Who Reagan would support today

Republicans seeking the presidency like to be thought of as the Ronald Reagan of today. However, who would President Reagan support in 2012? First off, Reagan would likely wait until the GOP primary was over and then endorse, as he did even when his Vice President ran to succeed him in 1988. However, if Reagan was in the endorsement game, whom would he pick? Of all the candidates running today, only Former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman worked in the Reagan administration. While there should be little doubt that Reagan would respect Huntsman, Huntsman has strayed away from the Reagan legacy in two important areas; his support for the economic stimulus and his foreign policy which clearly contradicts the "peace through strength" foreign policy advocated by President Reagan during his time in office. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have both taken hard-line stances on the issues they care about, but Dr. Paul has opposed the Reagan foreign policy and Congresswoman Bachmann has not been willing to work with democrats. Therefore, neither one of them would be supported by President Reagan. The Reagan endorsement would therefore be left between the four candidates not mentioned thus far; Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry. If there is anyone in the 2012 race who is close to Reagan from an ideology standpoint, it is Newt Gingrich. Both men fought for lower taxes and less government in their respective careers, and Newt Gingrich succeeded to reducing the debt, something Reagan failed to do despite seeking to do so by cutting domestic spending. Furthermore, Gingrich appears to be a strict adherent to the Reagan foreign policy of "peace through strength." Despite being like Reagan from an ideological standpoint and being able to work with democrats like Reagan did, the tone Gingrich takes on the campaign trail is much different than that of Reagan. Perhaps Newt Gingrich's biggest obstacle to winning the Reagan endorsement would be his time spent in Washington. This would play as an asset to Mitt Romney. From an ideological standpoint, Mitt Romney is closer to the political center than Reagan. President Reagan can best be described as a conservative, but nor far-right. Romney is center-right. The economic policies of Mitt Romney are more concerned with deficit reduction, where as President Reagan was more concerned with tax relief and reform. However, Mitt Romney's foreign policies are closer to that of Reagan than his economic policies. Romney's ideology contrasts with Reagan's much in the way President Reagan and George H.W. Bush contrasted. Texas Governor Rick Perry, like Reagan, began his career as a democrat. He then switched parties, ran for Agriculture Commissioner and then Governor of Texas. As Governor and as a presidential candidate, Rick Perry has offered a few reforms, but he has lacked as much substance as some of his fellow candidates. Rick Perry's anti-Washington attitude would appeal to President Reagan, but the way in which he conducts himself would not impress America's 40th President. Then, there is Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. Like Reagan, Rick Santorum has stood on principle, but he has been effective in working across the aisle. Santorum is an adherent to the Reagan "three legged stool" of a strong military, strong economy, and strong families. However, there have been very few times when Rick Santorum has admitted failure, and President Reagan did admit when he was wrong. It is my belief that America's 40th President would, if he were going to endorse, decide between Gingrich, Romney, Perry, and Santorum. It is my belief that Newt Gingrich would be the likely winner of President Reagan's endorsement. Newt Gingrich is doing what Reagan did in 1980; running on big ideas, running on his record, and trying to be optimistic. The negative campaigning of Perry and Romney would hurt them in trying to win Reagan's endorsement, and Newt Gingrich is closer to Reagan's ideology than Rick Santorum.

The Santorum Surge explained

Like in 2008, conservatives are looking for a true conservative to be the GOP nominee. In Mitt Romney, they have a center-right republican. In Newt Gingrich, they have a conservative, but one with a slight independence streak. In Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry, they have two moderates. In Michele Bachmann, they have a conservative, but not one who they can feel confident about supporting. In Ron Paul, they have a total RINO who is a libertarian only running as a republican because he realizes he can't win as a libertarian. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is arguably the most conservative candidate in the race, though Speaker Gingrich and Ms. Bachmann come close. However, Rick Santorum does not have Mitt Romney's money nor Newt Gingrich's grassroots support. However, Rick Santorum is enjoying increased support in Iowa. While Newt Gingrich is running a multiple-state campaign and Mitt Romney is focused on New Hampshire, Senator Santorum has been campaigning in Iowa. While grassroots conservatives, tea partiers, and traditional republicans support Gingrich and moderates and establishment republicans support Romney, social conservatives have had a hard time finding a candidate they can rally behind. Rick Santorum has spent more time talking about core social issues than any other candidate. This explains Rick Santorum's surge in the polls in Iowa. Rick Santorum also has an impressive record of accomplishment as a U.S. Senator; he fought for the bill to ban partial-birth abortion, was on the front-lines of Newt Gingrich's fight to reform welfare, and he led the effort to declare the Iranian national guard a terrorist organization. While I personally support Newt Gingrich, I am glad to see Rick Santorum make a surge in the polls because in my mind, there are 3 candidates in this race who have what it takes to lead America: Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum.

If Paul is the nominee, how conservatives can counter that

3 solutions to if RINO Ron Paul becomes the GOP nominee;

1) Encourage Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani to run as an independent;
Rudy Giuliani has long been considered a moderate republican; conservative on economic issues, a foreign -policy hawk, and socially moderate. If Rudy ran as an independent against Ron Paul and Barack Obama, he'd take votes from both men. A lot of conservatives seen Ron Paul's position on national security as dangerous, and Rudy has often stated what many conservatives across the nation think on foreign affairs, but things folks in D.C. are afraid to say. Furthermore, Rudy is a consistent fiscal conservative. Independents and democrats who supported Obama in '08 and are disappointed in him may see Rudy as a viable alternative since he is more moderate in his social views than most republicans.

2) Vote for Obama and guarantee a win in 2016
If Obama is re-elected, it is likely he will pursue unpopular policies that will guarantee republicans a victory in 2016. People such as Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio whom are well liked by the right-wing could have broad support and an abillity to win in 2016 against such democratic contenders as Andrew Cuomo, Deval Patrick, or Mark Warner.

3) Challenge Paul at the GOP convention
Someone like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum might be able to challenge Paul at the GOP convention, forcing a divide in the party which could lead to delegates switching their votes from Paul to Gingrich or Santorum, two conservatives who are not afraid to challenge the RINO Ron Paul.

Why republicans should be optimistic.

Going into the 2012 primaries, republicans can be thankful they have 2 front-runners with proven track records of governing, and an ability to beat Barack Obama next fall and govern the nation. Newt Gingrich has a record of leading the effort to balance the federal budget, pay down $400 billion in debt, reform welfare, pass anti-crime legislation, and pass the largest capital gains tax relief in U.S. history, which led to 11 million new jobs over 4 years. Mitt Romney has an impressive business career and as Governor of liberal Massachusetts, he fought to cut government, erase a budget deficit, reform welfare, balance the budget, enforce immigration laws, and stand up for increased benefits for those soliders returning home from overseas. Romney did fight for tax cuts, but only won on minor fights and failed to pass broad-based tax relief. As candidates for President, both Gingrich and Romney are running very different campaigns; Newt has run on bold ideas from day one, and he is running as the candidate of the grassroots and the conservative-wing of the party. Mitt Romney is running as a "conservative businessman" with more basic ideas that can appeal to centrists. While both candidates face some minor problems with the electorate, both are proven to be competent and articulate. Newt Gingrich is intelligent, truthful, and confident where as Romney is careful, thoughtful, and reasonable sounding. There is little doubt that both men are imperfect candidates, but either one of them could make the case they can do a better job leading the nation in the next 4 years and based on their records and platforms, they could. There should be little doubt both men come from different places, have different back rounds, and have different political ideologies. Newt Gingrich came from modest circumstances in which his father was in the military. He was a college professor before (and while at the national defense university) becoming a Congressman, House Minority Leader, House Speaker, political commentator and activist, author, movie-maker, consultant, and think-tank leader. His approach to government seems similar to that of George W. Bush in that he believes people should run their lives but government should help make people's lives easier; such is the case in his support for research into health insurance and replacing the EPA with an "environmental solutions agency." However, Speaker Gingrich is like Reagan in that he favors lower taxes, free markets, and fewer regulations. Gingrich is generally a conservative, but there is little doubt he also has an independent streak in him. Mitt Romney comes from a different place than Speaker Gingrich. He was born to a wealthy family, though his parents instilled in him the value of hard work. He learned a lot from being a mormon missionary. Mitt Romney spent most of his life in the private sector, and he was successful in doing such. He was a center-right Governor in a far-left state. Romney appears to be a deficit hawk; he has favored spending cuts that exceed tax cuts both as Governor of Massachusetts and as a 2012 republican presidential candidate. Romney is certainly closer to the political center than Speaker Gingrich. Where as Newt Gingrich is a conservative with an independent streak, Romney appears to be a center-right republican with a conservative streak. However, the fundamental beliefs of the base of the GOP are represented in each individual; both are for lower taxes, less spending, and limited government & regulations, both are against the continued flow of illegal immigration, both have strict-constructionist judicial philosophies, both support a "peace through strength" foreign policy, both are for returning power back to states, and both are for the repeal of Obamacare. No matter if Gingrich or Romney is the nominee, republicans will have a candidate who represents them well; though there should be little doubt Newt Gingrich is closer to the base of the party, Mitt Romney is not a total "RINO," he tends to agree with what the base says though not consistently on every issue. However, republicans should bear in mind that even Ronald Reagan strayed away from the right-wing on immigration and corporate income taxes.

