his marital past pushed C. W. Harris, a life insurance salesman in Greenville, into the Gingrich camp. “The more they attack Newt, the more I want to support him,” he said.

The issue of Mr. Romney’s wealth, how he got it and whether he should release his tax returns seemed to have less resonance with some voters.

At a small debate viewing party in Greer on Thursday night filled with people supporting different candidates, no one said that seeing Mr. Romney’s tax returns would make a difference. Nor did they care that he made millions as head of the private equity firm Bain Capital, which his opponents claim ruined lives by closing companies.

“It doesn’t bother me that he is wealthy,” said Linda Tapp, 65, a retired medical office worker. “That tells me he knows how to handle finances.”

To be sure, some voters know exactly what they want.

Patricia Seiber, a school secretary, will vote for Mr. Santorum. “I have 5 sons and 17 grandchildren, and we are all for him,” she said.

Sandra Sperry, who was buying toys for her grandchildren, is a Gingrich supporter all the way.

“He is a smart politician, and I want someone who can beat Obama,” she said. “It is going to take one to beat one.”

In South Carolina, the primaries are open, meaning registered Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Saturday and still vote for their own party in the presidential election. Some more conservative Democrats and independents will be doing just that.

Janie Dillard, 63, is one of them. She calls herself a yellow-dog Democrat, but will vote for Mr. Romney on Saturday. “He’s as close as you can get to Obama on the Republican side,” she said.

Excerpt: Read More at The New York Times

Weekly Republican Address 1/21/12: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

2012-01-21T09:41:00.000-06:00

GOP chairman, Lamar Smith, shelves Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

2012-01-20T10:39:00.000-06:00

This is great news that both bills affecting the Internet have been shelved for the time being in both Houses of Congress but we cannot let our guard down as some sort of act is bound to rise out of the ashes. Hollywood lost this round but I wouldn't count them and their donations to politicians out.

Great job by Americans to stand up and say no to Congress as they got the message which is even more amazing. Power of the people won this time which should be a lesson to members of Congress that they work for us, the American people, not the donors.

GOP chairman shelves Stop Online Piracy Act
By Brendan Sasso - 01/20/12 10:20 AM ET

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) announced on Friday that he will postpone consideration of his Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) until there is wider agreement on the controversial legislation.

"I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy," Smith said. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products."

Smith's announcement came just minutes after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he would shelve the Senate's version of the anti-piracy legislation, the Protect IP Act.
The move is a stunning acknowledgment of failure for the powerful chairman.

Smith was the author of SOPA and its most vocal proponent. He had repeatedly said the bill did not need to be changed and accused the critics of "spreading lies."

But support for the bill collapsed after a massive Web protest on Wednesday. Major sites including Google and Wikipedia either shut down in protest or displayed messages opposing the legislation.

Source: The Hill

Please visit The Hill for more updates on this and other news from Congress as it happens.

None of the Above!

2012-01-20T10:29:00.000-06:00

Have you ever walked into vote in an election and wanted a block that said None of the Above? That is how I am feeling this morning after watching the debate last night. These four are the best the Republican Party has to offer? We agree with this statement:

TinaKorbe Seriously, it's time to focus on the House and Senate: http://t.co/DEdXKcvy

Those words are so true. At first I thought it was just me saying it because Governor Perry dropped out of the race, but then I started seeing comments like those from Brett Bozzell:

cnsnews_com CNSNews.comAnyone else? --> RT @brentbozell: I miss Rick Perry! @rickperryfacts @GovernorPerry #cnndebate

What was missing from last night's debate was class that Governor Perry brought to the debates. Without the Governor, this turned into a free for all. Following the debate last night the only person on stage I could see myself holding my nose to vote was Rick Santorum and I don't think he has a chance against Obama, but who knows in this crazy election season.

I am tired of conservative pundits telling me that I have to get on board with the candidate that can beat Obama or I am not a Republican or whatever they call us today. I think Obama makes a horrible President and even more so after he turned down the Keystone Pipeline, but I am not willing to sell out my values to a Republican candidate I don't like and have no respect who could end up being Obama lite. I didn't like Dole in 1996 but I respected his service to the Country.

