Unreliable flip-flopper

Mitt Romney has labeled Newt Gingrich as an "unreliable leader." But the hypocrisy and inaccuracies in his various negative ads hurts Romney's credibility. For starters, Mitt Romney agreed to be on a panel at an event for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while Governor of Massachusetts, members of his campaign team lobbied for them, and Romney himself invested in them. But Mitt Romney has a long history of flip-flops, hypocrisies, and other aspects of his life and career that make him an un-reliable conservative and serial flip-flopper. Here they are;

1) Fannie and Freddie - Mitt Romney has accused Newt Gingrich of lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite the fact that Gingrich consulted them and did not sell his influence nor lobby for them. Romney himself sat on a panel for the pair, invested in them, and has members of his campaign team who lobbied for them.

2) Seamus - In 1986, Mitt Romney and his family took a 12 hour road tripp. In a kennel on top of his car, the Romney family dog, Seamus, was trapped. When pressed on the issue in 2007, Romney said the dog probably "enjoyed" himself. I guess to Mr. Romney, dog torture is not a big issue and dogs enjoy being abused. It is this mentality that leads to thousands and millions of abused animals all the time.

3) Hunting - Did Mitt Romney hunt at age 15? If so, was it legal in the jurisdiction he did so? This is not a big issue, but since he stumbled upon this in 2007, it begs questions. Perhaps Mitt Romney should learn to keep his mouth shut.

4) Residency - Mitt Romney currently has a home in California and another in New Hampshire. But, his voter registration is active in Massachusetts, where he spent many years. However, during the 2010 election cycle, Romney used an address that belonged to his son, and claimed that he lived in the basement. Its hard to believe a multi-billionaire would live in a basement.

5) Conservative Governor - Mitt Romney said that he should have run for office outside MA where the voters were more sympathetic to his views. So, why didn't he?

6) Abortion - In 1994 and 2002, Mitt Romney ran as a pro-choice candidate in MA. In 2005, he switched his position after announcing the year before he would not run for re-election as Governor. By 2006, he was a frequent fixture in Iowa and New Hampshire.

7) Ethanol - In 1994, Romney said he opposed farm subsidies. He switched his position in 2007 in an attempt to win the Iowa caucus, which he failed to do two election years in a row!

8) Camapign Finance - In 1994, Mitt Romney declared he supported changes to campaign finance law. He then attacked McCain-Feigngold during the 2008 election cycle.

9) Tax cut pledges - As a candidate for Governor in 2002, Mitt Romney declined to sign an anti-tax pledge by Grover Norquest. In 2008, he did do so and attacked those that did not.

10) Health care mandates - Romney implemented mandates in health care in MA in 2006, he said he supported mandates in 2008, now he opposes them.

Why Gingrich haters help him

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is amongst the most accomplished House Speaker's in U.S. history. But, that does not mean he was the most popular. Gingrich made history, helping to elect the first republican congress in 40 years and getting them re-elected in 1996. Gingrich's Contract with America called for big reforms, and he was able to deliver on tax relief, spending restraint, anti-crime legislation, tort reform, and welfare reform. However, some disliked Gingrich. Many in his own party disliked him starting just 2 years into his speaker-ship. Like him or not, Gingrich got something done, and with a democratic President. One of the anti-Gingrich members of the republican establishment was an Ohio Congressman named John Boehner. 12 years after Gingrich left the speakership, Boehner took over under a democratic president and got little done. But Boehner was not the only one. Establishment republicans in Washington disliked Gingrich, and the media had and continues to have a field day with him. However, the more people dis Gingrich, the better he seems to do. Yes, he lost traction during the final 10 days of the republican campaign heading into Iowa, and he placed 4th. But, he won South Carolina, something he intended to do early on and he did so decisively. It seems that finally, those forces against Gingrich back-fired. Newt is not only back in town, he's back in the republican race. In 1999, after leaving the speaker-ship, he was unpopular. By 2002, he became a highly touted conservative commentator on the important issues of the day. By 2008, he could have mounted a credible bid for President. This year, he has done so and is now Mitt Romney's challenger for the republican presidential nomination. But, the anti-Gingrich sentiment in both the media and the GOP establishment continue. Yet, voters like him. They like him probably because he is not a conventional candidate. Conventional candidates are a lot like Mitt Romney; well-spoken, their hair is perfect, and they stick to the script. But, Speaker Gingrich is very different. Unlike most candidates, he is blunt, has been married more than once, and instead of having a few big ideas, he has many. Yes, this turns some people off. Yes, this makes the media's job harder. But, those in the tea party and the grassroots who are tired of empty promises and slogans appreciate Mr. Gingrich's candor.

