It's Time for Newt to Bow Out

Before Super Tuesday, I said it would likely be Newt's last hurrah.  I then submitted that IF and ONLY IF he could win BOTH Mississippi and Alabama would he have a legitimate argument to be the conservative alternative.  He'd then have four top notch Southern states to his name.  But that did not happen. He came in second place in both states, beating Mittens by 1% or less in both. He also came in third in Kansas.

There comes a time when one needs to be pragmatic.  Do I still believe that Newt is the best candidate to face Obama? Absolutely.  Do I still believe Newt's platform is the most conservative?  Yes I do. But what I no longer believe is that he can win this thing.  More importantly, the longer Newt stays in, the more likely we are to see Romney as our nominee.  He's not even coming in second place. 

When he was in second place, there was a strong argument to say Santorum should drop out and allow the conservative vote to coalesce behind Newt.  I'm no hypocrite...the door swings both ways. Newt is stopping Santorum from beating Romney in many places, and stopping Santorum from squashing Romney in others.

Just to give you some comparison of states, giving the combination percentages of the two conservatives vs. Mittens:

KS - Conservatives 65%, Mittens 20%; AL Conservatives 69%, Mittens 29%; MS - Conservatives 63%, Mittens 30%; GA - Conservatives 66%, Mittens 25%; ND - Conservatives 47%, Mittens 23%; OH* - Conservatives 51%, Mittens 29%; AK* Conservatives 43%, Mittens 32% 

There's far more, but again, Mittens is in trouble when the conservatives consolidate.  Furthermore, it's clear that Santorum has the edge over Gingrich.  Also, Newt is hurting Santorum in the delegate count.

If Gingrich tells his delegates to vote for Santorum, again, this is a big game change.  Currently, Mittens leads Santorum 495 delegates to 252 delegates.  That's a about 50% lead by Romney.  Now if Gingrich's delegates go to Santorum, now Mittens' lead drops to 495 to 383, only a 33% advantage. In raw numbers, Santorum is only a little more than one hundred votes shy of Mitt.

Most of us want better than Romney.  Most of us Newt fans also agree that Santorum would be a pretty decent second choice. It's time to do the math, friends.  You can have a candidate who is 100% perfect for you (Newt) but doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of winning the nomination, a candidate who is 85% perfect for you but can beat Mittens (Santorum) or you can have a candidate who is 50% perfect for you by default.  The choice is yours, my friends.

As for me, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism, I am hereby withdrawing my endorsement of Newt Gingrich.  I am not going to publicly endorse anyone else at this time, because I believe it is far more important to focus on why we must defeat Obama, and so I will focus on the Somebody Else 2012 campaign.

*Denotes State Romney won in a 3 way race

Reactions to the CNN-AZ Debate

Last night, the four remaining Republican candidates met for their first debate in a long time in Arizona.  It’s been so long that you’re not going to remember the notes from the last debate.  As a matter of fact, I’m going to refrain from putting in my notes from the last debate, since it was nearly a month to go. 

However, since we last saw the candidates debate, much has happened, so let’s quickly review that:  After winning South Carolina, Newt Gingrich has essentially tanked.  He needed a really great debate last night.  Meanwhile, Rick Santorum has surged.  Senator Santorum has surged for the precise same reason that Gingrich had previously rocketed up: he’s effectively communicating conservatism.  Real conservatism wins.  Period.  Ron Paul has…well…kept being Ron Paul.  Finally there’s Mitt.  Mittens has stayed where he’s been…an acceptable but not preferable choice.  A lot of conservatives are still screaming that Mitt’s a liberal or a moderate…the later is sort of true, although what a “moderate” is has moved right since the GOP nominated John McCain. 

So let’s play a round of everyone’s favorite debate game, Buy, Hold, Sell or Sell All:

Newt Gingrich Hold (Buy): Newt had the opportunity to do two the best things that he does.  One, he got to slam dunk CNN for continuing to bring up the baloney about birth control.  Two, he got the chance to be the above the fray wise sage in the debate. His best moment was talking about how the same media that is harrumphing about birth control ignored the fact that Obama voted against a law to say that an unborn child who survived abortion procedures, including partial birth abortion procedures.  Once again, it’s another media double standard.  However, I don’t think Newt got the type of screen time he needed to rebound.  I hope I’m wrong.  I think Super Tuesday is going to be Newt's last stand if he doesn't win a few states.  We shall see.