If the '12 election is about Bush, the GOP wins

Yes, that's right. If Democrats want to make the 2012 election about President Bush, then I encourage them to do so, it only helps the republicans. First off, Americans will likely focus on the Obama record Vs. that of the Clinton/Gingrich record of the mid and late 1990s if Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, or Mitt Romney's 25 year business career and term as Governor of Massachusetts. However, focusing on President Bush would help the republicans. On the issues that have been the most controversial, Obama's record has not been as good as Bush's. Just compare the two records;

Economy & Budget;
- President Bush presided over 52 straight months of economic growth in which 8 million new jobs were added
- President Obama has presided over the highest unemployment almost 3 decades
- Deficits fluctuated under President Bush, they have steadily increased under Obama
- President Bush signed the largest tax cuts in a generation to stimulate economic growth
- President Obama has increased government spending by 25% leading to continued economic problems
- President Bush supported free trade, President Obama has been more reluctant


Immigration;
- President Bush deployed more boots to the border
- President Obama has not sent enough troops to the border despite increased violence

Health care;
- President Bush helped cover millions of seniors with prescription drug coverage
- President Obama has cut medicare by $500 billion
- President Bush signed the law creating Health Care savings Accounts
- President Obama's health insurance program is unconstitutional, and costs have increased by 9% in 2011

National Defense;
- President Bush signed into law bills that increased funding for the military and made it harder to board a plane
- President Obama has presided over TSA "pat-downs" which have caused many to be assaulted
- President Bush increased defense spending, President Obama has cut defense spending
*Luckily, there are some areas where President Obama deserves credit, but some of these were simply continued policies from the Bush era.

Early state prediction

The following is my final prediction for the margins of victories in early state presidential primaries. I predict a Gingrich Vs. Romney primary for the long haul, but this is it for early states voting before Suepr Tuesday, March 4th. If I am wrong, I will take responsibility, if I am right I'll take credit.

Here we go;

Iowa caucus:

Mitt Romney 23%

Newt Gingrich 20%

Ron Paul 20%

Michele Bachmann 15%

Rick Santorum 12%

Rick Perry 8%

Jon Huntsman 1%

* Santorum and Bachmann withdrawal

New Hampshire:

Mitt Romney 40%

Newt Gingrich 19%

Ron Paul 18%

Jon Huntsman 13%

Rick Santorum 6%

Rick Perry 5%

* Jon Huntsman withdrawals

South Carolina:

Newt Gingrich 35%

Mitt Romney 30%

Ron Paul 25%

Rick Perry 9%

* Rick Perry withdrawals

Florida:

Newt Gingrich 40%

Mitt Romney 38%

Ron Paul 21%

Nevada:

Mitt Romney 42%

Newt Gingrich 38%

Ron Paul 27%

Maine:

Mitt Romney 65%

Newt Gingrich 25%

Ron Paul 8%

Colorado:

Newt Gingrich 40%

Mitt Romney 39%

Ron Paul 20%

Minnesota:

Mitt Romney 40%

Newt Gingrich 37%

Ron Paul 22%

Missouri:

Newt Gingrich 42%

Mitt Romney 38%

Ron Paul 29%

Arizona: (toss-up, no prediction)

Newt Gingrich 40%

Mitt Romney 40%

Ron Paul 19%

Washington:

Mitt Romney 60%

Newt Gingrich 25%

Ron Paul 14%

What a general election may look like

Part 1: With Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee

Top 10 rising stars in each party

GOP:

1) Marco Rubio - The Florida Senator has a unique back round, is from a swing state, and seems to represent the base of the party

2) Chris Christie - The fiscally conservative New Jersey Governor is a tough-talking individual whose truth telling has won him popularity nationally

3) Pat Toomey - Senator Toomey was President of the conservative Club For Growth, and he is basically the Phil Gramm or Jack Kemp of today.

4) Bobby Jindal - Governor Jindal has made history in Louisiana, he is a solid conservative who is tough to dislike

5) Jan Brewer - The Arizona Governors tough stance on immigration has helped her become a favorite amongst the base.

6) Suzanna Martinez - The New Mexico Governor is a female hispanic from a swing state. Those factors are sure to be a help when the next GOP nominee looks for a running-mate

7) Kelly Ayyotte - The New Hampshire Senator is sure to be a voice in presidential politics for years to come.

8) Niki Haley - Haley is a popular Governor of a solidly conservative state

9) Jim De Mint - De Mint's connections with the tea party and popularity make him a force to be reckoned with.

10) Pam Bondi - The young Florida Attorney General is well spoken and likely to go places

Democrats:

1) Mark Warner - The Virginia U.S. Senator and Former Governor is popular, articulate, and a moderate from a swing state. He is an ideal Democratic presidential candidate, his style resembles Bill Clinton

2) Deval Patrick - Articulate and seemingly bright, Patrick is an ally of President Obama and has potential to rally the base without alienating independents

3) Andrew Cuomo - The New York Governor is pretty progressive

4) Chris Van Hollen - The Democratic Congressman is not afraid to speak out even to Fox News

5) Cory Booker - The Mayor of Newark, New Jersey is intelligent and able to work across the aisle

6) Kristen Gillibrand - Though too conservative for many democrats, the New York Senator is just too darn likable

7) Martin O'Malley - The progressive democratic governor knows how to play the political game

8) Bob Kerrey - Okay, so he's not new to politics, but he has a bright future in the democratic party

9) Jerry Brown - Same as Kerrey

10) Bob Casey Jr. - Casey Jr., a conservative democrat from PA, helps democrats appeal to the center

Why Bill Clinton needs Newt Gingrich to win

As Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich led the efforts to balance the budget, reform welfare, cut the capital gains tax, pass tough anti-crime legislation, and increase transparency in government. While Speaker Gingrich fought and worked for these things, it was President Bill Clinton's signature that went on these bills. Therefore, the progress of the mid and late 1990s must be credited to both Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton. The result of the policies Gingrich and Clinton put in place were 11 million new jobs, declining crime rates, the lowest inflation in a generation, and the longest period of economic growth in history. Today, President Obama has a very different record. Since Obama took office, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, poverty has increased, 19 million more Americans are on food stamps, and the debt is at a record high. If Newt Gingrich should become the GOP nominee, the Clinton/Gingrich record will be compared and contrasted with the Obama/Pelosi record. President Clinton will likely be placed in history as a leader with questionable judgment in his personal life, but as a competent executive who led during a time of historic economic growth. Therefore, Bill Clinton needs Newt Gingrich to win in 2012 so that the Clinton/Gingrich record can be seen as one of success.

2012 is no 1996

Imagine its December 1995. Bob Dole and Steve Forbes lead the pack of GOP candidates for the Iowa caucus. Lamar Alexander and Phil Gramm are second-tier candidates, despite the fact that Gramm is a hero with conservatives. The one candidate who can cause a stir is Pat Buchanan, whose views are vastly different from that of Dole and the establishment. Now fast forward to 2011. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the leading contenders. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are second-tier candidates, slightly ahead of Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman. The one candidate whose views differ vastly from that of the GOP field is Ron Paul. Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary in 1996, in addition to wins in a few other states. Paul is a leading contender in both Iowa and South Dakota. However, comparing 2012 to 1996 is not fair. In '96, the establishment candidate had been a Washington insider for many years, having been the 1976 GOP nominee for Vice President and Senate Leader. The establishment figure in this race is Mitt Romney, a guy who has only spent a decade in politics (despite his 1994 run for U.S. Senate.) The non-establishment candidate in this race is Newt Gingrich, who spent 20 years in elected office and 4 years as Speaker of the House. In 1996, the non-establishment candidate was Steve Forbes, who did spend some time as an advisor to President Reagan but really had no political experience. But perhaps the biggest difference between 2012 and 1996 is the incumbent President. Bill Clinton started off his 1st term as President from the center-left. He did sign tax hikes into law, but he also instituted Don't Ask Don't Tell and supported NAFTA. After the 1994 elections, Clinton moved from the center-left closer to the center. With Speaker Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, President Clinton worked to balance the federal budget. Clinton ran for re-election as a fiscal conservative. Fast forward to 2011. Barack Obama went from being a seemingly center-left candidate to a far left one. Before republicans took control of congress in 2010, Barack Obama signed a massive $787 billion "stimulus" program into law and an illegal, big government health insurance law into effect. After working with the GOP on a 1 year extension of the Bush tax cuts, Obama went back to his liberal leanings in calling for a millionaire's tax and a second stimulus. There is little doubt that Obama's path to re-election will be far more challenging that Bill Clintons. While President Clinton tried to pass a universal health insurance law, Clinton gave up when he realized the nation opposed his efforts. President Obama's illegal health insurance law was passed despite the opposition of the public. Obama must deal with health insurance during his re-election, where as Bill Clinton did not have to. Furthermore, President Clinton won re-election during a time of record economic growth. President Obama seeks re-election amidst unemployment, food stamps, poverty, and debt that are higher than when he took office. Therefore, whether Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney becomes the GOP nominee, they have a chance of winning. Bob Dole was bound to lose the '96 race from the start.