Religion in politics

This is my personal view. It is therefore not objective. It is my belief that it is important for an elected leader to be a person of faith. However, there must be seperation of church and state. Without a higher purpose, one will easily lose hope and therefore be unsteady during times of crisis. However, I want my elected officials to be believers in God, what I don't want is pastors running the nation. The specifics of a person's faith are not important to me. I do not care if an elected official is Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, or whatever. If religion influences someones views, fine. But what is bad is if someone uses their religion to influence every last detail of how they govern. Frankly, that is why it is hard for me to vote for individuals who are part of the "religious right." Candidates I have supported in the past have been men or women of faith, but their faith simply influenced them, it did not dictate their views to them. I fear that having a person who allows faith to purely dictate their views should not be in public office because they are leading or legislating on behalf of a government, not a religious institution. However, on the contrary, having an elected leader with no faith means that they don't have a higher calling and sometimes, they would be more likely to negatively effect those of faith. For example, if catholic adoption agencies choose not to adopt to same-sex couples, that is their choice. But, if an atheist writes a book, it should not be banned from a public library. The great thing about our society is that we can have religion, but that we have varying degrees of religious culture and thought. Protecting that culture matters, but using that culture as the basis for all law can be harmful.

South Carolina Primary: A defining moment

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has surged to the top in polls in just five days leading up to the South Carolina GOP primary. Gingrich, whose debate performances on Tuesday and Thursday nights helped him, has accumulated a loyal following of grassroots supporters made up of conservatives and tea party voters a like. Both Gingrich and fellow candidate Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who enjoys the support from the moderate and center-right of the party, are looking good on the trail. For Gingrich, its the beginning of what he hopes will be a comeback. Since late November, the nomination has been in site for a man who has had a lengthy career in the public spotlight. For Mitt Romney, its momentum off a big win in New Hampshire. Romney began to try to get his way into the public eye in 2006, and by the fall of 2007 he became well known. After conceding the GOP presidential race to John McCain, Romney was a fixture on the campaign trail for republicans in 2010, and when Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee declared in May 2011 he would not seek the nomination, Romney became the front-runner. While both men have things to be happy about, fellow candidate Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum does not. Santorum spent most of his time in 2011 campaigning in Iowa, but history shows that campaigning only in Iowa does not pay off. In fact, most candidates who stick to only Iowa don't win Iowa, a trend Santorum successfully ducked. However, he does not have the support in place elsewhere. People know Gingrich from his time as House Speaker, and they know Romney from his bid in 2008. But Rick Santorum is a little-known Former U.S. Senator to the mild political observer. South Carolina will define the future of the republican primary. If Newt Gingrich wins, both he and Mitt Romney are likely to have a mud-fest moving towards Florida, Arizona, and Minnesota. It should be assumed that Romney will win Nevada and his native state of Michigan, though John McCain did win Michigan in 2000 and lose it to Romney in 2008. However, unlike McCain, Romney is from Michigan. As far as Nevada, Romney benefits from a large mormon population. Perhaps Newt Gingrich can pull an upset in those places, but the Former Speaker would probably be more successful in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida. If Romney wins South Carolina, there is almost no way forward for the other candidates. Romney would ride the momentum to Florida and beyond, thus becoming the presumptive nominee. As for Texas Congressman Ron Paul, it has been apparent for some time now he is running for "the movement" and not to actually be President. But South Carolina will also define something else: the direction the GOP moves in. If Romney is the nominee, republicans will continue the tradition of choosing the "next in line" establishment candidate. If Gingrich is the nominee, the republicans would have a one-time underdog who won the nomination from debate performances and grassroots support. Certainly in a general election, Romney would have to work to win tea party votes, where as Gingrich would have to win over centrists. Either way, both seem to be electable. Romney has appeal due to his back round in business, where as Gingrich has proven he can debate and propose big ideas and has a track record to back up those ideas. Either way, South Carolina is a defining moment.