Ron Paul Sold (Sold):  Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  He did make a good point on the contraceptive issue.  He’s right, the problem in and of itself isn’t birth control birth control is a reasonable medical tool) but the way people use it to live a consequence free life.  (I’m paraphrasing.)  It’s a good point.  That’s why I don’t have a problem with true contraception (while saying again and again that abortion isn’t contraception, it’s a simple difference between).  I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, I agree with Ron Paul on about 85% of issues.  Tonight Paul highlighted that 85%.

Mitt Romney Buy (Buy):  First and foremost, I want to say that it definitely sounded like Mittens had stacked the room.  It was almost comical how the audience cheered at Romney getting his tail kicked for making terrible points.  It was so out of line and cheering bad points.  Often it was two people cheering at completely inopportune times.  Not only do I think the Romney camp stacked the audience, they absolutely sucked at it.

Now to Mitt.  He got his butt kicked early on.  It was like watching Socrates debating a vacuum cleaner.  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, Socrates was, at least in the writings of Plato, one of the finest debaters in the history of ever.) 

Rick Santorum Buy (Buy):  Santorum went back and forth between debating well and debating like a vacuum cleaner.  He spent a lot of time giving Romney the same look that Newt was previously known for (you know that look…the one that says “What are you, stupid?”  Then Senator Santorum found his swing and started hitting the ball hard.  He also absolutely hit it out of the park on his previous statements about birth control and the sexual licentiousness that birth control does make possible, but yet stating that “just because he’s talking about it doesn’t mean he wants a government program to fix it.  That’s not what (conservatives) do that’s what (liberals) do!”

Senator Santorum also took Mittens to the woodshed on his Obamacare attack.  It was beautiful.  Once again, Senator Santorum showed why he’s a very good second choice for me and for conservatives.  I believe he will govern as a conservative, he will take the fight to Obama if he’s our nominee.  Right now Santorum is my second choice…but it’s not by much. 

-------

Debate Winner: Rick Santorum

This race has heated up.  It’s starting to look like a two man race, but that can change on a dime in this campaign.  Either way, we must defeat Obama.  So let’s allow this race to decide the best available candidate, but at the end of the day each of these candidates has one major thing in common: Every one of them will be a better President than the one we have now.

Obama Wants You to Ignore His Record

President Obama is now in 100% campaign mode.  He’s trying a little misdirection play.  He’s telling you it’s everyone else’s fault, that he inherited everything, even the policies that he put into place.  Three years in, the President keeps telling us that it’s all Bush’s fault.  (Even though the President as a Senator voted for the same policies under the Bush administration…at least when he wasn’t voting “present.”)  Here’s the reality that President Obama is trying very hard to make you look away from:  He has had plenty of time to genuinely turn this economy around (not a pathetic “recovery” with 8.5% unemployment two years after the recession supposedly ended) and he has failed. 

The President wants you to pretend he didn’t spend over $1 Trillion in various “stimulus” packages and subsidies that have not resulted in jobs.  President Obama promised Americans if we passed his Stimulus package, unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%.  The unemployment proceeded to go above 8% and still has not fallen below it.  The President has then called for more and more spending every chance he’s gotten.  None of it has worked.  The President has spent billions on subsidies for “Green Energy” that absolutely is not ready to even be a medium sized player in the energy market.  (The truth is government cannot force the market to develop new energy solutions.  Once a need is on the horizon, believe me, the Free Market will come up with an answer toot sweet.  We simply don’t have that need yet.) This was also supposed to create jobs.  Nothing like promised. 

Then of course there is the President’s signature piece of legislation: Obamacare.  What was the last time the President actually talked about this accomplishment?  Oh that’s right, he can’t talk about it…a solid majority of Americans still want it repealed nearly three years later.  The law is incredibly unpopular, just like when the President and the Democrats crammed it down our throats.

Here’s some cold, hard facts, friends: President Obama inherited unemployment lower than today, and by the way the unemployment rate is being propped up by some fudged accounting.  According to economist John R. Lott, there are 1.2 million FEWER people in the workforce than when Obama took office, so basically the unemployment numbers have dropped because the Labor Department decided to shrink the workforce, not because more are employed.  As I just noted, nearly 60% of Americans want Obamacare repealed, so he can’t claim it as a success.  He’s borrowed and spent $5 Trillion that we do not have.  He just now proposed a budget that spends most of the projected revenue of the 2014 budget as well, because he hasn’t failed enough yet.  There is absolutely nothing Obama can say to America to say “give me four more years, I’ll give you more of what I’ve given you thus far.”