The two most under rated leaders of our time

When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he led the effort to reform welfare, balance the budget, pass the largest capital gains tax cut in history, pass tough anti-crime legislation, increase transparency in government, and other policies that led to the addition of 11 million new jobs during his 4 years as Speaker. As President, George W. Bush had a long list of accomplishments including defending America after the worst attack on our soil, liberating Iraq, capturing terrorists, increasing the number of border patrol agents at the border, increasing our commitment to combat global Aids, tax cuts that led to economic growth for 52 straight months following the post 9/11 recession, and seeing an increase in research towards energy independence. However, in both cases, both men were brutalized by the media and left to dry by their own party. Just two years after he helped the GOP capture the U.S. House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, Newt Gingrich was nearly kicked out of the speakership by his colleagues. Two years after that, Newt Gingrich was investigated for bogus and partisan ethics violations that simply did not exist. At the same time, republicans began abandoning George W. Bush on Iraq and government spending, despite having supported those policies in the beginning. Republicans such as Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Dick Lugar of Indiana began abandoning the mission in Iraq and President Bush when the war and the president became unpopular. In essence, both Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Bush should be viewed quite differently than what the media presently views them as. Speaker Gingrich should be seen as a key bi-partisan negotiator who insisted on policies to grow the economy and whose anti-crime and transparency legislation had a lasting effect on the U.S. George W. Bush should be seen as a President who was a steady leader, and one who did what was right despite if it was popular. Bush held the nation together following 9/11, and his policies helped protect Americans and capture those who wished us harm. Both men are historic figures and thus, under-rated.

Newt Gingrich: Possible GOP nominee

Iowa caucus voters polled say they want Ron Paul. In New Hampshire, the favorite is Mitt Romney. However, those two states are only two of fifty. Polls released in Virgina and New York today show Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leading the GOP pack. Polls released recently also show Gingrich as the front-runner in a lot of other states, including the early voting states of South Carolina, Michigan, Nevada, and Florida. Just because Gingrich might lose Iowa and New Hampshire means little. First of all, Iowa is a state without a large population. New Hampshire allows both independents and republicans to vote in the GOP primary, and Mitt Romney has put a lot of effort into winning there. It is unlikely Paul or Romney would be able to carry their momentum to South Carolina. Despite the fact that South Carolina allows independents to vote in the GOP primary, it is a solidly republican state unlike Iowa and New Hampshire. It is unlikely South Carolina voters would want to see a man from Massachusetts as their party's presidential nominee. South Carolina's large veteran population will make it a tough win for Ron Paul, whose non-interventionist foreign policy is out of touch with many main stream conservatives and republicans. Newt Gingrich, who is seen by the voters as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, represented neighboring Georgia in congress for 20 years, and his grassroots, anti-establishment message will help him in the palmetto state. While South Carolina should be an easier win for the Former House Speaker, Florida will be difficult. Florida is not as solidly conservative as South Carolina, but the Newt Gingrich versus Mitt Romney contest there might resemble the Marco Rubio versus Charlie Crist contest of 2010, though granted Romney is more conservative than Crist, but still more moderate than Rubio and Gingrich. If Gingrich can rally enough support from grassroots and tea party conservatives in Florida, he can carry the state. If enough independents get out to vote, Mitt Romney will carry Florida. Those who believe Newt Gingrich is in a "slide" fail to realize this remains a two-man race between Gingrich and Romney, though Ron Paul is likely to win the Iowa caucuses. After Iowa, the only state Paul may have a chance in is Nevada, but his polling numbers there to this point have been unimpressive. As candidates such as Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann drop out, there votes will go to Newt Gingrich. Combined, these candidates have around 20% of the GOP vote. Jon Huntsman's exit from the race would benefit Mitt Romney, but he'd be lucky to represent 2% of the GOP vote. Ron Paul supporters are likely to support Gary Johnson as the libertarian party's 2012 nominee. So, this GOP primary is very much a Gingrich VS. Romney race in 49 out of 50 states, the exception being Iowa where Ron Paul can have his 10 minutes of fame.

Newt Gingrich the Ronald Reagan of 2012

In 1980, after serving as California's Governor and after having run for President in 1968 and 1976 as the alternative to the establishment, Ronald Reagan ran for President on a platform of supply-side economics and a "peace through strength" foreign policy. Many during 1980 questioned whether or not Mr. Reagan could beat Incumbent President Jimmy Carter. He did, and the rest is history. President Reagan de-defined the GOP. The party has become more hawkish on foreign policy, more in favor of free market principles, and more socially right-wing. As Former Vice President Dick Cheney recalled recently, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's ambition from day one after being elected to congress was to bring the GOP to the majority. After years as a "foot soldier" in the Reagan era, Gingrich became House Minority Leader and later helped author the "Contract with America" which brought the GOP to majority in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. Like President Reagan, Speaker Gingrich faced a political environment in which intense debate occurred, but like President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neil, Speaker Newt Gingrich was able to work with President Bill Clinton to get things done. After 4 years as Speaker, Newt Gingrich left an unpopular figure, and it was not until a few years after he left office that the public began to realize Speaker Gingrich's many positive accomplishments. The same can be said for President Reagan, for George H.W. Bush sought to distance himself from Reagan during the 1988 election cycle. In 2012, Newt Gingrich faces many of the same challenges Ronald Reagan faced in 1980. Like Reagan, Gingrich has been out of office for quite some time, 12 years to be exact. Gingrich also faces questions about his electability, but like Reagan Gingrich is good at debating and has big ideas. Speaker Gingrich's paltform is different that the Reagan platform in 1980 in that it is far more complex, though the core values of strong free market economic policies and a "peace through strength" foreign policy are at the heart of the Gingrich campaign as they were the Reagan campaign in 1980. Like Reagan, Newt Gingrich also will likely face questions about his age, Gingrich is around Reagan's age and like Reagan, has been married more that once. Where as Ronald Reagan began his career out as a democrat with a pro-choice position, Newt Gingrich has always been a republican. Of all the GOP candidates, Newt Gingrich is the closest to President Reagan.

Why Perry lost despite still being in the '12 race

Conservatives and republicans across the nation realize Texas Governor Rick Perry is soft on illegal immigration; he gave in-state tuition breaks to the children of illegal aliens, he signed the Texas Dream Act into law, and he opposes a border fence. Perry failed on the immigration issue, though he did succeed in inspiring democrats. Also as Governor, Perry supported the first steps towards a North American Union, he raised debt by 281%, faster than the federal government, he signed an executive order forcing young girls to get an HPV vaccine, and many of the jobs created in Texas were either government jobs or went to illegal aliens. Conservatives and republicans across America realized this, and that Perry was not electable, so they joined either Cain, Gingrich, or less conservative folks joined Romney. But, why did Rick Perry lose the GOP nomination? He is still in the race, but he is not going to be the nominee. Here are the reasons;

1) Debates - Perry's poor debate performances hurt him. Though people look for their candidates to talk issues, a candidate must be able to articulate a vision. Perry could not articulate any vision.
2) Ideology- Perry is a moderate republican who tries to sound conservative, but he is still ideologically more moderate than what the base of the GOP wants. To independents, he is a decisive and polarizing figure.
3) Message - Mitt Romney's message is jobs, Newt Gingrich's is reform, and Herman Cain's was his 999 tax plan. Perry has no real clear message.
4) Electability - Republicans want to win in 2012, and having a nominee who is unable to articulate his vision and debate a man who was elected in part because of his charisma does not sit well with many voters
5) Side-show - Before his announcement, Perry speculation occurred on a daily basis. After his announcement, the attention went to his poor debate performances. It then turned to anti-mormon remarks made by a campaign surrogate.

