Are GOP State Conventions Breaking Rules for Romney Against Ron Paul?k

Having been through two Republican State Conventions in 2008 and 2009 that were horrible with the shouting and the disagreements, this doesn't shock me at all.  It has been waiting to happen but it went too far this time on the part of the establishment the way it looks in order to get Romney the delegates.

Here in my own precinct in 2008 I gave up my precinct chair as I was working in campaigns and frankly nothing ever happens in my precinct.  The person who replaced me at the precinct meeting I was fine with -- really nice person and didn't realize he was a Paul supporter UNTIL after the names were turned in and discovered he didn't live in the precinct so he was ineligible.  The County Chair got mad at me for daring to question him when he appointed someone instead of us calling another precinct meeting to vote.  But then he was the County chair after I served as the Vice Chair of the County who put a Democrat on his ticket who hadn't registered as a Republican and another person who was not a resident of our County which we found out later and they were removed so his time as County Chair started off bad and ended bad.  Seemed like a nice guy but inept.

Been debating whether to post this article but frankly as am seeing the same thing happen around other states, the person is right that the Romney/establishment people want to disenfranchise the Paul people but looks like it is also Santorum and Gingrich by giving all the delegates to Romney even though he didn't win them all in my state.  Doesn't seem to make some people any difference.  Rules are mad to be broken it looks like.

If I didn't know better and read the article, I would have thought he was talking about a Democrat Convention but he wasn't.  This is what having Romney for the nominee is making it worse in states like mine where Republican leaders have to turn into pretzels to support him or they are more moderate then they portrayed themselves.  I find this whole fiasco sickening and am asking myself once why I am a Republican when the Governor of my State refers to Ron Paul people as "Obama lovers" which I was shocked to learn. Frankly most of us supporters for other candidates thought Ron Paul was way too cozy with Mitt Romney.  Personally think this is uncalled for out of a Governor when these are legitimate delegates which is more than can be said for some of the Romney people.  A Governor represents all the people not just Republicans and the same can be said for Democrat Governors.   Today politics seems to trump all!

Ron Paul people didn't physically attack other delegates like the Romney people either at this Convention.  Something is wrong with this Republican Party that started when the RNC Chair Priebus took over and is getting worse.  The RNC is beholding to big donors who are out to buy this election for Mitt Romney.

It is beyond disgusting and last night I actually went to see what the Reform Party platform was not even knowing if I could vote for them in OK because I live in one of the most restrictive states to get on the ballot -- Oklahoma.  I have also looked at the Libertarian Platform.  I like the former Republican Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson who is running on the Libertarian ticket.  I also like Buddy Roemer, former Republican Governor of Louisiana who looks to be in the lead for the Reform Party nomination.  Does it strike you odd that two former Republican Governors are running in third parties after they were candidates for the GOP nomination but in Roemer's case he was kept out of all debates and Johnson they only let in two until Perry got in the race.

Why didn't the RNC want Perry, Roemer, and Johnson all either a current or former Republican Governor from the southern part of the Country on stage with their MA hero Romney?  You can also throw in John Huntsman, former Governor of Utah, into the mix who was ignored by the media which we assume now was at the direction of Karl Rove.

Will someone tell me why any conservative should remain a Republican because the leadership of Republicans in the Senate and House show they are not for limited government which is what most of us believe.  Former Majority Leader of the Senate Trent Lott went so far as to state recently that they have to change the minds of new members who believe in limited government.  Knew I didn't like Lott but it sure explains why he didn't like the former Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles.

Why are Republicans this time so quick to break the rules for Romney?  Have they morphed into Democrats?

Oklahoma GOP continues national trend of disenfranchising Paul supporters Published: 5:31 PM 05/17/2012

The shenanigans I witnessed at the Oklahoma State Republican Convention a few days ago ranged from petty, to absurd, to unjust, to downright violent, irreparably damaging the legitimacy of the Oklahoma Republican Party leadership and, by extension, the Republican presidential nominating process those leaders so brazenly abused. 

Over the past several days, social and news media erupted with clips of Ron Paul supporters being physically assaulted by Mitt Romney followers and of Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin being drowned out by chants of “Ron Paul!” after pejoratively referring to Paul and his supporters in attendance as “Obama lovers.” As is often the case in today’s media, however, the most sensational controversies that erupted in Norman, OK, on May 12 were also the least consequential. Tensions run high, passions run deep. Heated exchanges and a raucous atmosphere are inevitable. Such behavior, while not altogether acceptable, is at least understandable. 