Rick Santorum VS. Newt Gingrich: Who can take on Romney?

From an ideological standpoint, both Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum are fundamentally conservatives. Both men have many of the same positions. While on most issues, conservatives have applauded both men, there are some exceptions. Both men championed Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit for medicare passed by congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Gingrich, up until a few years ago, championed mandates for health insurance, and he supports a guest worker program for illegal aliens. Rick Santorum has in the past taken a protectionist stance on trade and he voted against right to work. Some of the issues conservatives have with both men are symbolic in nature; Newt Gingrich's ad with Nancy Pelosi and Rick Santorum's support for moderate senator Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey during the 2004 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate primary are the most visible. However, the question that has confronted conservatives in 2012 is which one of these men is the anti-Romney? On paper, either man looks good to fill that void. Both are from modest back rounds, have conservative records for years, and excite different elements of the republican base; Gingrich the grassroots and Santorum social conservatives. However, one must look at their respective experiences and conclude that both of them spent a long time in Washington D.C. Gingrich was elected to congress in 1978, and served from 1979-1999. Santorum was in Washington D.C. from 1991 until 2007. For four years, Gingrich was House Speaker, the number one republican in the house and 3rd in line for the presidency. Santorum was the number 3 senate republican. So, who is best to take on Romney? As a supporter of Newt Gingrich, I must make the case Gingrich is stronger in that area and I have a lot of reasons. First of all, Newt Gingrich does have a wider array of experiences. He is a student of history, a former congressman and House Speaker, a think-tank head, he's helped run businesses, he's been a consultant, and he's been a political commentator. Gingrich spent much of his time after leaving office on national security issues and health care. Santorum did what most Washington insiders have done, spent 16 years in Washington before lobbying. Furthermore, outside of Pennsylvania and now Iowa, Santorum is not well-known. Even their times in Washington differ. Gingrich led the effort, working with members of both parties and a democratic President, to cut taxes, balance the budget, reform welfare, enact tort reform, and pass tough anti-crime legislation. While Santorum led on a few bills, he generally just voted. Yes, Santorum served his state's interests well, but Gingrich had to serve the entire nation as House Speaker. Furthermore, across the board, Gingrich does a better job being able to show a contrast with Romney. On jobs and budgets, Gingrich can point to his speakership, where as Santorum can only point to a bill he voted on. Newt Gingrich is the conservative alternative to Romney nationally, even if Rick Santorum was in Iowa. Yes, Rick Santorum was a good U.S. Senator who did some good things, but he does not have a place in history like Speaker Gingrich.