Mitt Romney: Desperate, Misleading, Stubborn

In his 6 year quest to become President of the U.S., Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) is now getting desperate. When pressed about his Massachusetts health insurance program, which is not Obamacare but still has not been successful in lowering health care costs, Romney appears angry. The same sort of thing happened 4 years ago when Romney was pressed about lobbyists working on his campaign. In 1994, when asked about his "biggest personal failing", Romney discussed how he took time to help others each week. Romney can not admit failure, but he can attack others. During the 2008 campaign, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain were all attacked by Romney. This year, the latest victim of the "Romney Treatment" is GOP front-runner Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. After years of flip-flops and contradictions, Romney is attacking Gingrich as "unreliable." When Romney says Gingrich promoted cap and trade, it is misleading and false. When Romney says Gingrich supports "amnesty," it is again misleading and false. In the campaign four years ago, Romney attacked Mike Huckabee and John McCain going into Iowa and New Hampshire. Huckabee beat Romney by a comfortable margin in Iowa, and McCain beat him by a comfortable margin in New Hampshire. As Romney stepped up his attacks on McCain, McCain went on to win contests in South Carolina, Florida, and a majority of states of Super Tuesday. Two days after Super Tuesday, Romney dropped out of the race. However, at CPAC 2008, Romney began his 2012 campaign. It seems Mr. Romney has failed to realize that people want to hear a vision for the future, not just negative attacks. While comparing the differences between candidates is perfectly legitimate, doing so in a way that is misleading lowers the dialogue of debate. On a personal level, I expected this from the democrats and President Obama, not Governor Romney and his establishment friends.

UPDATE: Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani has called Governor Romney a "world-class flip-flopper" after saying Newt Gingrich is more electable

Mitt Romney: Wrong on tax cuts. Wrong on trade.

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) has proven himself to be a competent leader. However, there are some issues where Romney has been wrong. Two noticeable problems with Romney appear on taxes and trade. As Governor, Mitt Romney supported short-term tax cuts and closed "corporate loopholes." As a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney's tax cuts are small, they only effect a minority of taxpayers, and his corporate tax rate reduction is the smallest of all the GOP candidates except Jon Huntsman. On trade, Mitt Romney wants to label China a "currency manipulator" on his first day in office. So much for diplomacy first and sanctions later. A trade war with China would not only effect Chinese goods sold in the U.S., but U.S. goods sold in China. Furthermore, having a bad relationship with the Chinese hurts America's credibility when we call on China to promote human rights, fairer laws, and capitalism. Therefore, Governor Mitt Romney is wrong on tax cuts and wrong on trade with China.

Mitt Romney: Laughable

Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney had a successful career in business before having a mixed record as Governor of Massachusetts. Beginning in 2005, Romney began taking the steps to run for President, and since then he has seemingly never stopped running. Romney went negative against opponents John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee during the 2007 campaign season. This year, he has gone negative against Rick Perry and now, front-runner Newt Gingrich. Personally, I have sought to be diplomatic of Romney because I do believe he would be a good President, though nothing extraordinary. However, Romney's most recent attack on Newt Gingrich makes me, for one, angry at the total hypocrisy he has showing. Romney has called Newt Gingrich "unreliable" for conservatives. But, facts show a different story. First of all, it is a fact that Newt Gingrich never supported cap and trade. Gingrich did vote for amnesty for illegal aliens in 1986 with Ronald Reagan because under the bill that was passed, the border was supposed to be secured, Gingrich opposes amnesty. The third issue giving Gingrich issues is his past support for an individual mandate. Well, Governor Romney remarked that "I like mandates" during a televised debate during the last campaign. Governor Romney has been on both sides of a lot of issues; he was pro-choice, for campaign finance reform, and against ethanol subsidies. Furthermore, his rhetoric has also been on both sides; he was for "gay rights" before becoming a champion of the family, he was against anti-tax pledges before being for them, he did not like the NRA before he did, he wasn't for returing to the Reagan era before he was for it, and he refused to endorse President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that stimulated economic growth. For Mitt Romney to accuse Newt Gingrich of of being unreliable is more than just factually incorrect, it is a desperate attempt for Romney to win the white house and furthermore, it is hypocritical. Romney has proven himself competent, but he also talks on both sides of his mouth. He is supposed to be a capitalist, but Romney wants to start a trade war with China. He is supposed to be a fiscal conservative, but his tax cut package is smaller than that of most of the other candidates. Furthermore, Governor Romney's thinking on a series of issues resembles that of the GOP establishment in Washington D.C. His supporters is the establishment in Washington D.C. In 2012, if Americans want a leader who can beat Barack Obama and govern in a way that makes the nation more united, safer, and more prosperous than Newt Gingrich is the person to vote for. If the people want someone who will be a decent leader who is electable, but will be a slick establishment politician, Mitt Romney is that person.

Social issues and conservatives in the 2010s

In 2005, republicans in congress failed to pass President Bush's proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. States across the nation have moved towards greater rights for same-sex couples. Furthermore, some of the concerns of social conservatives have been brought into question by an influx of libertarians and younger conservatives such as myself. It is my belief that conservatives should continue to promote their economic and foreign policy agenda which originated during the 1980 campaign with President Reagan, re-vitalized by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, and in some ways transformed under President George W. Bush. But social policy needs to look a little bit different. First of all, the base of the republican party is pro-life, against same-sex marriage, against gun control, against affirmative action, against hate crimes legislation, and for capital punishment. So, let me take this opportunity to address a few of these issues. First, abortion. Roe V. Wade is an unconstitutional law that violates the 10th amendment. Therefore, it should be reversed and the decision of abortion should be left up to each individual state. However, the partial-birth abortion ban is perfectly constitutional because during the third trimester, a baby is a baby and not a fetus, and aborting it would be a violation of a human being's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Another big issue is same-sex marriage. This is another issue best left up to states. Personally, I support civil unions, but that is just me and not the nation as a whole. I also oppose the notion of same-sex couples adopting children, I feel that children are better off with either a single guardian or preferably, a loving couple as guardians. However, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, that is not my call to make. The same goes for gun control. Personally, I believe in basic back round checks, but that people have a right to keep and bear arms so long as they are not insane or criminals. The federal government can have a say in guns crossing state lines, but they don't have the constitutional authority to regulate guns within a state. On affirmative action, the federal government, from my perspective, can regulate whether this idea is implemented only on companies that operate in multiple states. Corporations that operate in only one state and do not participate in interstate commerce are therefore exempt. This leads me to the conclusion that to settle matters, the states should decide whether or not they want to enact affirmative action laws. Capital punishment is an area where I feel is exempt from the federalist vs. centralized government argument. If a criminal is allowed to harm people in one state or various states, that criminal is a risk to the security of Americans. This differs from gun ownership because a gun does not commit an act, a gun owner does. It is therefore my belief that federal courts should uphold capital punishment. What does this all mean? It means that moving forward, conservatives should be for broader state's rights and not as much centralized government.

Why electors in the electoral college should support the GOP nominee regardless of the popular vote

On December 12, 2000 our republic was kept secure by the supreme court siding with George W. Bush in the Bush VS. Gore decision. Regardless of who you voted for in 2000, Bush won from a constitutional standpoint. Though people are guaranteed the right to vote, the electoral college is what helps elect a President. One of the main factors for establishing an electoral college is to safeguard the republic by preventing people who are unfit for the presidency to lead. Whether or not you disagree with a candidate's position on issue is not relevant to their ability to lead. What is relevant is, are they a danger to the republic, and do they respect the republic and the constitution? By this standard, even a radical left-winger like Al Gore is able to lead, though people like me feel he would not have made a good President. Regardless, the electoral college went to George W. Bush, as did the election. However, there have been times when Presidents who were proven unfit to lead not from a policy standpoint, but from a constitutional standpoint. In 2012, it is my belief that electors should not vote for Barack Obama regardless of if he wins the popular vote or not. Obama is a citizen, but the health insurance reform bill he passed is unconstitutional, but the administration has pushed an illegal mandate on the American public. This is the most visible abuse of power the President has displayed, but there are others as well. Should President Obama be impeached? Certainly, the health insurance reform bill is enough to impeach him. However, with democrats in control of the U.S. Senate, impeachment won't occur. A supreme court trial about the healthcare bill will deal with the policy that led to a departure from constitutional law, but it would not deal with electoral matters in this regard. Therefore, it is my belief that electors should support the GOP nominee even if they popular vote goes to Obama in order to do what the founders want electors to do, safeguard the presidency from someone who is unfit to lead, and in this case the reason that person is unfit to lead is because he has passed a law through congress that is unconstitutional.

