Unreliable flip-flopper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Gingrich haters help him

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

Religion in politics

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

South Carolina Primary: A defining moment

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

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

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

South Carolina Primary Preview

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

The choice SC voters have

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

Can 2012 turn into 1996 for politics?

The year is 1996. Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Lamar Alexander, Morry Taylor, Richard Lugar, and others sought to unseat President Bill Clinton after candidates such as Colin Powell and Former Vice President Dan Quayle sat out. Sadly, the 2012 republican race looks a lot like 1996. Collin Powell is a moderate republican who decided to sit out of presidential politics in '96. Powell had been considered a national hero. Sounds a lot like Rudy Giuliani. Former Vice President Dan Quayle was a favorite amongst certain aspects of the conservative movement, but the main stream media had considered him "dumb" and not electable. Sounds like Sarah Palin. George W. Bush of Texas had just been elected Governor in 1994, and as the articulate son of a Former President, he was seen as a rising star of the party. Sounds like Chris Christie (though Christie's father was not President.) Granted this tale has no Mike Huckabee, who surely would have won Iowa and South Carolina had he run in '12, but thats okay for the purpose of this comparison because Huckabee probably would win the presidency in 2012. While not a favorite of conservatives, Bob Dole had always been considered acceptable to them. Though he was the odds-on favorite for the nomination, he still faced obstacles. Sounds like Mitt Romney. Phil Gramm had won fame from working closely with Senator Warren Rudman and President Reagan on fundamental tax reform. Gramm, a favorite with conservatives, sought to change Washington from within and had some good results. Sounds like Newt Gingrich. Steve Forbes had spent his life outside politics and his main agenda as a presidential candidate was fundamental tax reform. Sounds like Herman Cain. Pat Buchanan took an isolationist and protectionist approach to policy. He had, in 1992, been a leader of a movement known as the "Buchanan brigade" and came back stronger in 1996. Sounds like Ron Paul. Lamar Alexander was a conservative Former Governor of Tennessee and Secretary of Education. On paper, it looked like he could give Dole a challenge. But he did not, perhaps due to his soft-spoken demeanor. Sounds like Tim Pawlenty. Morry Taylor had tried to run for President as a well-to-do guy who worked hard and wanted to appeal to blue collar voters. Sounds like Rick Santorum. Finally, Alan Keyes ran for President as a solid conservative, but he had a record of saying controversial things. Sounds like Michele Bachmann. In 1996, Bob Dole won the GOP nomination with only minor challenges from Gramm, Forbes, and Buchanan. In fact, Gramm had won no primaries, and Forbes and Buchanan had only won a limited number. The general election campaign was between Senator Dole and President Bill Clinton. Clinton had seen his party lose the 1994 elections, but they came back in 1996 despite republicans winning in the house and senate that year. Will history repeat itself in 2012?