This is the very record Obama is trying to get us to ignore.  He knows that his record is going to be the end of his Presidency.  So now he’s asking us to pretend that he hasn’t been President three years.  He wants to run the same campaign as he ran in 2008…you know, where he could be a blank slate that people can project their own perfect ideal President onto.  We conservatives, we in the Tea Party, and (I hope) the eventual Republican nominee cannot allow him to perpetuate that lie. 

Friends, President Obama wants you to ignore his record.  We cannot, we will not, let Americans forget the truth.  It’s time for the truth to be shouted from the rooftops:  President Obama’s record is an abysmal failure. 

Reactions to the State of the Union Address

Unelectable. It’s a term that’s been thrown around at every Republican candidate who isn’t a wimpy moderate. I’ve said multiple times that there wasn’t a Republican in the field that couldn’t win in 2012. There is one candidate who is indeed unelectable: Barack Obama.

Last night’s State of the Union address proved it. Considering we’ve seen this speech multiple times. He said “pay their fair share” four times, he used class warfare twenty-three times, blamed Congress sixteen times, and he blamed others twenty-two times. He proposed raising taxes eight times and demanded/requested more executive power to go around Congress five times. He asked for increased spending sixteen times. Then he proposed a few policies that he knows very well don’t have a snowball’s chance in July of passing into law. He talked about investing in “Green Energy” that is not even close to being a fitting replacement for fossil fuels (while not noting that his previous investments in “Green Energy” already resulted in bankruptcy – see Solyndra). This President doesn’t have a new idea. All he wants to do is spend more money that we don’t have. That’s all he’s got. He’s doubling and tripling down on the same bad policies that have failed. The only thing he was correct on was saying that it’s unlikely anything will get done in Congress this year. Of course, he didn’t mention that it’s his party that obstructs good policies and forces bad.

Of course, the President didn’t take the blame that is deservedly his. He blamed everyone else. He blamed everything in the economy on failures that happened before he took office. Big shock. He did not mention that he’s had three years and he’s done nothing to help. Don’t worry, there were also bad ideas in this speech, like trying to levy a tax on businesses that outsource. Because the best way to keep people from leaving a bad economic climate is to make it worse. Oh, and how are you going to enforce it? How you going to tax people who don’t live here or earn their income here? Oh…I forgot…we’re not supposed to use logic with Obama policies. He also demanded a new bureaucracy that was going to somehow stop a foreign nation from stealing. And he’s going to enforce it how? Oh right…don’t scrutinize.

Then he insults our intelligence. Last night’s speech was not about the State of the Union. Last night’s speech was a campaign speech. Obama used the House chamber to attempt to cover up one very important fact: Obama is a failure. He has spent trillions of dollars in borrowed money, spending that he guaranteed if we spent we wouldn’t see unemployment above 8%. That was three years ago, and we’re still above the promised unemployment. (Oh, by the way, if the only reason unemployment is at the 8.5% rate that it is recorded at is because the number of available jobs has shrunk significantly since Obama took office.)

Friends, if the State of the Union showed anything, it showed that we Republicans should nominate the strongest conservative available. The Democrats are planning on running OBAMA! They are planning to run an unelectable failure of a President who doesn’t know how to create jobs and wants to push through laws like Obamacare that the American people didn’t want then and don’t want now. This President is a miserable failure. Last night proved it. I can’t wait until we fire Obama, because he’s failed to do his job. I can’t wait until we get a President who believes in America as founded. I can’t wait until we get a President who recognizes that government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem. So let’s elect that next President, so we never have to listen to another Obama State of the Union.

Rassmussen Shows Newt Rebounding Post-Debates

It's been a rarity in this election, but for once, I was right. Two weeks ago, I predicted that Newt Gingrich would rebound after six debates in three weeks.  Yesterday, Rasmussen showed I was correct.  In a new Rasmussen poll of Likely GOP Voters, Mitt "Mittens" Romney is gaining 30% of the national vote to Newt Gingrich's 27% (a virtual tie given the +/- 3% margin of error).

As of this poll, Mitt's still winning in South Carolina by 14 points, but remember, Rasmussen has not conducted a South Carolina poll since the debates.  Given that Newt has gained 11 points in Rasmussen's national polls, it is reasonable to guess that he has gained at least proportionally in South Carolina (if not more, since South Carolina is a staunchly conservative state and is the neighbor to the north of Newt's home state of Georgia. 

There's still another debate coming tonight before South Carolina, so there's time for Newt to continue his precipitous climb.  A few things need to happen to see Newt climb back into the driver's seat:  He needs to win or come in a close second in South Carolina; and Rick Santorum needs to recognize that his win in Iowa is unlike to be repeated given the inability of the Senator to continue his retail politics plan that worked in Iowa.