What they accomplished: the '12 hopefuls

In a few short weeks, the voting will begin. Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney and Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are going to be the choice for republicans. While other candidates will be on the ballot, it is unlikely any of them will emerge as the nominee. Romney has been able to rally the establishment behind his campaign, where as Newt Gingrich has accomplished a great political comeback; in the summer of 2011, it looked as if Gingrich would not even make the final four, let alone be a front-runner. However, conservatives across the nation are now rallying to Newt Gingrich due to his campaign of ideas. While both Romney and Gingrich have accomplished things during the campaign, there are others who have also been able to accomplish something. Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain reminds us that people are more powerful than politicians. Cain became the first leading presidential candidate not in previously elected office since Dwight Esienhower's election in 1952. Cain's downfall was due not to politicians winning, but because desperate forces decided to lie about Mr. Cain. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has helped advance the tea party movement as founder of the congressional tea party caucus and as a presidential candidate. Congressman Ron Paul has helped to bring republicans and libertarians together after years of libertarians being ignored by both the right and left. Governor of Texas Rick Perry was able to start a debate on illegal immigration, which ironically is probably what hurt him the most in this campaign. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has alerted GOP primary voters and all Americans about the dangerous world we live in and the need for a strong America. Former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman has reminded voters of the fact that experience can be an asset in a leader. But what does this all mean for the political future of all these hopefuls and for the general election? Ron Paul will likely pass the torch down to his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. However, it would not be hard to envision Paul writing books and lecturing in the future. That being said, it is doubtful Paul will campaign for the GOP nominee. Rick Perry, on the other hand, will be an asset to the republican party in the general election in that he has connections to some big fundraisers in the state of Texas, and competing with Obama on that front won't be easy. Congresswoman Bachmann can be an asset to the republican nominee in rallying tea party groups across the nation behind the republican banner. Senator Santorum would be an asset to a republican nominee by being open to the media in analyzing the campaign from a republican perspective. Jon Huntsman would help the GOP by reaching out to independent voters in some more left-leaning states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota. However, it is my personal belief that Herman Cain will actually play the greatest role in the general election. Cain is the ideal surrogate; media friendly, scripted yet genuine, and he is not afraid to attack Barack Obama on the issues. All of the GOP candidates in this race have accomplished something, and although it appears the choice is between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney, the others all have things they can be proud of as can their supporters.

It's not just a campaign, but a movement

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is no longer the only GOP candidate who is not only leading a campaign, but a movement. Paul's "revolution" is inspiring the support of younger voters and libertarians, but the Texas Congressman only polls in the single digits just weeks before the first votes are cast. There is another campaign that is also a "movement." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is leading a different movement than Dr. Paul. Gingrich is leading a movement that has relied on less money, less organization, but a stronger message than other GOP candidates. Speaker Gingrich is calling for what Dr. Paul is calling for, fundamental reform in Washington D.C. However, they have vastly different approaches. Dr. Paul's campaign is based on ending the federal reserve, ending the U.S. involvement in the middle-east, and cutting government. Speaker Gingrich's movement re-ignites what helped Ronald Reagan win in 1980 and '84, and what helped Gingrich lead the first republican house of representatives in 40 years. Gingrich is proposing a new "Contract with America." His last Contract helped with a "republican revolution" as the GOP took both houses of congress in 1994. Speaker Gingrich's approach today is based on ideas he has been advocating for quite some time. The basis of his campaign seems to be surrounded not by a few issues, but by many. Included in his agenda is welfare reform, tax reform, spending restraint, health insurance reform, entitlement reform, the appointment of conservative judges, and a consistent foreign policy echoing that of the Reagan years and of the George W. Bush years. Speaker Gingrich represents unconventional wisdom, something that is ironic since he spent 20 years in Washington D.C. as a congressman, including 4 years as Speaker of the House. Even after leaving congress in 1999, Gingrich helped found think tanks, write books, make films, advise people, help advise leaders on national security and health care reform, and he has been a frequent commentator on a variety of issues. Where as Gingrich has a campaign built from the ground up, his opponent for the republican nomination, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, has built a campaign from the top down. Romney, who was seen as a conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008 along with Mike Huckabee, now finds himself as the establishment candidate. On a daily basis, Romney wins endorsements from those in the Washington D.C. area. Only 1 members of congress has endorsed Gingrich, and it's a freshman member who has not been in Washington all that long. Speaker Gingrich is leading a coalition of concerned citizens who are disappointed with politics as usual and want bold solutions and a fundamentally different way of doing things in Washington. Speaker Gingrich speaks for his supporters because he has proven he has the record to run on but perhaps more importantly to his supporters, he has the intellect to understand issues in-depth and is a student of history.

How the GOP wins in '12

It is apparent that the republican nominee for President in 2012 is either going to be Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) or Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA). The question now becomes, when the primary is over, how do they win? Each of them has different strengths and weaknesses and has a slightly different base. Romney is well-liked by fiscal conservatives, moderates, and independents, where as Gingrich enjoys support amongst the grassroots and some more traditional republican voters. It is my belief that if they run an effective campaign, either one could end up winning. However, getting their varies between the two. Gingrich is blunt, good at debates, and has experience to run on. However, his hefty personal baggage and some past statements he has made hurts him. Romney is calm, seen as competent, and a Washington outsider. But his shifts in positions hurt his credibility with some voters. For Gingrich, the path to the white house consists of reaching out to independents, putting aside questions about his past personal life, and being able to capitalize on President Obama's weakness: the economy. To do so, the Former Speaker would be wise to talk about the economy during the time in which he was speaker and to lay out his agenda to the nation. While many conservatives would welcome Gingrich as the nominee, centrists would be more skeptical. To win over independents, Newt Gingrich needs to listen to them and talk to them in a way that is unifying. Mitt Romney would find himself in a similar position as George H.W. Bush did in 1988: he would be considered an "acceptable" nominee, though not exciting like Ronald Reagan. Unlike President Bush though, Romney would not face an easy opponent. Romney is, at present, doing a good job for the general election, he is touting his business credentials and focusing on attacking President Obama on the economy. However, in a general election, Mitt Romney needs to take advantage of social media and become more visible to voters. The bottom line is, Gingrich needs to reach out to independents and effectively make his case, Romney needs to unite the GOP and then run as a Washington outsider. The GOP candidates need to first ensure they have solid polling in states such as Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina that generally lean republican, but supported Obama in 2008. Then, work on getting Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Nevada in the republican column. The priority, however, should be focused on Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Colorado. As far as a running-mate is concerned, Mitt Romney would be advised to pick someone who is more conservative than he is, and Newt Gingrich should try to pick someone younger than he is.

What New Jersey can teach America

I am proud that I am from a great state. New Jersey has been a leader in America. However, for 22 years under democratic and republican Governors, New Jersey faced tremendous problems and shoved them down the road, even as congress dealt with problems such as welfare, the economy, and two wars. Now, the roles are reversed; congress is not working, but New Jersey is. Despite having problems, New Jersey has enjoyed some of the lowest crime rates, best schools, and best equipped work force in the nation. New Jersey has benefited greatly from pharmaceutical companies, retail industries, tourism, and a surplus of people leading to job opportunities in various sectors. However, our core was broken for many years. To be middle-class in New Jersey, a person needs to make more than it would take to be middle-class elsewhere. Inner-cities have experienced crime problems for decades now. However, in the past 2 years, it seems New Jersey government has functioned better than the federal government. In the midst of a budget deficit and a bad economic climate, a tough-talking former federal prosecutor, Chris Christie, was elected Governor on a platform to reform government. As Governor, Chris Christie has fought to reduce state spending and hold the line on taxes. Debate occurred, but at the end of the day, Governor Christie and the legislature did cut spending. In his first year in office, Governor Christie managed to cut state spending by 9%. Furthermore, Governor Christie has asked public employees to contribute more to their health benefits, he has cut state spending, he made it harder for future legislators to increase property taxes, and he even managed to sign tax cuts on individuals and businesses into law, something that has been desperately needed in the garden state. Governor Christie deserves tremendous credit for taking on the unions and being fiscally responsible. However, the state legislature has worked with him to do so. Republican and democrats worked together to put New Jersey on a more fiscally sustainable and economically advantageous course. In the nearly 2 years he has been Governor, Chris Christie has made government work. Washington D.C. is a different story. Washington politicians in the past few years have supported tremendous deficit spending, an unconstitutional and costly health care reform bill, new regulations that hurt the private economy, and uncertainty for business and families. As represented by the "super-committee", Washington can't cooperate. Democrats claim republicans want to hurt the average person, while republicans simply name-call. Perhaps Washington can learn some things from New Jersey. In Washington, President Obama has delegating responsibilities to ideologues in his party. He should learn from Governor Christie that leadership is about taking part in debates and at times, proposing legislation to congress. Members of congress in both parties should actually talk to each other. They can debate, but working across the isle is not always a bad thing. There are times when it is important to hold firm; Governor Christie refused to raise taxes in New Jersey, and Washington D.C. politicians should also oppose any tax increase that hits the middle-class or business. It's time for Washington to become more like New Jersey.

