Results from March 13 Republican President Primary -- Is There a Deal in the Making?

Alabama Primary

98.4% precincts reporting

Candidate	Votes	Pct.	Del.
Santorum	212,343	34.5%	18
Gingrich	179,919	29.3%	12
Romney	178,601	29.0%	11
Paul	30,494	5.0%
Others	13,583	2.2%

50 delegates

Mississippi Primary

99.3% precincts reporting

Candidate	Votes	Pct.	Del.
Santorum	93,201	32.9%	13
Gingrich	88,711	31.3%	12
Romney	85,941	30.3%	12
Paul	12,498	4.4%
Others	3,037	1.1%

40 delegates

Hawaii Caucus

100% precincts reporting

Candidate	Votes	Pct.	Del.
Romney	4,250	45.4%	9
Santorum	2,369	25.3%	4
Paul	1,712	18.3%	1
Gingrich	1,034	11.0%

20 delegates

When you take a look at those numbers, it jumps out that if you add up the conservative numbers of Santorum and Gingrich in almost every Romney is getting scorched.  The lack of voters in Hawaii is joke to even be mentioned.  Why are states and territories with such few people voting awarding that number of delegates.  RNC needs to revamp the way delegates are awarded including giving states who went RED in the last election more delegates and taking ones away from BLUE states.

Are Republicans going to nominate someone that cannot get the conservative vote.  Would bet at least 50% of the current conservative votes against Romney will never go to him after his 'scorched earth' policy against our candidates. 

 In 2008, most of us swallowed hard and supported McCain/Palin but that is not happening this time.  Most conservatives have had it with the power brokers inside the beltway for the Republican Party that want to shove the liberal Romney at us.  You cannot believe a word the man says about where he stands as he panders for votes like using y'all in Mississippi and talking about grits is the perfect example.  Does he even knew what grits looked like?  

Over the last month the words inevitable have been used to describe Romney which is a code word to get over it, shut up, sit down, and vote for the nominee Romney.  That's the attitude we are seeing on the net and in the media from the Romney camp.  They are choosing to ignore that figures don't lie as evidenced yesterday in two states that the pollsters told us that Romney was going to win going away as he was up ten points.  They wish that was the case but the voters had a different message to send.  They don't want Romney as the candidate when you take the numbers from the other three and add them together.  He has a threshold he has only broken once and that was in the Nevada caucus where he got over 50%.  If Romney is not in a state with a lot of Mormons, he doesn't do well.

Never heard evangelicals turned off so much to a Republican candidate as they are to Romney.  After all this time, he is still not attracting conservative votes in large numbers.  Yesterday afternoon I received an email from the RNC which was telling. The subject:  Don’t Abandon Your Party which was a plea for donations shows that the RNC IMHO is getting a lot of  'not donating' remarks when they call.  I am one of them.  After the debacle they have made of his primary, why would I donate one red cent to that organization where the chair seems more concerned about the WI Recall for Governor then he does anything.  

One big problem is electing a Chair from a state that goes blue for President instead of getting a good conservative to head the RNC who is the best person for the job even if they were not a former member of the RNC.  This Chair was behind all the debates with almost all liberal moderators that was done to showcase the Rockefeller establishment nominee Romney until the other candidates got wise and went after Romney on facts and now it is no more debates.  My note back to the RNC was to ask when Florida was going to proportion their delegates like the rest of us who voted before 1 April.

Another problem I see out of this primary is reporting caucus votes like they are real delegate votes when the delegates are not chosen until the convention so they should not be counted until the State Conventions have met and chosen their delegates.  In some places the site will count delegates for Romney out of the caucus states but not for Santorum.  Little bias there leading to the inevitable mantra from the Romney camp.  

Today there is an article out from the Gingrich camp talking about the way to stop Romney is to cut a deal:

Gingrich plan to block Romney may result in a deal for delegates
By Cameron Joseph 

Newt Gingrich's plan to keep Mitt Romney from winning the necessary delegates for the GOP nomination means the presidential contenders may have to form a deal in order to avoid a brokered convention, a leading Gingrich surrogate told The Hill. 

Former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) said an agreement between the candidates would be preferable to taking the fight to the convention floor in Tampa this August. 