Tried to be as objective as possible knowing that Governor Perry endorsed Newt but I have to question that endorsement from what I saw last night. Governor Perry is not arrogant about himself and could easily be your next door neighbor. Newt came across last night as extremely arrogant and the only one on stage who knew a thing. Voters don't relate to that and his votes are more of an anti-Romney vote just like a lot of the ones McCain received. Newt talks on and on and after he is done, you are left with thinking -- policy wonk who doesn't relate to regular people and pure arrogance. You can tell when he speaks he thinks he is the smartest person in the room and why members of the House who served with him as Speaker refuse to back him for President. We discovered this morning that Newt has greatly exaggerated his work with President Reagan as pointed out on Fact Check:

“Mr. Speaker, you talk about all the things you did with Ronald Reagan and the Reagan revolution and the jobs created during the Reagan years and so forth. I looked at the Reagan diary. You’re mentioned once in Ronald Reagan’s diary. And in the diary, he says you had an idea in a meeting of young congressmen, and it wasn’t a very good idea and he dismissed it. That’s the entire mention.” (Romney)

Good fact checking by Romney. He’s right. Interestingly, the reference refers to Gingrich proposing to freeze the 1983 budget, which Reagan said was “tempting” but “it would cripple our defense program.” Reagan even referred to a meeting with “young Repub. congressmen” — a subtle dig by Romney at Gingrich’s frequent claim that he “worked” with Reagan even though he only just arrived in Congress.

After reading Fact Check this morning, we decided to highlight a few other instances not only for Newt but for Romney and Santorum:

“The Corps of Engineers today takes eight years to study — not to complete — to study doing the port. We won the entire second World War in three years and eight months.” (Gingrich)

We are not sure whether the U.S. involvement in World War II has any relevance to a study about whether to deepen the Charleston Port from 45 to 50 feet. Kudos to Gingrich for knowing local issues, but according to local news reports the Corps said that such a study would normally take five to eight years but “Corps officials say they are streamlining the review and approval process as much as possible to save time.”

Now let's take a look at Romney at the same Fact Check website:

“Georgetown Steel would be a case here, and a company in Gaffney, South Carolina — specific cases where Bain Capital’s model, which was to take over a company and dramatically leverage it, leave it with a great deal of debt, made it less likely to survive.” (Gingrich)

The McClatchy News this week had a comprehensive look at these two cases, one of many investments made by Bain Capital under Romney’s leadership. Romney has argued that Chinese dumping of steel hurt the steel company, not Bain’s business practices. He might also dispute that Bain’s business model was to always to leave a company “with a great deal of debt.”

“Four [Bain investments] in particular created 120,000 jobs as of today. We started them years ago. They’ve grown well beyond the time I was there, to 120,000 people that have been employed by those enterprises. There are others we’ve been with, some of which have lost jobs. People have evaluated that since — well, since I ran four years ago, when I ran for governor. And those that have been documented to have lost jobs lost about 10,000 jobs.” (Romney)

Romney’s math gets a little funny here. In defending his tenure at Bain, he focuses on four companies that now employ 120,000, even though Bain’s investment ended years ago. His number of 10,000 jobs appears to mostly count losses when Bain owned the companies, or shortly after it sold them. But it is really an apples and oranges accounting.

In any case, Romney’s role at Bain was not to create jobs but to provide for good returns for his investors. For more on this subject, look at our examination of Romney’s untenable figure.

Next up is Santorum on Fact Check:

“I was talking to a state official the other day in Iowa that told me that the state of Iowa is being fined because they’re not signing up enough people on to the Medicaid program.” (Santorum)

Santorum has made this puzzling comment before. ABC News investigated and found there was little to it.

“Iowa, like other states, receives federal reimbursement for the money it disburses in Medicaid fees,” Huma Khan reported. “There is no quota system or target that the state has to meet in order to be eligible for federal money. The amount of money that each state receives is dependent on its economy.” She quoted a state official as saying that any reduction in payments “is not a punishment. This is a recognition that Iowa’s economy is improving relative to other states.