Ron Paul VS. Obama: A closer look

By now, most Americans realize Barack Obama does not understand how to fix things. Whether it be the economy, health insurance, immigration, education, energy, or homeland security, Obama has either done nothing or made things worse. On the economy, he has added regulations and spent billions on a "stimulus" program in which little of the funds actually went to private sector job growth, and less than 15% of the funds went to much needed infrastructure. On health care, the President passed a bill with an unconstitutional mandate that gives a monopoly to the insurance industry. As a result, premiums jumped by 9% in 2011. On immigration, the President has been ineffective even as increased violence has taken place at the border. On education, the President has begun to scrap historic education reform that has helped the poor and minority children. On energy, the President has simply continued most of the Bush policies and he has been slow to make progress. On homeland security, the President does deserve credit for extending the USAPatriot Act, but he has ruined the Bush-era increase in airport security by allowing for tsa pat-downs and full-body scanners. These policies have led to high levels of unemployment, poverty, food stamp participation, and increased costs of living. The American people recongnized this during the election of 2010, and republicans gained seats in the U.S. Senate and won a majority in the U.S. House. Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney all have remedies to fix the Obama mess. But one presidential candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, has a very different view than main stream republicans like Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum. Part of the problem with the policies over the past 3 years is uncertainty. Companies, businesses, and families have not known what to expect from the Obama economy. As a result, they have not invested nor spent money but saved and worried. Switching over to a gold standard as Congressman Paul proposes would further uncertainty in the economy. While most regulations have become excessive and need to be eliminated, there is a basic need for the safety of the public and the enforcement of the law. The Food and Drug Administration is necessary to make sure that the foods being imported from foreign nations and those here are safe to eat. Congressman Paul proposes eliminating the FDA. Conservatives and independents alike know the need to cut the federal deficit. However, there are very few people who support cutting spending on military affairs. Keeping a large military, sustaining overseas bases, developing new technologies for the military, making sure our troops have the equipment they need to fight effectively, and training our troops are all vital for national security. President Obama has cut missile defense spending and will now cut the size of the U.S. military. Congressman Ron Paul agrees with both of these things. President Obama has a mixed bag on foreign policy by most measures. His administration has aggressively fought global terrorism and they successfully helped in the effort to defeat a brutal madman in Libya. However, the administration has failed to even begin an effort to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, they failed to react when North Korea began seeking to extend its power, they have limited our missile defense by agreeing to extend the Start Treaty, and they have failed to be good allies with nations such as Poland and Israel. This mixed bag on foreign policy leads to many questions about the President's competence. But, like him or not, Barack Obama has done some things right in foreign affairs. Congressman Ron Paul has questioned what Obama has done right and has taken a worse position on what he has done wrong. For example, the administration's position on Iran, which is to enact some sanctions than ignore the threat, is still not as dangerous as the Paul position, which is to not care if Iran should go nuclear. Simply put, Congressman Paul is as almost as bad as Obama on economics, but he is not capable of leading the nation in foreign affairs. A Paul presidency would be dangerous and a Paul administration would be ignorant of the many foreign policy issues facing the nation.

How to make this a 2-man race

Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman all seek to be the same thing: the anti-Romney. Well, there is a way in which all could get promotions from their current jobs and beat Romney. That is, team up. Ron Paul is not interested in joining such an effort, but conservatives can be assured he won't be President. So, here is my remedy. Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman all drop out of the race and endorse Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is respected amongst all the candidates. Then, make the race one between Gingrich and Romney. Then, when Newt Gingrich wins the nomination, he picks Rick Santorum for Vice President. Santorum provides Gingrich with a conservative running-mate from a swing state with appeal to social conservatives. Furthermore, Santorum is a young guy which helps balance the ticket and enable him to run for President in the future. Then, if the Gingrich/Santorum ticket wins, Rick Perry should be Gingrich's pick for agriculture secretary. Perry served as Agricultural Commissioner in Texas before serving as Governor. Jon Huntsman should then be Gingrich's pick to be secretary of commerce. As a Former Governor of Utah who helped that state's economy, he is qualified for the job. Furthermore, if he decided to run for President again in the future, he could run as someone with foreign policy, private sector, and governmental economic credentials. The chances of all this happening? Well, 0%. But it could work. Newt Gingrich is the best equipped to run against Romney, and he is also the oldest of the 4.

The real reason why conservatives have to "settle"

