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.