“We are 20 percent more costly than our top nine trading partners, and that’s excluding labor costs.” (Santorum)

This comes straight out of a report by the Manufacturing Institute, which claims the cost differential is largely because of policies on “corporate tax burden, employee benefits, tort costs, pollution abatement compliance, and energy costs.” The Institute is an affiliate of the National Association of Manufacturers, which often argues against corporate regulations, so one might consider the source of this statistic before repeating it.

There are more instances at Fact Check but figured giving two a piece was good. The one missing from Fact Check is Ron Paul who seems to do a better job of avoiding gaffes in debates then the others -- he just has some strange and quirky ideas plus he seems to be defending Romney more than anything. Have they cut a deal?

This morning the list of endorsements for Romney has increased by a lot starting with Governor McDonnell of the RGA who to his credit did not endorse Romney until his fellow Governor, Rick Perry left the race. A lot of members of Congress came on board last night for Romney after the debate. Why? They think he has the best chance to defeat Obama just like we were told about McCain? We noted that people who served with Newt as Speaker are not endorsing him in big numbers which speaks volumes about his time as Speaker. His baggage brings into question why Newt ran. Anyone old enough to vote has mostly likely heard what happened to make him resign as Speaker. How did the Republican Party end up here again just like in 1996? Ask the establishment led by Bush 41 and the RNC along with consultants doing the dirty work for Romney.

In the end unless there is a viable Independent candidate I can support, I think Tina Kolbe has it right -- let's move on to the House and Senate races. Not wasting much more time on the Republican Primary as it looks like once again the Republican establishment is going to get their way and nominate someone who doesn't have a good chance of beating Obama because a lot of Republicans will no longer hold their nose to vote for a moderate to liberal candidate. That's a fact. With that in mind time to concentrate on Taking the Senate and Keeping the House in 2012.

Mickey, Minnie, and the Gang can vote again in 2012?

2012-01-20T09:21:00.000-06:00

http://www.tobytoons.com/td/

Will 2012 be a repeat of the 2008 voter fraud in Florida? With so many absentee ballots requested for the GOP Primary, you can take it to the bank. There has been a 50% increase in requests for absentee ballots for the Florida primary. Are the northeasteners getting a jump on voting twice by absentee again -- once in their home state and once in Florida? Sure hope the Board of Elections remembered to mail all the absentee ballot requests to Disney World so Mickey and Minnie can vote again. (sarcasm)

Does anyone on both sides not see a real problem with voter fraud as it robs legitimate voters of one person, one vote? After there are votes from eight precincts missing in the Iowa Republican Primary, shows members from both parties are willing to do anything to get their candidates elected. Voter fraud in NH in the Republican Primary is being investigated by the NH Attorney General. Will we also see voter fraud in South Carolina tomorrow?

My first real introduction to the dead voting was in Texas after we moved there in 1990. While watching the news in in the mid 90's on election night, they had an interview with a voter in South Texas who discovered that his relative from the Civil War had voted in the election right before he voted. Had always heard about the dead voting but here was an example on my TV screen along with the local Democrat Party seeing nothing wrong with dead people voting which was even more shocking.

Maybe it is time for 3rd world countries where the United States has been monitoring elections to come to the US to monitor our elections. Voter fraud has become a way of life for Democrats for years as dead people voted but now we are learning that Republicans in some instances are just as bad. The campaign manager for Herman Cain was found guilty of voter suppression in WI. Robert Ehrlich's campaign manager, Paul Shurick, was found guilty of voter suppression and fraud, in Ehrlich's failed run for Governor in 2010 in Maryland. Then we have the Republican Indiana Secretary of State, Charlie White, charged with voter fraud in December 2011.

This goes along Democrat ACORN voter fraud and the the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers for Obama in Philadelphia in 2010 where charges were dismissed by Holder quickly after they took office even though videos showed the intimidation.

Those are just a few samples as there are countless more documented when you do a search. Democrats have been doing it for years but now some Republicans have decided that is the only way to get their candidates elected. IMHO when you find voter fraud, you should throw the people in jail and throw away the key. Voting is a right that men and women of this great Country have fought for years to make sure we keep that right. Now some scumbags from both parties are diluting that right and it is time that we put an end to voter fraud. It is becoming an epidemic that needs stopped.