In 2008, many conservatives wondered why they had to "settle" for John McCain. Rudy Giuliani imploded after being the national front-runner for months in part because despite his fiscal and foreign policy credentials, he was seen as too moderate on social issues. Mike Huckabee was the socially conservative candidate in the race, but parts of his record on taxes and crime in Arkansas became an issue during the campaign. Mitt Romney's flip-flops on abortion, ethanol, and a few other issues hurt his chances. But there is little doubt that John McCain worked hard to win the New Hampshire GOP primary, which helped him become a front-runner. McCain then worked hard in South Carolina, Florida, and by March 4th, he became the presumptive GOP nominee. McCain had enjoyed support from the main stream media during his 2000 presidential campaign, but voters in South Carolina gave a decisive victory to George W. Bush, ending McCain's chances. By 2008, the main stream media focused on the democratic primary, and those forces that did focus on the GOP primary seemed to push Mitt Romney. Like in 2000, the media did not pick a candidate for GOP primary voters for the most part. 2012 is a different story. Former CEO of Godfathers Pizza Herman Cain was accused of sexual misconduct and of having an affair, claims with no evidence or clarity of truth. Despite this, the media decided to spend weeks covering this story as opposed to Mr. Cain's agenda, leading the tea party favorite to bow out of the presidential race. Following Cain's withdrawal, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich became the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. The media had grown to hate Gingrich during 1998 and 1999 and therefore, they did not want to have to deal with him for 4 years. So, throughout his presidential campaign, the media has attacked Gingrich on petty non-issues, the worst of which dealing with his consulting business. Those on the left who believe everything the media says without looking at a story objectively ran with the allegations that Gingrich had lobbied for Fannie and Freddie, allegations which were false. Gingrich consulted for them. Sadly, some republican primary voters believe that he was a lobbyist for them. Other stories about Gingrich's positions on the issues have been distorted by the media. In 2012 more than in any other election, the main stream media is trying to pick the republican nominee. Mitt Romney is a competent and accomplished individual, and while he is not a "RINO," he is more moderate than Mr. Gingrich and many republican voters. Since he is articulate and the establishment hopeful, the media appears to like him. Romney is reserved and while not dishonest, he is not as blunt as Mr. Gingrich. Simply put, the media is trying to pick the republican candidate and sadly, it looks like they have succeeded. That being said, the media wants Obama re-elected. If Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee, he won't be treated so well by the media after he is nominated. If Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, he won't be treated well either, but Mr. Gingrich has been more effective in calling out media BS not only by the left, but the right as well.

Whats next for Herman Cain?

Former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain announced his candidacy for President early in 2011 expecting to be a long shot candidate. Like Morry Taylor and Steve Forbes before him, Cain sought to be a guy who went right from business to the white house. After a speech in the late summer in Florida, Cain became a favorite for the GOP nomination. After more than three months in the spotlight, Cain withdrew his candidacy after several attention-hungry women accused him of sexual misconduct. However, despite leaving the presidential race, Cain remains a favorite amongst many conservatives, especially many within the tea party. So, what is next for Mr. Cain? He announced a 9-9-9 bus tour that will tout his tax reform agenda. However, one has to ask, what is next for Herman Cain? A resident of Georgia, it would be difficult for him to make a run for the U.S. Senate or Governor when incumbent republicans dominate those offices. However, perhaps Cain is seeking a cabinet post in a Gingrich or Romney administration. While he probably has the best profile to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve, having been a CEO and served as board chair of the Kansas City Federal Reserve in the 1990s, Mr. Cain said he would most want to be defense secretary if he was offered a job in a republican administration. However, during his own campaign, Cain was seen as weak in foreign affairs. Therefore, there are a few likely paths for Herman Cain to take. One would be a continuation of what he is currently doing; a political activist and voice for the tea party, especially on tax reform. Perhaps a President Gingrich or Romney would offer Cain a job at the federal reserve, treasury, or even as the chairman of the President's council of economic advisers. Another possible job for Mr. Cain could be chairman of the republican national committee. He has charisma and business connections which would help him be an effective fundraiser for the GOP. Maybe one of the cable television networks will offer him a cable deal, though he does have more experience in radio. Personally, I believe that Mr. Cain should be offered a job as Chairman of the Federal Reserve or he should become Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