The real story that should come out of the convention is the state party’s abdication of its most basic responsibilities toward the convened delegates and toward dissenting voices within the Republican Party.
A sampling of the more egregious violations of party and convention rules: 

● Delegates checking into the convention were not asked to show ID to collect their badges. Aside from the obvious potential for manipulation in such a loose credentialing process, it struck many of us as odd that a party hell-bent on pushing voter ID laws couldn’t be bothered to ID voters at its own convention. 

● The delegates were seated around 11:00 a.m., but the convention was delayed while “problems” with the credentials were handled. The credentialing committee eventually did present its report around 1:30 p.m. (roughly three hours late). At this time, there were approximately 1,200 delegates, according to the report. After the reading of the credentials report, State Vice-Chair Pam Pollard admitted that the count was inaccurate and that there were some 22 delegates that needed to be added due to some confusion at the county level. When the new counts were announced, more than 200 delegates had been added. Points of order were made regarding this. They were dismissed. No motion was ever made to properly amend the credentials report and no vote was ever taken accepting the final report. As a result, those delegates should have never been seated. The party leaders opted to move on without a proper vote on or acceptance of the credentials. Ultimately, the permanent roll of the convention was not certified until roughly 6:00 p.m. 

● The election of 25 delegates and 25 alternates to the Republican National Convention (the primary purpose of the convention) was conducted by voice vote and standing vote, in clear violation of party rules. State Party Rule 18.D explicitly states, “Election of the Delegates-at-Large and Alternates-at- Large shall be by roll call vote.” That plainly did not happen, and points of order demanding the rules be followed were simply ignored. This rule is as plain as it gets, and the party has yet to offer any explanation. As a result, and in order to prevent the entire delegation from being discredited by the RNC, those of us who continued the convention outside held a proper roll call vote (by written ballot) on the delegate slates at approximately 7:00 p.m. 

● Massive improprieties that occurred at the Congressional District 1 (Tulsa area) convention were brought to the floor at about 4:45 p.m. (ironically, the biggest impropriety in the CD1 convention was the refusal of its chair to take a roll call vote as required by the rules). Before a proper vote could be taken, hotel personnel (on orders from the GOP, a hotel employee told us) began moving mobile partitions into the room, literally blocking roughly a third of the delegates (including the very delegates whose district was at issue) from the view of Oklahoma GOP Chair Matt Pinnell, Convention Chair Marc Nuttle, and the rest of the room. Incredibly, Nuttle held a vote on how to resolve the District 1 issue while many delegates from District 1 were behind a wall and out of Nuttle’s view. Matt Pinnell spoke in favor of tabling the issue, and, unsurprisingly, Pinnell got his way on that vote. Appeals and calls for a division of the house (i.e., a formal vote) were not heard, in violation of the rules. 

● With the walls still shutting out a third of the convention, Pinnell entertained a motion to adjourn the convention. The motion clearly failed the voice vote. Undeterred by the wall preventing a third of the convention from being seen, Nuttle then ordered a standing vote on the motion, from which he promptly declared the motion passed, absconded from the stage, and turned out the lights as he fled the room (As you can see here, the panels move into place on the left side, and the motion to adjourn obviously fails both the voice vote and the standing count before the lights go out). Having never properly adjourned the convention, both Nuttle and Pinnell abdicated, leaving the delegates to continue with business in the parking lot. 

That is by no means an exhaustive list of improprieties on the part of the Oklahoma Republican Party. The entire process was riddled with a pernicious mixture of corruption and incompetence. There were hundreds more votes cast and counted than there were delegates in the hall, and Pinnell repeatedly disregarded the most explicit rules, and the delegates were forced into the parking lot in order for any official business to be done properly. 

Excerpt:  Read more:  The Daily Caller

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.

Follow-up to the Debate last night in Mesa, Arizona

Have to admit that I watched the University of Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball team beat the OSU Cowboys instead of the debate.  We won so it was definitely worth it to watch the Sooners win last night versus watching a debate and getting irritated.