We call on members of Congress to do something about voter fraud in national elections and State Legislatures in state/local elections. No more slaps on the hand from ethics commissions or banned for three years from campaigns. Make the charges tough so the person will think twice. I am for making it a felony and if it happens in the precinct, then go after the county board of elections for not overseeing the election in an ethical manner. Voter identification is not voter suppression unless you are planning to cheat IMHO. States issue free picture ID's for those who do not have driver's license. What are people wanting to hide by not wanting to provide a picture ID?

Just say NO to voter fraud and voter intimidation no matter who is behind the practice! Give us back the security of knowing when we cast our vote it is one vote for one live person.

Cong Steve King Statement on Keystone Pipeline

2012-01-19T16:52:00.000-06:00

Cong King once again has the best video I have seen about the pipeline that Obama disapproved. Shows Obama really is not serious about jobs for Middle America.

Email Comments from Governor Perry on Suspending his Campaign

2012-01-19T11:25:00.000-06:00

Email from Governor Perry:

Today I am suspending my campaign for President.

Anita and I have been blessed by the many supporters who have believed in our conservative vision for the country.

Although I will no longer be on the campaign trail, I will continue to champion conservative principles: a Washington that is humbler with a federal government that is smaller, real tax reform that can spur economic growth, and a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline so the future of this country is not mortgaged on a mountain of debt.

As we return to Austin and the Texas I love, I am proud to continue as governor of this great state and will work every day to make Texas a better place to do business and create jobs for all Texans.

We cannot thank you enough for your generous support which enabled our campaign to champion these conservative values.

God bless.
Rick Perry

Text of Governor Perry's Remarks

Thank you. As I have stated numerous times on the campaign trail, this campaign has never been about the candidates.

I ran for President because I love America, our people and our freedom. But the mission is greater than the man.

As I have traveled across this great country: from New Hampshire to California, from Iowa to Florida, and to numerous states in between, I have discovered a tremendous purpose and resiliency in our people. They have never lost hope despite current circumstances.

They haven’t stopped believing in the promise of America or the American Dream.
Americans are down, but we can never be counted out. We are too great a people. What is broken in America is not our people, but our politics.

And what we need is a Washington that is humbler, with a federal government that is smaller so our people can live freer.

I entered this campaign offering a unique perspective: a governor who has led a large state leading the nation in job creation, an executive leader who has implemented conservative policies, a son of tenant farmers born with little more than a good name, but who has experienced the great possibilities of freedom.

But I have never believed that the cause of conservatism is embodied by any one individual. Our party, and the conservative philosophy, transcends any one individual. It is a movement of ideas that are greater than any one of us, and that will live beyond our years.

As a former Air Force pilot, I know we can’t lose track of the ultimate objective in carrying out our mission, and that objective is not only to defeat President Obama, but to replace him with a conservative leader who will bring about real change.

Our country is hurting with more than 13 million unemployed, nearly 50 million on food stamps and a debt of more than $15 trillion and growing.

We need bold, conservative leadership that will take on the entrenched interests and give the American People their country back.

I have always believed the mission is greater than the man.

As I have contemplated the future of this campaign, I have come to the conclusion that there is no viable path to victory for my candidacy in 2012.

Therefore, today I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.

I believe Newt is a conservative visionary who can transform our country.

We have had our differences, which campaigns inevitably bring out. And Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?

The fact is, there is forgiveness for those who seek God and I believe in the power of redemption, for it is a central tenet of my own Christian faith.

And I have no question Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement and the courage to tell the Washington interests to take a hike if it’s what is best for the country.

As a Texan, I have never shied away from a good fight, especially when the cause was right.
But as someone who has always admired a great Texas forefather -- Sam Houston -- I know when it is time for a “strategic retreat.”

So I will leave the trail, return home to Texas and wind down my 2012 campaign organization. And I will do so with pride knowing I gave myself fully to a cause worthy of our country.

And as I head home, I do so with the love of my life by my side, a woman who makes every day a good one when she is by my side, my wife Anita.

Thank you Anita for all you have done.

I also want to thank my son Griffin, my daughter Sydney, and my daughter-in-law Meredith for standing with us in this great effort.