South Carolina Primary Preview

Money, momentum, message, name, network, and staff all matter in an election. Rick Santorum's message helped propel him to a virtual tie in the Iowa caucus with Mitt Romney, who has enjoyed money, name recognition, and a strong network of staff. Romney picked up momentum in Iowa, and his momentum helped propel him to a big victory reminiscent of John McCain's 2000 victory in New Hampshire. Going into South Carolina, Romney is the only candidate with money, momentum, message, name, and network. Newt Gingrich has a clear message and he has improved his network in the past weeks. Rick Santorum has a message as well, but he lacks funding and a network. Rick Perry has money, but thats all. Ron Paul does not have broad momentum beyond his dedicated supporters, but he does have money. Jon Huntsman's message resonates with newspapers more than voters. Polling has indicated that South Carolina is a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. If Romney should win the South Carolina primary, it would give him a tremendous advantage towards the nomination not because of delegates won, but because of momentum and an influx of support from across the nation as he would be seen as the de facto republican nominee. If Newt Gingrich were to win South Carolina, he would re-gain momentum and be seen as Romney's sole conservative challenger, where as both he and Santorum have shared the spotlight since Santorum's Iowa performance. It is likely that after South Carolina, Governor Rick Perry, a 2nd-tier candidate as it is, will drop out. Rick Santorum will likely fade after only performing well in Iowa. Jon Huntsman is likely to stay in the race until Florida. Ron Paul is running in a world of his own. South Carolina is a must-win for Newt Gingrich. If Romney should win South Carolina, he will be the nominee. If Gingrich wins South Carolina, then conservatives across the country will see Gingrich as the not-Romney and give him a 2nd look, helping the Former House Speaker to surge in Florida and later, southern states and large states such as Missouri, New York, California, and Texas. South Carolina has picked the GOP nominee for years and it looks like that trend is set to continue. However, both Romney and Gingrich have things to be optimistic and scared of. Mitt Romney has momentum from a surprising well performance in Iowa and a big win in New Hampshire to carry him in South Carolina. Furthermore, while the conservative vote is split nationally, Romney has the support of moderate republicans and in South Carolina, independents can vote in the GOP primary. However, polls in South Carolina have shown Newt Gingrich competitive with Romney, and if conservatives have a strong showing during the primary, it could be bad news for Mitt. Newt Gingrich has been a favorite amongst tea party voters and grassroots conservatives. However, one has to ask if his personal life will play a role in South Carolina. Gingrich has been married three times where as Romney has been married to the same woman for 4 decades. On the flip side of this argument, will heavily protestant South Carolina vote for a mormon? It probably won't be an issue with a majority of voters, but you never know. Both Gingrich and Romney can examine history, and be optimistic. Romney can look back just 4 years. John McCain won New Hampshire and took his momentum to win a narrow victory in South Carolina. Newt Gingrich must look back further. In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford beat Ronald Reagan in both Iowa and New Hampshire. However, Reagan came back and won South Carolina. Though Ford won the republican nomination, Reagan was very much in the race until the republican national convention. Perhaps if Reagan won two or three more states, he would have won in 1976. Gingrich can look at that. No matter what, South Carolina is a must win for both Romney and Gingrich. Santorum and Perry must place in the top 3. Huntsman must do well enough to carry him to Florida. It is hard to tell what Dr. Ron Paul wishes to accomplish, but my guess is he is going to focus on winning a majority of tea party voters in South Carolina.

The choice SC voters have

This author/poster has made it very clear where I stand in the republican primary. South Carolina voters have a vitally important choice to make. Iowa voters choose Rick Santorum, but Romney managed to steal that one. New Hampshire was going for Romney no matter what. South Carolina will be the place where voters will decide between two very different leaders. Like him or not, Newt Gingrich is an individual of tremendous political courage and an ability to lead. From 1995-1999, Newt Gingrich led the effort as House Speaker to cut taxes, reduce spending, reform welfare, enact tort reform, and pass anti-crime legislation. President Bill Clinton was forced into some of these policies as a result of 2 government shut-downs and Gingrich rallying public support. It is not as likely these things would be accomplished if Gingrich had not been Speaker. 11 million jobs and safer communities may not have become reality. Mitt Romney has a vastly different record to run on. While Romney did achieve spending cuts and welfare reform during his 4 years as Governor, he did not pass large broad-based tax cuts and crime rates in Massachusetts increased during his tenure as Governor. As Minority Leader in the U.S. House, Newt Gingrich joined with the conservative Heritage Foundation in opposing Bill Clinton's proposed 1993 health insurance legislation. In 2006, Mitt Romney signed a health insurance bill that allowed for a $50 co-pay for abortion. Newt Gingrich helped lead the effort for the Defense of Marriage Act, where as Mitt Romney did not appeal the MA decision to allow for gay marriage. But, perhaps most telling of the choice South Carolina voters is where Gingrich and Romney differ in where they would lead the nation moving forward. The biggest issue facing voters is the economy. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have both focused on the economy. Both support repealing the Obama-era regulations and Obamacare. The difference is, what to replace it with. Newt Gingrich proposes a tax cut package that would have an optional 15% flat tax with fewer deductions, 100% expensing of new equipment, a 0% capital gains tax, and a 12.5% corporate tax rate. Romney proposes a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25% and eliminating taxes on savings, capital gains, and dividends on the middle-class, whom don't necessarily even pay taxes on capital gains and dividends. On trade policy, Newt Gingrich has been a consistent free trader, where as Governor Romney proposes labeling China a "currency manipulator" which would cause a trade war without having a positive effect on U.S. jobs. The choice South Carolina voters will have to make is a clear one: will they nominate a conservative reformer or a center-right republican with a mixed record?