Sounds like the debate had plenty to get irritated about as the crowd was on the side of Romney because the biased RNC chose Mesa, AZ, to hold the debate:

The crowd leaned to Mitt Romney. It was probably inevitable. Mesa, AZ is the second largest concentration of Mormons in America and the State Republican Party handled getting the seats filled. It threw Rick Santorum off his game. The crowd booed Santorum taking on Romneycare’s individual mandate.

Imagine that -- RNC favoring Romney!  (sarcasm) Must admit that Romney refusing to answer a question was a shocker should show American just how arrogant of a candidate Romney is today.  Here is the tough question he refused to answer:

"What is the biggest misconception the public has about you?" 

Yesterday during Piers Morgan Tonight, Governor Chris Christie said that one of the biggest misconceptions about Mitt Romney is that he is frigid, and that he instead possesses “enormous compassion.” He gave an articulate and straightforward response to his candidate’s shortcomings. Tonight, Romney had to answer that question about himself, and began to talk about the budget and other such things for so long that John King had to hop in and remind him that he was asked what the biggest misconception of him was. For this insolence, Romney struck him down: “You ask the questions you want; I give the answers I want.”

What kind of an answer is that to a simple question of the biggest misconception people have about Romney. With his refusal to answer, maybe there are no misconceptions and our being highly suspicious of him as a conservative and where he stands on issues are right on the mark -- he is a moderate to liberal.   Total arrogance on the part of Romney who thinks he is above the rest of the candidates except for Ron Paul who he needs to help win the nomination, and then he will throw him under the bus.

Romney also said last night he supported school vouchers but the truth:

Romney claimed to be a long time proponent of school choice, but he opposed school vouchers as Governor of Massachusetts and the Boston Hereald noted Romney refused to ever meet with the head of the Massachusetts Charter School Association while in the Governor’s Mansion.

Romney cannot get through a debate without lying and being arrogant and obnoxious.

Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com weighed in on last night's debate:

Perhaps it’s fitting that the last debate of the season — we all hope and pray — ended up in the hands of the one candidate who mastered the format during the entire cycle. Newt Gingrich learned his lesson in Florida that his formula for debates was what worked, and that means staying positive, remaining “cheerful” rather than angry, and attacking only Barack Obama and the media. That formula allowed Gingrich to mostly steer clear of the internecine arguments that cropped up between Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, while speaking at length to the little in substance that actually came up at the depressingly repetitive debate.

We couldn't agree with Morrissey more that the debates are repetitive.  Why watch them?  RNC blew the debates like they are blowing this campaign.  That happens when you do everything for one candidate -- Mitt Romney.

The reason I am posting a portion of the email I received from the Santorum campaign this morning is the description of what the Romney campaign has been doing and how Romney takes credit for what he was required to do as Governor which is a follow-up to the debate from the Santorum campaign.

Sharon, 

This campaign has a pattern. You rise up in the polls and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and their campaign of negative attacks try to beat you down. It happened to Newt after South Carolina and now it's happening to me. Let me tell you what I really think about the attacks: I'm not backing down. 

Incredibly, the New York Times said it best last night: 

"But Mr. Santorum, unlike other Republican opponents whom Mr. Romney has targeted during this unwieldy primary battle, did not recoil. He returned the attacks as forcefully as they were delivered, arguing that the health care plan Mr. Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts would complicate the party's effort to criticize President Obama's health care plan. He also dismissed Mr. Romney's argument that he balanced the Massachusetts budget." 

"Don't go around bragging about something you have to do," Mr. Santorum said. "Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years. Does that make him qualified to be president of the United States? I don't think so." 

Since our wins in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and Iowa, Mitt's campaign and Super PAC are spending millions of dollars attacking me with negative ads distorting my conservative record in Congress. But these attacks don't change the fact, that I am a principled conservative and Mitt Romney is not. Ultimately the truth is not complicated.

Note:  If you would like a copy of the email, please send me a request at truesoft.474@gmail.com as I will be most happy to forward.

Bottom line is that these debates have showcased a Republican Party that is getting more split by the day.  The establishment types have tried to force the moderate to liberal Romney dressed up as a conservative on the conservative base who has no trouble spotting an impostor like Romney.  We would have thought they would have learned in 1996 but then 2008 happened and now 2012.  If the Republican Party establishment doesn't change its ways, it might have a much smaller number of people to deal with in the future so they can name their candidate and everyone falls in line.  Not happening with Romney and now some are starting to panic.  They should have thought about that when they did 'scorched earth' against fellow Republicans whose supporters are not forgetting how underhanded the Romney camp was against any candidate that close to Romney.