Newt VS. Mitt: The Choice

The departure of Herman Cain from the presidential race re-enforces what has been known for the past month: the GOP presidential primary will come down to a contest between Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA). The choice for republican primary voters on a variety of issues should be made clear. In some areas, there are similarities between the two hopefuls; both accomplished welfare reform, added jobs, and were able to cut spending and pay down debt. However, there are also several areas where the two differ. While Newt Gingrich has been innovative in the bold solutions he has offered Americans, Governor Romney has insisted on using the mentality of a Washington insider without even being one where as Speaker Gingrich was in congress for 2 decades. A prime example of this is tax reform. Tax cuts, as proven when Ronald Reagan was President and when Newt Gingrich was Speaker, stimulate economic growth if implemented correctly. Many Americans are skeptical of our tax code and system. Speaker Gingrich has a tax plan that, if enacted, would stimulate economic growth, help families save time and money, and fundamentally change the tax code. Mitt Romney offers small tax cuts and does not change the tax code what so ever. But the differences between the two candidates is much more than tax cuts. On the spending side, both candidates have expressed a desire to reform entitlement programs and repeal Obamacare as means to reduce the national debt. The difference is, Speaker Gingrich also plans to apply lean six sigma to the federal government as a means to modernize it, saving taxpayers $500 billion each year. Governor Romney has not committed to such a bold plan. Even on health care, Governor Romney offers nothing more than establishment thinking, such as allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines. Speaker Gingrich supports some establishment ideas, but he also has some original ideas on healthcare, such as promoting research in health care. Whether the issue be tax policy, spending, health care, or anything else, Governor Romney clearly represents the interests of the establishment, where as Speaker Gingrich represents bold solutions based on all good ideas. Furthermore, Speaker Gingrich has far greater knowledge of many issues a President deals with than Governor Romney. Though there should be little doubt that Governor Romney would be a good President, he would not be a transformational leader like Speaker Gingrich. It is going to take more than some good ideas and money to beat Barack Obama, it is going to take a clear understanding of complex issues and the ability to present a bold case to the public.

Poll shows 2 man race. But why?

A new USA today / Gallup national poll shows Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as the front-runner to be the GOP nominee with 22% of the vote, but Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) polls just behind him at 21%. The only other candidate in double-digits is Businessman Herman Cain, who polls at 16%. Up until the media began spreading the story about Herman Cain's alleged sexual misconduct, Cain was Romney's challenger for the nomination while it seemed Gingrich would have a fighting chance. Now, the roles of Cain and Gingrich have reversed. But why? Part of this, in my view, is a 5 way divide within the republican party between the establishment, the Reagan coalition which is more conservative, the moderate-wing of the party, the grassroots, and the tea party. The establishment is really a small group of well-funded individuals and elected members of congress. Of course, this group favors Romney, which is why Mitt Romney has stacked up so many congressional endorsements. The moderate wing of the party, who has not had a nominee since George H.W. Bush, also supports Romney, though I'm sure a few are looking at Jon Huntsman at least in New Hampshire. The Reagan-wing of the party, the conservatives who make up a large majority of the party, are likely divided between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney. Grassroots activists are either supporting Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich, the conservative activists going for Gingrich while the libertarian activists are going for Paul. The tea party has 4 candidates in this race; Gingrich, Cain, Paul, and Michele Bachmann. Bachmann effectively takes votes away from Cain, where as Gingrich and Paul maintain a loyal group of supporters. The combination of Reagan conservatives, grassroots conservatives, and tea party voters help Gingrich challenge Romney, who is backed by the party establishment and moderates. Romney also has some Reagan conservatives backing him, but those Reagan conservatives are likely less conservative than those supporting Speaker Gingrich. The reason the polls are so close is because the establishment does not like Gingrich, and grassroots conservatives dislike Romney. Gingrich has sometimes appeared as overly blunt and undisciplined to the establishment, where as Romney has been seen as indecisive and too moderate for the grassroots conservatives and the tea party. Both Gingrich and Romney need to overcome one big obstacle though: winning the support of social conservatives. Three second-tier candidates may split the socially conservative vote: Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum. Herman Cain will win some social conservative votes, but I think the economy will be the top issue, which benefits both Romney (from his business career) and Gingrich (unemployment hit as low as 4.2% when he was House Speaker.) So, this two man race is between the establishment and center-right of the party and the conservative-wing of the party which consists of Reagan republicans, tea party voters, and grassroots activists.

Mittideology

First of all, I am not supporting Mitt Romney for President, I am supporting Newt Gingrich. The intent of this article is the closely examine Mitt Romney's record and flip-flops, some of which are real, others imagined by members of the media and polarizing figures. First, the record. In business, few dispute Mitt Romney has a positive record, and he was a job creator. His company helped start up household names like Staples and Dominos Pizza. Romney is also credited with helping to make sure the 2002 Olympic games were a success. Romney than ran for Governor of Massachusetts, and won. When examining the Romney record while he was Governor, one will see some flaws, some successes, and other times where the liberal legislature stood in the way of reform. As Governor, Mitt Romney successfully cut spending to erase a deficit, he reduced taxes on business, he reversed a capital gains tax increase, he reformed welfare, he enforced immigration laws and opposed benefits to illegals, he opposed a regional cap and trade program, and he increased the "welcome home package" for our brave soldiers returning from overseas. However, Romney's record in Massachusetts also consisted of his health care law, one that has a few flaws. Romney's health care law is still not Obamacare, for it does not raise taxes, cut medicare, or violate the constitution. Furthermore, Massachusetts citizens seem to like the law, where as polling has shown public disapproval for Obamacare. What is problematic about Romneycare is, like Obamacare, it has an individual mandate, and it does not contain cost. Therefore, Romneycare is fundamentally flawed. Romney's record as Governor is certainly a mixed-bag, for he accomplished certain things for the state from a financial and economic standpoint, but his health care law and the fact that he closed corporate "loopholes" leads one to pause. In terms of overall economic growth, while he did enact policies that were job friendly (under his watch, the state added nearly 50,000 new jobs after having lost jobs) the state also ranked 47th in economic growth. Since his first run for public office in 1994, Mitt Romney has evolved, or has been accused of evolving, on a variety of issues. Clearly, he changed some positions. Running for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and for Governor in 2002, Romney stated he was pro-choice despite his personal feelings on abortion. However, he switched his view in 2005 claiming that embryonic stem-cell research compelled him to stand up for life. In 1994, Romney opposed ethanol subsidies, but when running for President in 2007 and again now, he supports those subsidies, perhaps as a means to win the Iowa caucus. Also, Romney's view on campaign finance reform has changed, he was for it in 1994 but has since criticized McCain-Feigngold. On public mandates, he switched from supporting them (and believing the nation should follow Massachusetts on health care) to opposing them, though in his defense Romney opposed Obamacare from day one and has accurately pointed out the differences between the Obama and Romney plans. While on abortion, ethanol, campaign finance, and public mandates Romney has switched views, he has also been unfairly accused of doing the same on other issues. First, gay rights. In 1994, Romney did state he was more pro-gay rights than the late Edward Kennedy. However, Romney is never on record for having supported gay marriage, and in fact he tried to get congress to pass a federal marriage ban in 2005. Therefore, Romney's views on gay rights are consistent; he opposes marriage for same-sex couples, but he also does not want discrimination. On gun laws, Mitt Romney has also remained relatively consistent. Romney supports the right to bear arms and back round checks. In 2007, on NBC's Meet the Press, Romney stated he believed the Brady Bill changed over time, so he did indeed change his view on that. When assessing all of these things, I have come to the conclusion that while republicans and independents should be weary of some of Romney's evolving perspectives, they should also realize that he has remained consistent in many areas. A successful businessman, Romney knows how to sell something to people and he is proven to be competent. If elected President, there should be no doubt Mitt Romney would be pro-free market and pro-business, but one should also note that he is not a gun owners best friend, nor is he really focused on social issues, or so it seems. That being said, social conservatives can trust Romney to appoint judges, and gun owners can rest assured that chances are, Romney won't be a "gun-grabber." What he will be is, focused on the economy and foreign affairs.

Why the media dislikes Gingrich

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich often has claimed media bias against him. He is right. The media likes to report stories such as Herman Cain's alleged sexual misconduct, or Mitt Romney's statement that "corporations are people" than the issues facing the country. The media should do their homework on the Cain story, and they must realize that Governor Romney's statement is much deeper than what they reported. Newt Gingrich has big ideas for the nation, but the media has overlooked much of what he says. In fact, the media seems to pay more attention to Rick Perry, despite the fact that Gingrich has surged ahead in the polls while Perry's polling numbers have dropped significantly since he entered the race. At least twice during debates, Gingrich angered a moderator. Both times, the audience supported Mr. Gingrich and in the case of Chris Wallace, they booed the moderator. Perhaps the media is afraid of Mr. Gingrich because he exposes them for what they are; some talented people, but folks who would rather report an interesting story instead of going into details about each candidates agenda, even those such as Jon Huntsman or Rick Santorum who are behind in the polls. The media does not like Speaker Gingrich because he is blunt with them. There has always been a media bias against republicans, but it seems Speaker Gingrich, like Former President George W. Bush, is disliked by the media strongly. In the case of President Bush, he handled the media with kid gloves, for better or worse. Bush did what was right for the country, and while he answered questions to the media, he did not have the same "confrontational" tone as Gingrich. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has also been accused of having a "confrontational" tone, but he has said its just who he is. Christie tells the truth, and so does Newt Gingrich. The media likes politicians who are going to give political answers because it's easier for them to analyze, but people like Speaker Gingrich, Governor Christie, and others who seek facts and the truth may not be darlings of the media, but they will be with their base and sometimes, those outside their base. Newt Gingrich has proven throughout this campaign he is disciplined, and unlike some of his opponents, he has had to confront a media focused more on drama than on issues. For an intellect like Speaker Gingrich, that is a challenge, and I for one feel he has handled it well.