With a good wife, three wonderful children, and a loving God in my life, things will be good no matter what the future holds.

I’m proud of the policies we put forward to the American people and believe they provide the right path forward for our party and our nation: overhauling Washington and returning power to state and local governments and to the people, creating energy jobs and energy security, cutting spending and eliminating unnecessary federal agencies and cutting taxes to a flat, fair 20 percent.

And I will continue to fight for these conservative reforms because the future of our country is at stake and the road we are traveling today – President Obama’s road - endangers our future.

I want to thank some wonderful individuals who have stood by my side in this state: Katon Dawson, Ambassador Wilkins, and a strong and good man serving you in Congress, Mick Mulvaney.
I want to thank all my supporters from across the country, in particular Governor Bobby Jindal, Steve Forbes and Governor Sam Brownback, as well as Senator Jim Inhofe, Congresswoman Candice Miller and Congressman Sam Graves.

And I want to say a special thanks to three distinguished veterans who have joined me on the campaign trail: Medal of Honor awardee and Navy SEAL Mike Thornton, Navy Cross recipient Marcus Luttrell and Purple Heart recipient, Marine Captain Dan Moran.

I began this race with a sense of calling.

I felt led into this arena to fight for the future of this country.

I feel no different today than I did then, knowing a calling never guarantees a particular destination, but a journey that tests one’s faith and character.

So now the journey leads us back to Texas, neither discouraged nor disenchanted, but instead rewarded for the experience and resolute to remain in the arena and in the service of a great nation.

Our country needs bold leadership and a real transformation.

We must rise to the occasion and elect a conservative champion to put our nation back on the right track.
And this I know, I am not done fighting for the cause of conservatism. In fact I have only begun to fight.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

Thank you Governor Perry!

2012-01-19T09:07:00.000-06:00

Governor Perry will be dropping out of the Presidential race today and endorsing Newt Gingrich. Getting in the race so late was handicap as the others were well versed in debates and the Governor made a few gaffes which were magnified by the so-called conservative pundits, the MSM, and Romney supporters who we know who they are as I have mentioned them many times on here.

Looks like America was not ready for another President from Texas just yet who actually had ideas how to reform Government, but a lot of lessons have been learned and who knows what will happen in the future. What I do know is that I have even more respect for Governor Perry today then I had going into this race. He is an honorable man that does not revise history of who he is. The timing was not right but he still has the best job in America -- Governor of the Great State of Texas.

Once again thank you to Governor Perry and his wife, Anita, for being willing to run in what is turning out to be one nasty primary. Thanks also to the people surrounding Governor Perry for the work they did for this race. Wish it would have turned out differently but you leave race with your heads held high and will be back in Texas for one of the most beautiful times of the year -- spring when all the Texas wildflowers come out in bloom all over the state.

God Bless you all!

Four key (Republican) senators abandon online piracy bills amid web protests

2012-01-18T15:08:00.000-06:00

Google Protest at Google.com

We are now up to four Republican Senators who have backed out of co-sponsoring the Senate IP Protect Act. Looks like the on-line protest is working by Google and others. There doesn't seem to be any way that Senator Reid (D-NV) can get the 60 votes necessary to advance this bill. Every Republican in the Senate who votes to advance this bill needs to think twice if they have an election coming up this fall. Between Romney as the potential anointed candidate and Republican Senators who support this bill, conservatives who call the Republican Party are not happy and that home may be someplace else for the general election.

The Democrat controlled leadership of the Senate can demand a vote on this but they haven't passed a budget. Their priorities are upside down on what is important as they bow down to some of their big donors in Hollywood.

Four key senators abandon online piracy bills amid web protests
By Brendan Sasso and Gautham Nagesh - 01/18/12 02:56 PM ET

Congressional support for controversial online piracy legislation eroded dramatically on Wednesay in the face of an unprecedented online protest supported by tech titans such as Google, Wikipedia and Facebook.

Several key senators withdrew their support from the Senate's Protect IP Act, including Tea Party favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), an elected member of his party's leadership.

Sen. Jon Cornyn (R-Texas), who leads the Senate GOP campaign team, said the legislation should be put on hold, while Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a sponsor and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, retreated from the bill.