Why is Ron Paul helping Mitt Romney?

This is no shock as some of us figured out some time ago that Paul was helping Romney which is annoying his Paulbot supporters to no end.  In fact, some have actually turned on him now with their finally waking up to the fact that Paul has sold out to Romney.  Is Paul the one who got Michelle Bachmann to be the vicious attack dog against Rick Perry for Romney.  Beginning to look like that is why she went after Perry so hard as she has been a supporter of Ron Paul in the House.

Now for the $64,000 question -- what does Romney have on Ron Paul or what has he promised Paul because this makes no sense at all.  Philosophically they are not close so what is the reason for Paul when he was cheated in Nevada and now in Maine by the Romney camp to still support Romney?  After learning that the Super PAC of Romney is headed by Larry McCarthy who did the Willie Horton ad against Dukakis, I would believe anything.  

This follows along with the details of Tim Pawlenty paying off his campaign debt for 2012:

Former Minnesota Governor and Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty paid off his 2012 campaign’s debt, according to recent FEC reports filed over the weekend. 

According to Politic, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner, and his family members joined with several Bain Capital officials to assist Mr. Pawlenty in retiring his debt last year, federal records show. Mr. Romney previously ran Bain Capital, and has faced scrutiny in the past months over his dealings with the venture capital firm. 

Mr. Pawlenty, who endorsed Mr. Romney in late 2011, dropped out of the 2012 race following the results of the Iowa caucus.

Looks like Romney liked Pawlenty phone calls against Santorum that were not factual so now he has paid off his debt.  Was this a pay off for an endorsement of Romney by Pawlenty?  I really thought Pawlenty had more class than that but some people will do anything for money.  Now I wish I had not supported him at the beginning.  Was Bachmann also the attack dog for Paul (Romney) to take out Pawlenty?  How much did Bachmann get out of all of this.

This seems to be a corrupt Republican primary so far as Romney will do anything to get the nomination and could care less about ethics or the future of the Republican Party.  This is all about Romney and the rich who surround him which is where he gets most of his campaign contributions.  Now he has Donald Trump out raising money for him who is saying if Romney is not the nominee then he is going to run.  He has done a 180 because it used to be Newt.  Now he is firmly in the Romney camp this week.  Makes your heard spin with all the flip flopping around the Romney camp.

Paulbots on line are not happy right now that Paul will not fight against the voter irregularities in NV and ME when his votes are not being counted for now.  One thing is definite that Ron Paul sold out to Romney but "WHY?" is the question.

Is Ron Paul helping Mitt Romney?
The State Column | Tuesday, February 21, 2012

It seems Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul is assisting former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s bid for the Republican nomination. 

According to NBC News, the Paul campaign is passing around opposition research to the Romney campaign, focusing on thwarting former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum’s rise in the polls. 

The report is the latest making the rounds. The New York Times reported earlier this week that Mr. Paul and Mr. Romney have developed a close friendship during the 2012 campaign, with the Texas Republican saying he discusses a number of issues with the Massachusetts Republican.

“I talk to Romney more than the rest on a friendly basis,” Mr. Paul said. ”I throw Romney’s name out because he’s made a bigger attempt to do it. The others are sort of just real flat.” 

With Mr. Santorum potentially on the brink of upsetting Mr. Romney in state of Michigan next week, the Paul campaign is targeting the former Pennsylvania senator for what it says is hypocrisy. The Paul campaign released an ad on Tuesday, attacking Mr. Santorum’s support of a number of policies that the Paul campaign said lead Republican voters to question the Pennsylvania Republican’s conservatism. 

Titled “Fake,” the Paul ad highlights Mr. Santorum’s support for raising the debt ceiling, his backing of the expansion of the Department of Education and his support for No Child Left Behind. It even accuses him of sending billions of dollars in aid to North Korea.

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2012/02/21/is-ron-paul-helping-mitt-romney/#ixzz1n49L2xOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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





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


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

Wall Street Journal Hits Two Homes Following State of the Union

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.  

None of the Above!

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.