“If the four candidates that are involved decide to somehow put delegates together to make somebody the nominee based on the delegates they've earned I don't think I'd call that a backroom deal,” he said. “A brokered convention [could] go against the wishes of all the voters and maybe pick someone who wasn't even running. No one I know wants a brokered convention.”

Gingrich has publicly stated that his goal is to keep Romney from winning the 1,144 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination. 

Read the story here.

If you believe that Gingrich is talking about all four candidates sitting down to determine the nominee, then that swamp land is still for sale in AZ.  No way would Gingrich cut a deal with Romney.  If there is a deal after the voting ends in June, it is going to come from Gingrich and Santorum.  I would expect Ron Paul to take his few delegate votes to Romney UNLESS he thinks that would hurt the chances of his son, Rand Paul, running for the nomination in the years to come.  If he decides that would hurt Rand, look for him to join the Gingrich/Santorum deal.  Yesterday I saw a Santorum/Gingrich ticket discussed on several sites after the Santorum win in AL and MS.  Now that would be an interesting turn of events.  

My second question would be why anyone would interview Bob Smith the former Senator from NH or in fact, anyone from New England unless you wanted to make sure that Romney was mentioned in the deal?  First of all, Smith became an independent like Romney was so his credibility in the Republican Party is pretty nil.  The only camp I can see talking to him would be Romney.  

The thought of Newt Gingrich being over the Senate makes me laugh.  Senators would not know what hit them with Gingrich fulfilling the constitutional duties of the VP to reside over the Senate.  I can see him taking the gavel a lot more times then we have seen in the recent past.  Would love to see Gingrich gavel Reid out of order.   Just the thought of seeing the establishment go nuts would be enough to make me support a Santorum/Gingrich ticket.  Then there is the little detail of the Obama opposition research being done on Romney which would have to have them switch gears.  

Will Republicans nominate a Santorum/Gingrich ticket instead of bowing to pressure to nominate Romney?  Stay tuned as this could get interesting.

Rick Perry to run for president, spokesman says

When I posted this morning I thought the announcement was going to be at the Red State gathering no one I know would take that bet as they agreed. What a day -- stock market is up, Perry is running for President and officially jumps in the race this weekend, tonight is the first preseason game of the NFL, and the Big 12 is blowing up against thanks to the arrogance of ESPN, Texas, and the Longhorn network. Great day for politics and sports.

CBS just had to throw in the dart at the Governor:

Perry, who participated last Saturday in a controversial prayer and fasting event in Houston

What was controversial about it -- that Rick Perry is a Christian who is not afraid to pray for our Nation and our President in front of over 30,000 people and countless more on broadcast to churches around the Country?  Does that bother CBS?

Rick Perry to run for president, spokesman says
(CBS/AP)
Updated at 4:40 p.m. ET\ 

A spokesman for the Texas Republican governor tells the Associated Press that Rick Perry is running for president. 

The announcement of his presidential bid is expected to come Saturday. On that day, Perry will deliver a speech in South Carolina, at a RedState conference in Charleston, and then plans to travel to the key early voting state of New Hampshire. 

On Sunday, Perry will speak at a Republican fundraiser in Iowa for the Black Hawk County Republicans, his campaign confirmed to the CBS News earlier this week.  

His decision to travel to the crucial first-in-the-nation voting state signals that he plans to compete aggressively there for the Republican presidential nomination. 

Perry's entry into the race is sure to draw attention away from the Iowa straw poll in Ames on Saturday, which traditionally has a significant impact on the Republican presidential race. Perry is not on the straw poll ballot. 

The Texas governor is expected to immediately jump to the top tier of contenders for the nomination if he enters the race, in part because he has support from both the Republican establishment and the social and fiscal conservatives. 

Perry, who participated last Saturday in a controversial prayer and fasting event in Houston, has spent recent weeks meeting behind closed-doors with potential donors and supporters about the possibility of a presidential run.

In a recent interview with Time magazine, Perry said that former President George W. Bush -- who preceded Perry as Texas governor -- has been advising him on the decision. 

"He said, 'You'll do what's right,'" Perry said, of a June conversation with the former president. 

"He said, you don't want to wake up when you're 70 and go, 'I wish I had tried that. I wish I had done that.'" 