Where Americans stand and how to deal with it

Let me just put my personal views aside for a moment. Where do Americans stand on key issues? It seems to me Americans are less divided than folks think. On economic and fiscal issues, it seems most Americans are moving towards the conservative point of view. Americans seem to want free market solutions to problems, lower taxes on the middle-class and business, and less government spending and regulation. However, to be fair, Americans do want some regulation, and they don't mind if the wealthy pay more in taxes. However, the Occupy crowd is still in the minority; Americans don't seem to have the same class warfare tendencies as the Occupy crowd. While republicans can run against big government, regulation, high taxes, deficit spending, and Obamacare, Americans seem much more likely to support the democrats on social issues. While it seems to me Americans support the 2nd amendment, people are becoming increasingly open to same-sex civil unions and in some cases, same-sex marriage. The same goes for abortion: while a divisive issues, there seems to be a slight majority of Americans who are pro-choice. The question for the people and their elected representatives then becomes how to balance out these views? The answer is state's rights. The federal government has an obligation to repeal Obamacare, reduce taxes, reduce spending, and reduce some regulations to create an environment in which the economy can grow. However, many of the things the federal government now is involved in should be returned to the states. On the economy, states should be in charge of public work's projects, not the federal government. What is good for one state may not always be good for another. One prime example is education. Why should there be a federal educational curriculum? Since LBJ instituted such a policy, our public schools have been failing. We would be better off having minimum requirements for education on the federal level. Another issue is health insurance. Massachusetts voters believe they have a good health care system, but voters in other places probably don't want the same health care program as Massachusetts. On social security and medicare, wouldn't it make more sense if states made more choices? We need to reform social security and medicare at the federal level and while the federal government needs to continue to control at least a part of the program, states should have more flexibility. The same goes for social issues. On the federal level, there should be a partial-birth abortion ban and Roe V. Wade should be over turned to allow for states to make decisions on abortion. Same with gay marriage, and the same with gun control. I would bet voters in Louisiana or Arizona would want looser gun control laws than those in Massachusetts or Illinois. So, let them have separate laws. When it comes to the security of our people, the federal government should defend public safety and having a strong national defense, that is where the federal government's focus should be, not dictating social policy or having "stimulus" programs that violate state's rights. The federal government's role should be limited, effective, and constitutional.

Newt Gingrich 2012

A few weeks ago, I made the decision to support Newt Gingrich for the republican presidential nomination in 2012. After Rudy Giuliani announced he was not running, I assessed the 4 candidates I felt had the qualifications and leadership ability to lead this country. I looked at Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich. I have a great deal of respect for Governor Romney, Mr. Cain, and Senator Santorum, but I feel Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the kind of leader America needs right now. Speaker Gingrich has a record to run on; 11 million jobs, welfare reform, balanced budgets, $400 billion in debt paid off, and the largest capital gains tax relief in history. Furthermore, Speaker Gingrich has a bold agenda for America. His economic plan will cut taxes in areas that would stimulate economic growth; he would eliminate the capital gains tax, bring the corporate tax rate to 12.5%, allow for 100% expensing, and have an optional 15% flat tax that still allows for deductions for homeowners and those who invest in charity. Speaker Gingrich also supports the efforts of Strong America Now, a group that proposes simply by reforming government, the U.S. could save $500 billion per year. Gingrich also understands the need to repeal Obama's failed economic policies and replace them with something that is pro-growth and pro-family. It is not just on economics that Newt Gingrich has the experience and judgement to lead. He has also supported a "peace through strength" foreign policy. Speaker Gingrich understands the need to defeat radical islamic extremists. He also understands the need to secure the border and stop giving benefits to illegal aliens. Unlike the other candidates in the 2012 field, Newt Gingrich knows a variety of issues and he is running a campaign based on fundamentally transforming the direction of this country into one that will help make America safer, more prosperous, and more hopeful. Newt Gingrich is an inspirational and generational leader, and he has the experience, judgement, and bold solutions to lead this country. Barack Obama's failed economic policies have led to more unemployment, more debt, more people seeing lower wages, and more people in poverty. The differences in Newt Gingrich's record and that of the current administration could not be greater. When looking at the GOP field, I found some other things about other folks running. Mitt Romney was a successful businessman and while he knows economics, his economic plan calls for very minor tax cuts for the middle-class. Rick Santorum is a crusader for a strong national defense, but he does not have the discipline required to win. Herman Cain is a passionate advocate for what he believes in, but his policy knowledge is limited to specific areas such as tax policy and monetary policy. Congresswoman Michele Bachman's vote against the mission in Libya and against a debt ceiling increase prove she is a pure ideologue, despite her deserving credit for opposing Obamacare from the start. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson make some sense in some areas, but they are not realistic or focused on reality in foreign affairs. Buddy Roemer is running in the wrong party, he seems to be more of a conservative democrat (which he was during the 1980s) than a republican. The most disturbing, however, is Texas Governor Rick Perry's candidacy. Governor Perry has given tax-payer benefits to illegal aliens, he opposes a border fence, he opposes E-Verify for illegals, debt in Texas under his watch grew faster than at the national level, and he signed an executive order forcing young girls to be vaccinated for HPV. Governor Perry seems closer to a liberal than anyone else in the GOP field, and that includes moderate Jon Huntsman. Huntsman supported President Obama's failed stimulus bill, which in my view shows a lack of judgement. This election must be about the economy, our security, and the future. Newt Gingrich is the best qualified and has the best solutions not only to win, but to govern. I hope he does win next year.

NAU: Bush no, Perry yes

Some believed that America's 43rd President, George W. Bush, tried to create a North American Union with Canada and Mexico. With those unfamiliar with what that means, a NAU would erase our borders with these nations and we would act as one large economic super house much like that of the European Union. Despite President Bush supporting free trade, he actually increased the amount of border patrol agents at the border and never supported an NAU. However, as Texas Governor Rick Perry prepares to run for president, some are likely to examine his record with regards to the NAU. Over a decade ago, Perry supported having a NAFTA super-highway which would erase our border in Texas. This would have allowed for open-borders. All the issues we have with illegal immigration would become worse, and the consequences would be devastating. Rick Perry, the man who wanted Texas to secede from the union, previously wanted to erase our country's borders. This, in fact, shows a lack of judgment.

Final debt deal: Not right for the country

Debt crisis blog 2

As the argument over the debt crisis continues, Americans witness first hand how Washington is broken. President Obama and his democratic allies in congress have continuously resisted any meaningful deficit reduction plan like the Ryan budget. Instead, they have embraced increased government spending and government-intervention into our economy which has hurt this economy. Instead of offering proposals to cut spending, democrats have instead tried and scared seniors, working families, and others who are vulnerable. The republican party was united in supporting Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget, which was the most credible deficit reduction proposal in a while. Now, during a crisis, republicans are proving they are just the lesser of the two evils, but by no means good themselves. Speaker Boehner has proposed a plan that would cut spending less than that of the President. Many of the freshmen congressmen and senators fail to realize the economic challenges of not having an agreement. When Senator John McCain blasted tea party members, he failed to realize that in this situation, there are no innocent by-standers except the American public. In my view, the best compromise would be to pass the Paul Ryan budget, raise the debt ceiling, increase income taxes on the top tax bracket from 35% to 37%, and close the corporate loopholes that ship jobs overseas. Of the current plans on the table, none are good for the country. In the past 3 years, we have faced economic challenges that have hurt millions of people. It is time for congress and the administration to work together by using common sense solutions, but instead we have democrats failing to realize the truth about budgets and economics, and republicans saying one thing and doing little. I truly hope this crisis is resolved in a way in which we get our debt under control and our nation can be more united.