John McCain endorses Romney: A closer look

Sen. John McCain of Arizona endorsed Mitt Romney for President in New Hampshire. McCain has a history with at least 5 of the current presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich remained neutral during the 2008 campaign, but he had been critical of John McCain on immigration and campaign finance reform. In fact, in September 2007, Gingrich blamed Campaign Finance laws for his decision not to run for President in 2008. During the Youtube/CNN debate in November 2007, John McCain and Ron Paul had an exchange on foreign policy. Jon Huntsman was one of John McCain's earliest supporters during the 2008 campaign. Mitt Romney and John McCain were bitter rivals during the 2008 primary. It would see as if McCain's relationship with Mitt Romney is like his relationship with George W. Bush; in 2000, McCain was Bush's main rival for the GOP nomination. Bush would attack McCain on tax cuts and campaign finance law, McCain attacked Bush as dishonest and compared him to Bill Clinton. Two months after ending his 2000 campaign, McCain endorsed Bush. However, McCain spent much of 2001 opposing President Bush's proposed tax cuts. However, following 9/11, McCain became a defender of the Bush administration, working with them on key issues and becoming a key ally of President Bush. In fact, McCain become a top surrogate for Bush's re-election bid in 2004, and Bush endorsed McCain the day after he won the republican presidential nomination in 2008. Why go into all of this? We see a pattern, except this time with McCain on top. After ending his own bid for President in 2008, Mitt Romney endorsed McCain, was a top surrogate, and was on the short-list with Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty to be his running-mate. In 2010, Romney lent his support to McCain's re-election efforts in Arizona. Now, McCain endorses Romney following a win in the closest Iowa caucus in history. McCain's endorsement will help Romney with moderates and independents, but not conservatives. Once considered a "maverick," John McCain remains a moderate. What has changed though, is McCain was considered a Washington insider challenging Washington, but now he is considered a Washington insider part of the establishment. Furthermore, one has to wonder why McCain endorsed Romney despite the fact that Romney viciously attacked him in 2008 much like he is now doing to Newt Gingrich. Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman must be angry with McCain, as he became one of McCain's earliest backers in 2008 and as he tries to make a comeback in New Hampshire, McCain chooses to endorse his formal rival over a long time ally. Either McCain does not care about friendship, he simply realizes Huntsman does not have a chance, or he dislike Huntsman's left-wing foreign policy. Personally, my guess is the last two options, though certainly a good friend would not ignore Huntsman. In the long run, John McCain's endorsement helps Romney with his base, but it does not help Romney expand his base. Therefore, Romney needs to reach out to conservatives; though Governor Chris Christie's endorsement of Romney helped him, Romney still has work to do. As for McCain, the Arizona Senator is a popular guy in New Hampshire, so I'm sure he will help Romney there.

Which Pres. are the candidates like?

Here is my analysis;

Newt Gingrich - It is tough to decide which American President Newt Gingrich is most like. Gingrich is intelligent and able, and he runs for President on big ideas. However, in the past he has had an interesting personal life, and his bluntness sometimes turns off political opponents. I would have to say though, Gingrich is probably the closest to Abe Lincoln. Like Lincoln, Gingrich is honest, intelligent, and committed to upholding the nation. However, while he enjoys some strong support, he also has a lot of enemies.

Mitt Romney - Mitt Romney is a guy who does not particularly excite the conservative base, though he is competent and respected. Though he tries to run as a Reagan conservative, he is seen as center-right or even moderate by many in his own party. This is reminiscent of George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign. Like Bush, Romney is running more on his career as a businessman than an actual platform. Furthermore, Romney, like Bush, stays away from combative language but is none the less committed to leading.

Rick Santorum - A "full-spectrum conservative" Rick Santorum is running as a socially conservative populist. While making the comparison to George W. Bush, Bush ran as a capitalist where as Santorum runs more or less as a populist. Senator Santorum is probably the candidate who is most like Teddy Roosevelt, though granted he differs on an ideology.

Ron Paul - Congressman Paul is running in the wrong party, or so main stream conservatives believe. He is a man of conviction, though most people don't like his convictions. Though in nature this sounds like George W. Bush, Bush enjoyed broad support in his campaigns than Paul now lacks. Ron Paul is probably the most like Herbert Hoover, a man of conviction who was not popular with the public.

Michele Bachmann - Michele Bachmann is a solid conservative, but she is not seen as a great communicator and has few actual accomplishments in public life. However, she has been able to tap into concers from the base of her party. Jimmy Carter was able to do the same, so Congresswoman Bachmann is the most like Jimmy Carter, though not from an ideology standpoint.