Iowa Caucus Day

We have returned from the Valley of the Sun and ready to go back already. This time the weather cooperated in Tempe for the Insight Bowl. We were warmer sitting out at night this year then we were inside the Fiesta Bowl dome last year when it was so cold. Everything about Tempe and the Scottsdale area were awesome. The Insight Bowl was handled much better in Tempe then the Fiesta Bowl last year. In fact the New Year's Even Fiesta Bowl party is held in Tempe. The trip was awesome and so happy to get away from here for a few days and from politics.

Don't know one Republican who is happy with Iowa and the mess that has been happening there. The media has way too much control over this primary. The dirty tricks and attacks against candidates other than Romney on behalf of the establishment led by Bush 41 and others are as disgusting as I have witnessed since the Reagan/Bush fight in 1980. Funny how on the Bush 41 side it is the same bunch of low life consultants who now support Romney.

The Dole/Bush 41 endorsements for Romney proves the establishment is firmly behind him and everything we have been speculating is true about the establishment in this election. Look at the people who have endorsed Romney -- many of the elected officials or 2010 candidates were heavily supported by Rove's Crossroads and Romney in the 2010/2011 elections -- can you say Christi, Hailey, O'Donnell for starters? Pawlenty was promised help with his finances and a job at Fox News to endorse Romney according to sources -- that didn't work out too well for him did it?  Did Rove and the establishment dry up Pawlenty fundraising?  Funny thing is if he had stayed in the race, there is a good chance he could have won Iowa which is most likely why Rove and company got him out of the race.

This Republican Primary seems to be turning into the establishment trying to take back the Republican Party from the conservatives. If Romney gets the nomination, you will see a giant exodus from the Republican Party by conservatives. I have never seen a more underhanded, dirty treatment of candidates who are not Romney by the media and the Romney Bush 41 group of establishment types then I have in 2011/2012. Thought it was bad in 2008 but that doesn't hold a candle to 2012. Rove and his friends have down a real job of taking out other candidates one by one with lies, planted stories, and phony polls to leave the liberal Romney standing.

If Romney is the nominee, there will be a strong third party challenger and you can take that to the bank. This is one site which remains conservative and will not support Mitt Romney under any circumstance. His policies could be as bad in some cases as Obama. He is not conservative and the Mormon Church has way too much power over him.

Romney comes from a background of entitlement and greed shown by his willingness as head of Bain Capital to buy up companies, lay off employees, and send the jobs overseas long before it was fashionable. He comes from a Church whose bank they use, Zions Bankcorp, laundered at least $13B in drug money and drew a $7M fine which as buried in the news. Bain Capitol bought Clear Channel Communications before the last election where all the so-called conservative pundits for the most part reside and have sold-out to Romney for the most part. Hannity is turning into one of the most disgusting pundits on the air from the conservative viewpoint.

Any candidate who puts their son's missions for the Mormon Church or working the Romney campaign in 2008 on the same level as serving in the military will never get my vote or support.  I know I speak for a lot of others who hold the same view. Many conservatives vowed in 2008 never to hold their nose again to vote for an establishment candidate.  From talking to some of them and viewing their comments, believe they will walk from the Republican Party if Romney is the nominee. No one I know is donating money to the RNC and will not until it is cleaned out, and the RNC proves they are honest brokers. Now I think one of the primary reasons to get rid of Steele, which unfortunately I supported, was to get the establishment puppet Preibus in place from Wisconsin.  Did Rove and company for Bush 41 undermine Steele every step of the way?  Was he set up?  Believe the answer is a resounding YES! 

This site will call it like it sees it following today's Iowa Caucus. One computer is already down thanks to an attack but this site will not be silenced. Personally didn't like Romney in 2008 and loathe him today. Don't even see how anyone who is conservative could support him which says a lot about a conservative who turns their back on their principles to support Romney. His history of flip flops is getting to be larger than Kerry.  Romney will say and do anything to win including lying, cheating, and yes we believe some of his people are capable of stealing votes from their actions so far.

We already know that some Republicans will cheat on voting as fast as Democrats as all you have to do is look at Wisconsin and the former Cain campaign manager.

Today a caucus will be held in a state that went for Obama in 2008 and then three out of the four next states to hold primaries went for Obama in 2008. Only South Carolina went for the Republican McCain in the first five states to vote in this year's GOP Primary. There is something wrong with this picture. Not only that, but in Iowa which considers their primary closed, we have this gem:

Voters may change party on the day of the primary election.