My take on Rudy in 2012

I have come to the conclusion that if Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani enters the 2012 race for the GOP presidential nomination, it would be difficult for me not to vote for him. As Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani cut taxes, reduced spending, reformed government, reduced crime rates, and reduced welfare rolls. These are not things I pulled out of thin air, they are fact. Rudy Giuliani turned a city's economy around as well as making it the safest large city in America, a place where people could feel safe and prosper. Mayor Giuliani understands the need to have an economy that grows in the private sector, he understands the need for fiscal disipline, and he understands the need for the United States to remain a military super power focused on keeping people safe at home and abroad. While many of the other republicans stray away from the "peace through strength" foreign policy, Rudy is not afraid to embrace this notion and he believes in American exceptionalism. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty have good records on economic and fiscal issues, but Rudy has cut taxes more than the others and he led a city which had the 4th largest government in the nation and a population larger than 39 states. Rudy Giuliani did the best job turning a city around. Many social conservatives don't like Rudy Giuliani because he has socially moderate positions. I do not agree with the Mayor's position on abortion or even when he sued gun companies, but I do agree with his support for domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples. I also don't like the fact that as a Mayor, Rudy supported sanctuary for illegal aliens, but I also know that as a candidate in 2008, he put forth an immigration plan that secured the border, had no amnesty, and would have made those immigrating here learn English and American civics. Rudy Giuliani is a smart and talented indivisual who has a record of results. I believe he has the judgment, record, and vision to be President and he is, to me, the front-runner with regards of who I will be voting for.

My advice to '12 hopefuls

Here is what I would advise each GOP pres. hopeful if I were on their team.

Mitt Romney- Governor Romney is focusing on New Hampshire and talking about the economy, it is working. However, Romney should also focus on Florida as well as New Hampshire. Win states that are swing-states during a general election.

Rudy Giuliani- Rudy needs to capitalize on his record as Mayor of NYC and talk about the economy. Rudy should try to win in New Hampshire and Florida. He should also try to portray Romney as inconsistent and Bachmann as un-electable. After Florida, focus on states where republicans generally lose general elections.

Tim Pawlenty- Iowa is Michele Bachmann's home state, she will win there. T-Paw's best bet is South Carolina, he did well in the first debate there and he would have the state virtually to himself. Pawlenty needs to be more specific on the economy and be aggressive against Mitt Romney on "Obamneycare."

Michele Bachmann- Focus mainly on Iowa and South Carolina, run as the true tea party candidate, that is her biggest strength.

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich should do what Romney did last time; run on the republican three-legged stool; unite social, fiscal and foreign policy conservative. Newt's focus should be on winning South Carolina.

Herman Cain: Run on economic issues and talk up the fair tax, be the candidate Huckabee voters from '08 want this time around. Cain should take his message to Iowa, Michigan, and South Carolina.

Jon Hunstman- Huntsman should try to challenge Romney in Nevada and talk health care there.

Thad McCotter- Rep. McCotter should run as a conservative alternative to Romney in Michigan.

Sarah Palin: Palin's best chance at winning the nomination is to appeal to social conservative and focus heavily on South Carolina.

Rick Santorum: Senator Santorum should run as a conservative with more experience than Bachmann, Palin, or Herman Cain. As far as winning states are concerned, South Carolina is probably his best bet.

Ron Paul: Paul's best chance is to try and take advantage of libertarians in Nevada.

Gary Johnson: Focus in on Nevada like Dr. Paul, but be sure to mention he's a congressman and Johnson was a Governor.

Rick Perry: Take his state's rights and pro-life message to South Carolina and the rest of the south.

Debt compromise: Here's an idea

I believe that in a time of crisis, measures need to be taken to make things better. Both parties in D.C. are acting like spoiled children in these debt talks. Speaker Boehner and the republicans would rather allow us to have $12 trillion in debt in a decade than to raise taxes on the top tax bracket, which begins at around $379,800 per year. President Obama does not want to admit his health care policy is too costly and repeal it, now we are going to spend $1 trillion in 10 years on a plan that will increase premiums and that is illegal. Democrats in congress would rather see the nation go broke than reform social security and medicare. It is my belief that both parties are going to have to compromise to avert crisis. First off, the republicans should agree to an increase in the tax rate for the top tax bracket, I would suggest an increase from 35% to 37%. The republicans should then ask the democrats to agree to Paul Ryan's plan, which would reform medicare and cut $6 trillion from the debt in 10 years. I also agree with what GOP presidential hopeful Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has stated his support for; cut the corporate tax rate to off-set closing corporate loopholes. Cutting the tax rate on business from 35% to 25% would help us be competitive and could increase revenues. As far as the debt ceiling, I would urge a small increase in it of around $5 billion or $10 billion, but no larger than that because then congress and the administration will just ask for more.

Enough with the pledges!

RINOS are not the issue, CINOS are.

Often, republican voters cite some more moderate republicans as "RINOS" which stands for "republican in name only." However, I believe CINOS, or "Conservatives In Name Only" are a bigger threat to the electoral process. There is, in todays politics, a big disconnect between republican and conservative. For the past 30 years, conservatives have favored a "peace through strength" foreign policy. Today, many Washington republicans question the mission in Libya even as a brutal dictator oppresses his own people. Not even a decade ago, republicans approved the removal of another brutal dictator who suppressed his own people and threatened the world. Obviously, the party has shifted left-ward on foreign affairs, away from the "peace through strength" philosophy so many on the right have embraced since the 1980 campaign. But, it is not just on foreign policy where there are republicans who have abandoned conservatism. In 2009, Florida's Governor, Charlie Crist, was seen as a popular and well-spoken Governor who had been a loyal republican, there was no reason to doubt that he was a republican. However, he strayed away from conservatism by supporting a $787 billion "stimulus" program opposed by both republicans and conservatives. Crist then continuously flip-flopped on President Obama's federal health insurance program. On other key issues, Crist still stood with republicans. However, he had abandoned conservatism. This is proof that it is not republican-lite folks we have to fear, those of us on the right, but those who abandon our conservative views.

Obama, some in the GOP are not acting properly

President Obama is a democrat. Democrats in congress and in the media today use half-truths and smear campaigns to get their points across. They won't admit their policies of massive federal spending and more government have failed the country. This recession has been made much worse because of the failed policies of the democratic party. Yet, democrats continue to lie to the country about what needs to be done moving forward. Actually, scrap that: they just attack the republicans and do nothing themselves. Every time a major policy debate occurs, President Obama sits back and is silent while leaders in his party just lie about the GOP. What do republicans do in response? Act like a bunch of angry brats. Instead of confronting the democrats on their wasteful Washington ways, republicans recently left a budget meeting. When President Obama did the right thing in Libya by going after a brutal dictator who is slightly worse than Saddam Hussein, republicans in congress all of the sudden are afraid of foreign intervention. They play politics with foreign policy. Luckily, some GOPers like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain still have common sense. Very few others in both parties do. Democrats are getting it wrong on economics, republicans are getting it wrong on Libya. It's sickening really.

Why conservatives fear Romney and why they should not

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the early favorite to win the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Traditional republicans, especially fiscal conservatives, like Romney. However, social conservatives and many in the tea party fear a Romney presidency. There is no doubt that conservatives have reason to question Romney; he has changed his positions on gun control, abortion, campaign finance reform, and even Ronald Reagan. The health care plan Romney pushed and signed into law enacted an individual mandate just like President Obama's national plan. Many conservatives who don't support Romney see him as a phony. However, I am here to say conservative should not fear Romney. I don't agree with Mitt on everything. I do take exception to his flip-flops on some big issues. I don't support the health care plan he pushed, though I also know that it was not illegal and did not raise taxes, two major differences from the plan President Obama signed into law. Mitt Romney is not far-right, but this notion that he is a "RINO" is ob-surd in my view. Romney was successful in business, he was the type of guy who listened well to others and achieved success. As a Governor, he turned around state finances without a broad-based tax increase. During his last campaign, Romney demonstrated a depth of knowledge on issues such as illegal immigration, national security, and energy in addition to his credentials on fiscal and economic issues. Mitt Romney has his flaws, but I personally believe he would make a fine President, especially on economic and foreign policy issues.

Huckabee out of pres. race: what does this mean?

Former Governor of Arkansas and Fox News Show Host Mike Huckabee declared last Saturday that he will not run for the GOP pres. nomination in 2012 like he did in '08. This leaves a large chunk of GOP voters up for grabs. Huckabee was a front-runner and polled well in early states and in the general election. So, who can win over Huckabee's former supporters? Well, I believe his exit from the race best benefits Former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty, who is a evangelical christian and social conservative who now has a strong chance of winning the Iowa cacus. Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, and Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum are also likely to benefit. These folks benefit because Huckabee's supporters were generally either social conservatives and a few tea party supporters. Huckabee's withdrawl does not affect the candidacy of Former Governor Mitt Romney, Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Representative Ron Paul, Former Governor Gary Johnson, or Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in that they will win over former Huckabee supporters, but these candidates would likely benefit from the divide Huckabee's withdrawal brings. In short, the big benefactor from this is Tim Pawlenty with regards to who will win over Huckabee voters, but both Romney and Rudy benefit from the divide in the GOP.