Questioned about the strength of his conservative credentials, Perry said he didn't think there was "any doubt" that he was at least as conservative as every other candidate in the race - if not more so. 

"I've got a record. And that record, particularly when it comes to the most important issues in this campaign, which is creating the climate of America that gives incentives to job creators to risk their capital and create jobs for our citizens, I will put that up against anybody who's running and particularly against this President we have today, whose jobs record is abysmal," he said.   

Source:  CBS News

Pleased to see the part about Governor Perry talking to President George W Bush about this decision.  We knew his wife had spoken to Laura Bush earlier.  We cannot think of a better person to go to when you are thinking about this decision because President Bush was also Governor of Texas who loved his job in Texas but felt a higher calling to run for President.   Felt the same way then as the candidates in the race before he entered did not excite me.  This time it is even better as I actually agree with Governor Perry even more with his stance on the issues.

GOP debate winners: Romney, Bachmann and Rick Perry

Interesting headline this morning. Even though Klein uses Rick Perry's name as he says for a stand-in for someone who might get in the race late, most of us know that Rick Perry would go to the lead 'if' he gets in the race following the special session of the Texas legislature which ends on 30 June 2011.

There is no "WOW" factor with any of these candidates. We have a candidate with executive experience but no government experience, two former Governors, a former Speaker of the House, two House Members, and a former Senator. If anyone can find a "WOW" factor with this group, then the bar is pretty low for a GOP candidate. It is not to say they are not nice people but in today's climate, a lot of voters are affected by that "WOW" factor. Ask yourself if Obama would be afraid to go up against any of this group?

Republicans have gone after Obama for his lack of executive experience so experience in the eyes of the Democrats is very low on the list. I would like to think that Republicans are better than that and value executive experience as a key factor in electing a candidate to oppose Obama. Also believe that experience as a Governor is much higher on the list then that of a member of Congress. Let's look at the candidates currently in the race.

Mitt Romney was a one term Governor of Massachusetts who helped bring in universal healthcare to MA and caused a lot of doctors to leave. He ran the Olympics with the help of the Mormon Church putting pressure on an OK Congressman to take light rail and road money and move it from Oklahoma to Utah for the Olympics. Romney is too liberal for most of us. Most of us have no desire to have our nominee be from liberal Massachusetts where he got along just fine with the legislature which is overwhelmingly Democrat. There is a reason friends in MA do not support him for President and in 2008 went to NH to work for McCain. He is being pushed by the media as the best chance to beat Obama -- might want to think twice when the Obama media is pushing a candidate.

Tim Pawlenty, the two term Governor of Minnesota, was able to accomplish more in Minnesota than most of us thought possible as we was up against a heavily Democrat legislature. He was reelected and has the credentials to be President based on his record but there is something lacking in his presentation and needs to do a better job in debates. The "WOW" factor was missing in last night's debate according to what we have been reading, but he has the credentials and has some really good ideas on how to jumpstart the economy.

Herman Cain is the one person in the race with executive experience and no government experience. He has some great ideas but is lacking in knowledge of how government works like saying he would only sign a bill that is three pages or less. For starters Budget/Appropriation bills that go the President for signature have to be huge bills because of all the data they contain on how money is to be spent. After the last few years we need someone who can hit the ground running as President and not have on the job training.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and policy wonk, should not be running after his debacle during the impeachment of Bill Clinton when he left the House in disgrace. After leaving the House, Newt and Hillary got together on healthcare and Newt and Nancy Pelosi got to together on climate change and he wants to be the Republican nominee?

Ron Paul, member of the House, running again to get out his message that probably 95% or more of the Country could care less as some of his ideas are out of the mainstream of conservatives especially on the military.

Michelle Bachmann, member of the House, presents herself well but has a lack of depth when it comes to experience. Kind of odd to see her portray herself as this big conservative on the budget when she stands with a lot of others wanting pork and earmarks. She also could not get many members of Congress to support her in the House for the Conference Chair. If the people who work with you, won't support you, then it makes a person wonder. She wasn't elected to the House until 2006 so there is not even that much Federal experience. The past year she formed the Tea Party Caucus in the House. Frankly, we are part of the group who believe the Tea Party should have remained in local control and no politician should be involved as heading any part of the Tea Party.