In New Hampshire it is a semi-closed primary where independents can vote.

South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada are closed primaries where you have to register to change parties ahead of the primary not the day of the primary and none of those three states allow independents to vote.

Out of the first five states, our first two are iffy as both went heavily for Obama in 2008. Florida and Nevada went for Obama big time in 2008 but are still in the early primary position. What can we say about Virginia and the way they are set up for only for early entries into the race to get on the VA ballot after their throwing out signatures of other candidates. The percentage tossed are pretty suspect. But then their Governor is rumored to be in the Romney camp. All candidates except Romney and Paul have joined in a lawsuit against Virginia and their honest Attorney General who seems to be saying all candidates should be on the ballot or at least until the establishment gets to him.

The Republican Party headed by the RNC Chair is now allowing four states who voted for the liberal Obama to help choose our nominee and give them momentum while they move reliable red states like Oklahoma to March. The RNC is also responsible for all the debates which it is pretty unanimous that was wrong and foolish as candidates spent more time prepping for primaries instead of getting to know voters.  Also a plus for Romney who does better in debates then when he meetings people in person where his arrogance shows.  His 'unemployment' line is so disgusting and demeaning to those who are truly unemployed but then he is an east coast elitist.

In the aftermath of the Iowa campaign, you have to ask yourself why those of us who are conservative Republicans have allowed the RNC to continue to choose their Chairman from among the elitists who are members of the RNC. Why didn't we raise our voices earlier? There is no way that the two Democrat states of Iowa and New Hampshire should be the first states in the Republican primary process in today's world. In fact no state should require candidates to visit every nook and cranny to get votes like these two states.

Time to join the 21st century after this election and redo the way an RNC Chair and the RNC is chosen along with changing the primary system. Also time to get the media out of the primaries with their 'flavor of the week' which has been giving an undue amount of spotlight on polling when 70%+ of people going to the Caucus in Iowa had not made up their mind.

There is another problem with the primary system -- it is too early and too close to the holidays and bowls for college teams. We played Iowa in the Insight Bowl and got back last night after spending an extra day in Tempe. There were people staying for the Fiesta Bowl or to enjoy the warm weather from Iowa because when you travel that far, you want to enjoy your vacation. That is something that the RNC and Iowa GOP Chair were ignorant about how many fans travel to a bowl game. Know we saw a lot of Iowa fans the day after the game who were not leaving until Sunday or Monday. Tells me that the RNC is a puppet of the establishment who probably wouldn't be caught dead at a Bowl Game.

Will continue to support Rick Perry and believe he will do much better than the pundits and the establishment want in Iowa.  Why are the establishment so much against Perry?  Will he upset the status quo?  Their attacks on the Governor are so far over the top by Bush 41 and his crowd that it is mind boggling.  He is conservative, has a conservative track record, and from the looks of it must be taken out for Romney.  Why would conservatives even look at voting for Romney.  We don't think they will, but believe the Romney/Paul camps will get a lot of support from people who register Republican to vote today as has happened in the past.  Some in the past don't even live in Iowa.  The Caucus is set up for fraud.  Will we see it this year?  Time will tell.

At the end of the day no matter what happens, I will continue to be proud of Rick Perry and the job he has done against all odds against him.  The establishment's support of Romney and their underhand tactics against other candidates has to bring into question -- WHY? 

That is my more than two cents after being gone for over a week and not posting.  Frankly it was great not to hear much about Iowa and the flavor of the week who was surging.  Right now I disgusted with having given one cent to the RNC since Preibus was elected.

Iowa is finally about to draw to a close and hopefully that closure will be the last time the liberal state of Iowa who voted in big numbers for Obama will lead the way for a Republican primary.  They need at the back of the pack due to their liberal voting record for President over the years starting in 1988.  Only in 2000 did they vote for the Republican George W. Bush.  New Hampshire started their travel to the Democrats in 1992 except for 2000. 

Good luck to the honest candidates today who do not change their views based on what some polling says the voters want and who are truly conservative -- that would be Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann who both believe heavily in the 2nd amendment and conservatism. Was prepared to put Santorum in the group until I found out he was in favor of gun control so he will not get the vote of this conservative.