Rick Perry - Governor Perry has long been considered too moderate for many in the GOP, though he has not pandered too much in his campaigns. He also has had some "shady" fundraising connections and will attack his opponents relentlessly regardless of if the attacks are true, leading me to the conclusion he is the most like Richard Nixon.

Jon Huntsman - Jon Huntsman is an independent who is running as a republican, I don't feel conservatives would argue any differently. He is smart, accomplished, yet out of touch on some of the big issues of the day. Like Congressman Paul, I must say Governor Huntsman is like Herbert Hoover.

Barack Obama - President Obama thinks he knows what is best for the nation, and he is too stubborn to admit his many flaws, especially in domestic affairs. He is not a strong or effective leader, and he has relied on congress more than any other President. I would have to say, President Obama most resembles Jimmy Carter.

Closing argument for Iowa

This Tuesday, voters in Iowa will begin a process that may take until early spring. Republicans and independents across the nation will decide whom they want to be their nominee to challenge President Barack Obama. We have seen record debt, high unemployment, increased poverty, more usage of food stamps, an unconstitutional health care law, and a mixed-bag in foreign affairs over the past 4 years. Americans need a President who can defend the homeland, return the nation to economic prosperity, and who has an idea about how to lead the nation. Mitt Romney is a competent leader with a record of accomplishment, but he is the establishment candidate in an era when America needs a President who will really challenge congress. Ron Paul is simply running in the wrong party, and his foreign policies are dangerous and anti-american. Rick Santorum has strong conviction, but his views on some social issues are not in line with a strict-constructionist viewpoint. There is one candidate in the presidential race who has experience, vision, and the leadership ability to move America in a fundamentally new direction. As Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich led the efforts to lower taxes, reduce spending, balance the budget, reform welfare, enact anti-crime legislation, and preserve medicare. In this campaign, Newt Gingrich is the candidate of a "peace through strength" foreign policy and supply-side economics to get Americans back to work. If you want a conservative reformer with bold solutions, Newt Gingrich is the candidate for you.

One primary that has already been won

Voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and all the other 46 states have yet to cast a vote. Yet, there is one primary that has already been won. That is the "Mike Huckabee primary." Running as a social conservative who supported the fair tax in 2008, Mike Huckabee went from being a little-known long shot candidate to the winner of the Iowa caucus and the challenger to John McCain in southern states. There should be little doubt that several 2012 presidential candidates have vyed to win the "Huckabee primary", despite the fact the Former Arkansas Governor and Fox News Show Host did not win the GOP nomination. When Huckabee decided against a 2012 presidential run despite being an early favorite, other candidates sought his supporters in Iowa. When Congresswoman Michele Bachmann gained the support of Ed Rollins, who had run Huckabee's '08 campaign, it appeared she had won the "Huckabee primary." However, Rollins withdrew his services. Still, the candidates vying to win the "Huckabee primary" where Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry. Mitt Romney spent little time in Iowa and while he has earned the praise of Huckabee himself, social conservatives are weary of Romney and Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich's strength does not come from social conservatives. Early on, Herman Cain won the Huckabee primary. Cain is a social conservative, fair tax supporter, and Washington outsider with populist appeal. Cain was on his way to win Iowa and to compete in South Carolina, a path Huckabee took in 2008. It seems that Mitt Romney, whom came in 2nd to Mike Huckabee in 2008 in Iowa, is likely to win the hawk-eye state this year, there is still a winner of the "Huckabee primary" and that is Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. Unlike Huckabee, Santorum has not been afraid to take the glooves off. The differences between the two candidates end there. Santorum has tremendous appeal to social conservatives, he has worked hard in Iowa, and he has tried to run on a conservative message despite lacking a lot of money. Huckabee's seemingly disapproval of Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann's inabillity to campaign effectively (Huckabee gives a great speech and seems more like a neighboor than a guy running for President) hurt their chances of winning the "Huckabee primary." While it is unlikely Rick Santorum will win Iowa, he is likely to compete there.