If we can do that and combine the "Not Mitt" vote behind one candidate (and I continue to believe Gingrich is the best Not-Mitt available - since he has a significant lead over Santorum in SC and nearly twice Santorum's support in FL) we can still see a major challenge to Mittens. It won't happen in South Carolina, but in Florida it could make a big difference.  Take the current Real Clear Politics Florida Average and do a little math.  Rick Perry dropped out today and endorsed Newt, and I think you can expect the vast majority of Perry's votes to go to Newt.  Hypothetically, if Santorum drops out and 3/4 of his voters go to Newt and 1/4 to go to Mittens (I don't expect solid conservatives to float to the libertarian Ron Paul) , then figure Jon Huntsman's voters split evenly between Mittens and Newt, you're looking at Newt with 42.5% and Mittens with 46%.  That can be overcome, especially with two debates leading up to Florida. 

Bottom line, my friends, is we can still combine the Not-Mitt voters and defeat Mittens in favor of a stronger conservative. But I am telling you now that if we're going to beat Mittens, it's going to be Newt.  Either way, Newt is on the incline. Game on.

Reactions to the New Hampshire Debates

In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to remind those who are unaware that, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism I have publically and officially endorsed Newt Gingrich for President in 2012.  Please remember that all included is my personal opinion and, unlike the Drive-By Media, I do not lie to my consumers and claim that I am somehow clean and unbiased.  I am openly and proudly a conservative and I don’t deny my bias.

Saturday night and Sunday morning, the Republican candidates met for two debates leading up to New Hampshire’s Primary on Tuesday.  There is one fewer candidate than last time we did a round of debate analysis, and I suspect after New Hampshire there will be less again.

George Snuffleupagus…ERRR Stephanopolus….managed to tick me off nearly immediately on Saturday.  No shock, ABC was going to be playing gotcha.  Asking about whether or not a state had the right to ban contraception.  It was a stupid question.  For the record, individual states have the right to ban the sale of products in their borders.  It’s similar to the fact that some counties in America have chosen to ban the sale of alcohol in their borders.  The ABC Debate was arguably the Gotcha debate from the Drive-By Media…

…for about ten hours.  It was then knocked off the block by Sunday’s Meet the Press debate.  I can guarantee George Will won’t attack Barack Obama for his opposition to gay marriage, and he certainly won’t be called out on his far more ridiculous platforms that he professed before being in office. 

So let’s play a round of everyone’s favorite post-debate analysis game: Buy, Hold, Sell, or Sell All.

Newt Gingrich – Hold (Buy):   

First of all, I want to thank Newt for actually saying “Merry Christmas.”  Secondly, I think Newt did a fine job destroying the silly argument that Newt isn’t a “real conservative.” He really hammered on those points and continually showed why he is the best conservative in the race.  Newt answers every question clearly with a frankness that I find refreshing.  Newt was on the crosshairs tonight, which is what happens to the frontrunner.  He did a far better job than Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain before him. Every attack levied at him he handled clearly and openly.  He also knocked it out of the park on the issue of courts.  I loudly cheered at that moment. 

Every time Newt debates it helps him.  Once again, I feel like he did an excellent job of answering every attack clearly without sounding defensive.  He really fended off the attacks and did a great job.  Newt is continuing to prove that he’s a genuine conservative and that he can absolutely effectively communicate conservatism, which means, absolutely, he can beat Obama, regardless of what a poll right now is saying in a head to head matchup with Obama.  Once a national campaign is underway, trust me, Obama will lose, and I believe he will lose huge to Newt if Newt is the nominee.

It’s been a tough few weeks for Newt.  He lost his frontrunner status in the polls and finished a disappointing fourth place in the Iowa Caucuses.  He made a mistake in trying to stay positive instead of responding to Mitt Romney’s attack machine. 

Saturday:  Newt did a good job of going after the attacks on him.  He took it to Ron Paul early on his attacks and I feel he did a fine job of refuting those attacks.  Newt is great in debates.  Unfortunately for Newt, this debate spread out the speech time oddly (why in Heaven’s name did Jon Huntsman get more time than Gingrich, based on their poll numbers, for example).  Yet I do believe he is going to rebound because of these debates. 

Newt stated my personal view on marriage fairly well by saying that we can create another vehicle for homosexual couples to join in some sort of legal union without attempting to forcibly change the definition of marriage to shoehorn in couples that do not fit that definition.  I also cheered when Newt slammed the Drive-By Media for their double standard against Christians and the bigotry against people of faith.