Rick Santorum, former Senator, was defeated in 2006 when Republicans lost a lot of good Senators. He was defeated by a Democrat who was just as pro-life as Santorum or at least said he was. Santorum is considered part of the religious and social conservative part of the GOP. Since losing his Senate seat, Santorum has given speeches and worked at a conservative think tank and as a cable news channel commentator.

There you have our current crop of candidates and to be honest, we would support the Republican for President but don't believe this group has the ability to unite Republicans in a way to take on Obama and the Democrats and make our candidate have long coattails. That is why so many people are asking Rick Perry to get in the race -- he has the "WOW" factor when he speaks and he has already taking on Obama several times as Governor of Texas.

Last year at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) his speech made you wish he would announce right then that he was running for President. Only two people gave really good speeches at the SRLC last year -- Perry and Mike Pence who is now running for Indiana Governor.

After reading about last night's debate, no doubt in my mind that Republicans and this Country need Rick Perry in the race to enthuse the Republicans across the board. This time the Republican grassroots are going to bring along the establishment Republicans in DC and other places. Anyone who says that Rick Perry is an establishment candidate doesn't know Texas politics.

We have been wondering who would run as the VP candidate with Rick Perry or any of our candidates. Marsha Blackburn, House Member from Tennessee, was the first name that popped in my head. She has been in our state to speak but when I really noticed her was during the Obamacare Summit. That's when we also learned to know Paul Ryan. Blackburn held her own against Obama and the Democrats and came across as very knowledgeable on healthcare. Since 2007, Blackburn has not made a special spending request in federal budget earmarks. She is conservative on both economic and social issues. Blackburn is currently the Vice Chair on the Commerce Subcommittee for Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. Since a lot of people would like to see a Republican woman candidate on the ticket, why not look at Marsha Blackburn?

GOP debate winners: Romney, Bachmann and Rick Perry

By: Philip Klein 06/13/11 10:37 PM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein

Mitt Romney has tremendous vulnerabilities as a presidential candidate, but those weaknesses won’t matter unless one of his rivals tries to exploit them. Tonight, he skated past questions on the health care law he signed as governor and on his record of flip-flopping on abortion, because none of his opponents were willing to challenge him.

This made for an especially weak showing by Tim Pawlenty, who talked tough in a television appearance on Fox News Sunday when he used the term “Obamneycare” to describe the Obama/Romney approach to health care. But when given a chance, repeatedly, to elaborate, Pawlenty wimped out. In addition to letting Romney get away with his flawed explanations for his disastrous health care legislation in Massachusetts, Pawlenty came off looking weak – like the guy who criticizes you behind your back and cowers in front of your face. It was sort of like Ronald Reagan’s “I am paying for this microphone” moment in New Hampshire, only in reverse.

During the 2008 campaign, one of the biggest problems Romney had was that he built up resentment among his rivals by not only reversing himself on a host of issues, but then attacking all his opponents for being insufficiently conservative on the issues he had just converted on. This came back to haunt him down the stretch, particularly as Mike Huckabee and John McCain effectively teamed up against Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire. But tonight, Romney was affable, and complimentary to all of his rivals, and specifically to Pawlenty. This had a disarming effect, and it also allowed him to concentrate his fire on the real opponent, President Obama.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who announced during the debate that she would be running for president, also had a strong showing. Though she’s portrayed in the media as a lightweight, she came across polished, knowledgeable and quite comfortable during the debate. The only thing that had me a bit confused was when she said that she wouldn’t interfere with a state that wanted to legalize gay marriage, but yet she’d support a federal marriage amendment. The 2004 version of that amendment read, “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” If Bachmann catches fire, it could be particularly damaging to Pawlenty, who needs a strong showing in Iowa have a chance against Romney.

None of the other candidates on stage: Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Herman Cain particularly distinguished themselves.

In my headline, I named Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who didn’t participate, as another winner in the debate. And by mentioning Perry, I use him as a stand-in for any other Republican candidate who may be contemplating a late entry in the race. Romney may have established himself as the frontrunner tonight, but he remains incredibly vulnerable. So there’s still a huge opening for another candidate.
.
Read more at the : Washington Examiner