Thousands of websites went dark on Wednesday to protest the two Internet piracy bills, the House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate's Protect IP Act (PIPA). At least two California Democrats, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren, joined the protests by blacking out their web sites.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leader of Senate conservatives, also came out against the bills, calling them "misguided bills that will cause more harm than good."

"When protecting intellectual property rights, we must not undermine free speech, threaten economic growth, or impose burdensome regulations," DeMint tweeted.

Opposition is also building in the House. Two of the original Republican co-sponsors of SOPA, Ben Quayle (Ariz.) and Lee Terry (Neb.), withdrew their support Tuesday before the protests began, and scores of other lawmakers took to Twitter Wednesday to affirm their opposition.
The coordinated online protests are aimed at bringing down legislation that would empower the Justice Department and copyright holders to demand that search engines delete links to sites deemed to be “dedicated” to copyright infringement. Ad networks and payment processors would be prohibited from doing business with the sites.

Where the protests left the legislation, which is supported by the Motion Picture Association of America and recording industry, among other groups, is unclear. The Senate is scheduled to hold a procedural vote on the legislation next week, but it is uncertain whether the 60 votes to move forward can be found. The fight over the bills has broken across party lines, with House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) leading opposition in the House against Rep. Lamarr Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Hundreds of millions of Internet users, most of whom may have been unaware of the bills until Wednesday, are likely to have noticed the protests.

Google, the most visited site in the world, plastered a black box evoking censorship over its logo and claimed the bills would "censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American businesses." Users who click on the black box are re-directed to a petition urging Congress to drop the piracy legislation on a page.

Excerpt: Read More at The Hill

Time for more Republicans who are co-sponsoring these two bills in both Houses to stand up and withdraw their sponsorship and support. It is bad enough when Democrats want to do this but to have Republicans get on board is absolutely disgusting and they also should be sent to the unemployment line.

Marco Rubio is dropping his Co-Sponsorship of Protect IP

2012-01-18T14:03:00.000-06:00

This is great news that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is dropping his co-sponsorship of Protect IP Act in the Senate. We figured that he was not aware of just how bad this bill was and sure enough when he found out from the opposition to the Protect IP Act and SOPA, he is dropping his sponsorship of Protect IP. That says a lot about the 1st term Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, and the type of leader he will be in the future. He was willing to listen and then made an informed decision. That is totally refreshing.

Now if others would do the same, this Protect IP Act, it could be sent to the trash heap of history along with SOPA. Both have gone way too far and would harm the openness of the internet. We do not need big brother making the decision on websites and blogs when the current President and Congress cannot even pass a budget.

We believe that anyone sponsoring/co-sponsoring these two bills should be the target of a primary because they did not take the time to do the research of these bills and allowed lobbyists IMHO to dictate the bills. We all know that the Hollywood lobby could care less about rights of the people who live in Middle America and who are not about to have something like this passed without raising loud voices of concern. We know at least one Senator listened -- Marco Rubio.

Dear RedState Reader,

This morning I noted that we should primary Senators and Representatives on the left and right who refuse to back away from SOPA and Protect IP.

Included in the list of sponsors, unfortunately, was Senator Marco Rubio. I would hate, hate, haaattttteeeee to primary such a great guy. We spent a lot of time, energy, effort, and money getting him elected. But SOPA/Protect IP is that bad.

Now, I’ve made clear that we wouldn’t do this unless the left was on board too and I’ve only really heard crickets from them. But it was a threat so many of us felt needed to be made to emphasize just how bad this legislation is.

Today, about an hour ago, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida showed again why he is a real leader and listener within the conservative movement. He is dropping his co-sponsorship of Protect IP.

I hope other Republicans in the Senate follow his leadership on this issue. and please call Senator Rubio’s office and thank him for his leadership. His number is (202) 224-3041.

We often fight. We should also often say thanks.

Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

Senator Rubio posted his reasons for abandoning his co-sponsorship on Face several hours ago and we would hope that more of the co-sponsors would join him with the same decision:

Senator Marco Rubio
A Better Way to Fight the Online Theft of American Ideas and Jobs
By Senator Marco Rubio

In recent weeks, we’ve heard from many Floridians about the anti-Internet piracy bills making their way through Congress. On the Senate side, I have been a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act because I believe it’s important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy, much of it occurring overseas through rogue websites in China. As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs.

However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies.

Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy. Since then, we've heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.

Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the Protect IP Act. Furthermore, I encourage Senator Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet.

We note that Oklahoma's Senators Coburn and Inhofe, Alabama's Senators Shelby and Sessions, Kansas' Senators Roberts and Moran (withdrew as co-sponsor days after signing on), and Texas' Senators Cornyn and Hutchison are not on this list of 40 co-sponsors. That should tell you all you need to know about these two bills -- bad for the American people but great for Hollywood:

S.968

Latest Title: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 5/12/2011) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.R.3261

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 5/25/2011 (R)
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] - 6/27/2011 (R)
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] - 7/25/2011
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 10/19/2011
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 5/12/2011
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] - 5/23/2011 (R)
Sen Boozman, John [AR] - 6/15/2011 (R)
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 12/12/2011
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 10/20/2011
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 7/13/2011
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 9/7/2011
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 11/2/2011 (R)
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 6/23/2011 (R)
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] - 5/12/2011
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 6/9/2011 (R)
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 6/30/2011
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 9/7/2011 (R)
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 5/12/2011
Sen Franken, Al [MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 5/26/2011
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 5/12/2011 (R)
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 5/12/2011 (R)
Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] - 7/5/2011
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 5/12/2011 (R)
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 11/2/2011 (R)
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 10/3/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] - 5/12/2011
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 10/17/2011
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 7/7/2011
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 7/26/2011 (R)
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 10/31/2011
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 9/23/2011
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] - 11/7/2011 (R)
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] - 5/26/2011 (R))
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 5/12/2011
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] - 6/30/2011
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] - 7/7/2011
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 11/7/2011 (R)
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 5/12/2011
Sen Moran, Jerry [KS] - 6/23/2011(withdrawn - 6/27/2011) (R)

DEMOCRATS for SALE

Mitt Romney, Loose Cannon

GroundHog Day 2012 -- Six More Weeks of Winter

Groundhog Day 2012: Punxsutawney Phil emerges from his burrow

CNN Breaking News: Donald Trump to Endorse Mitt Romney in Las Vegas

Are Wind Farms Making Nearby Residents Ill?

Romney’s Gaffe About the ‘Very Poor’ -- OOPS!

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

Alerts

Voters are Ready to Provide the Solution to Government Waste

The Hill: Lawmakers say base closures DOA

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

Florida Primary - My Two Cents!

Joe Scarborough: The Newt I know

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.

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

CEI: Obama and the Chevy Volt

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

Wes Pruden: Off to the moon with randy Newt

The Truth on Gingrich is Finally Coming Out

Rubio Blasts Gingrich TV Ad as "Inflammatory" and "Inaccurate"

Washington Times Fact Check on Obama State of the Union

McCain blasts Gingrich on earmarks

Wall Street Journal Hits Two Homes Following State of the Union

Gov Fallin (R-OK) Reacts to State of the Union Address

Scott Brown for Senate in Massachusetts

GOP lawmakers mark 1,000 days since last Senate budget

Editorial Cartoon of the Day!

None of the Above after Reading Fact Check on the Debate!

Brown, Warren agree to anti-super-PAC pledge, other candidates could follow

Sen. Mark Kirk suffers stroke, undergoes surgery for swelling

Carville to GOP: You have a disaster on your hands

Big Government: Incompetence, Mismanagement Hamper Republican Conference

Tech Dirt: MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought

.With Hours to Decide, Few Are Willing to Commit

Weekly Republican Address 1/21/12: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

GOP chairman, Lamar Smith, shelves Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

None of the Above!

Mickey, Minnie, and the Gang can vote again in 2012?

Cong Steve King Statement on Keystone Pipeline

Email Comments from Governor Perry on Suspending his Campaign

Email from Governor Perry:

Today I am suspending my campaign for President.

Thank you Governor Perry!

Four key (Republican) senators abandon online piracy bills amid web protests

Marco Rubio is dropping his Co-Sponsorship of Protect IP

Senator Marco Rubio

S.968