Newt also nailed it on the issue of Iraq and Iran, specifically by saying get rid the Iranian influence and Iraq will be fine.

Sunday: Newt did what he really needed to do by going after Romney and his other competitors.  I felt like he didn’t get his fair share of time from the moderators (big shock coming from NBC), especially given the amount of time they gave Jon Huntsman even though Huntsman has a fraction of Newt’s support nationally. When he did talk, he showed the sort of fight that I believe will cause Newt to rebound.  I hope he does, because I still believe Newt has the strength and the conservative record to be able to install a true, Reagan conservative who will pass a flat tax, a Balanced Budget Amendment and truly make this nation a country that is the Shining City on a Hill. 

Jon Huntsman – Sold (Sold):          

Instead of wasting time on Jon Huntsman, I’ve decided to link to a video from one of my favorite sites, “How it Should Have Ended.”  So here is How Wizard of Oz Should Have Ended for your viewing pleasure.

Huntsman didn’t even bother with Iowa.  He had one Caucus supporter though at least, which Ron Paul drolly noted on Twitter.  He’s thrown all his chips into New Hampshire and I believe he’s headed for a disappointment.  He was called by the Drive-By Media a “serious” candidate before he entered, which is Liberalese for “wimpy moderate we can definitely defeat.”  I also believe it was sad and incorrect that Huntsman was given as much time as he was in Saturday’s debate. 

So again, rather than wasting my time with Jon Huntsman analysis, here’s a favorite stand-up comedy bit of mine, “Noah” by Bill Cosby. 

By the way, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Huntsman gone before South Carolina, so this might be your last time hearing me joke about him.  I’m sure that’ll be a comfort to all of Huntsman’s supporter out there.

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):        
I loved when Paul stated that absolutely anyone on the stage could beat Obama.  He’s right.  I’ve said it over and over: Foghorn Leghorn (R) could beat Obama.  Now for my biggest concern with Paul:  Every time he is asked if he would mount a 3^rd party campaign in the likely opportunity that he is not the Republican nominee.  Paul had a good debate, but how I feel (and I believe how most conservatives feel) about Paul hasn’t changed:  He lives in the Real World up the street from me eight months a year on economic policy but moves to his timeshare in Happy Imagination Land four months a year on foreign policy. 

Paul finished third in Iowa, which, as I said last week, is a disappointment for him.  Caucuses will be Paul’s best bet, and if the best he can do is third in a Caucus state he’s simply not going to win the nomination.  His beliefs on foreign policy I believe have lost him any chance, which is too bad because his economic policies are perfect.

Saturday:  Congressman Paul did a lot of sputtering and rambling.  I respect the Congressman but in many places he was scatterbrained.  More importantly, the Congressman’s foreign policy mentality is simply out of line with the conservative base of the Republican Party and that will stop him from being the nominee.  In addition, I would like to make a note about something Congressman Paul has continued to say:  the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “undeclared” only in technicality.  Both wars were undertook with legal resolutions from Congress.  Whether or not the official document was a “declaration of war” in the most technical facets it is false to say that Congress was denied their proper role in going to war. 

Sunday:  Paul didn’t do as much sputtering but he didn’t come across as positive and someone who can succeed.  As Senator Santorum stated, Congressman Paul has minimal record of actually passing major legislation in his career.  I simply don’t expect Congressman Paul to do better than third or maybe squeak a second place finish or two in one or two states, which means he’s not going to be the nominee.  He’s got his supporters but the rest of us remain wary of him, and even more wary than mainline conservatives are of Mittens…which is saying something. 

Rick Perry – Sell All (Hold):           

Perry’s turned into a competent debater, but I think it’s too late for 2012.  I love his plans, but he’s not ready yet.  I honestly believe that you’re going to see Perry in the Presidential arena again in eight years, and I think he’ll be a much stronger candidate at that time.  The only question is whether or not it will be too late for him, because in eight years young stars like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal are going to be ready to step into national politics.  The question for Perry is will he be the guy who is finally seasoned enough for the national scene or is he the guy who is now pas this prime?

Perry finished a disappointing fifth in Iowa.  I expect him to stay in the race for a bit because he’s got the money to do it, but barring a miracle I don’t think he’s got a shot. 

Saturday:  The moments when Perry spoke were strong, but he’s off the radar.  I believe he’s got a better chance to be the Republican Presidential nominee NEXT TIME.  Note – NEXT TIME (which by the way will be 2020, because I am very sure we will win the Presidency in 2012).  He said great things but, unless he does very well in South Carolina I don’t think he’s going anywhere. 

Sunday:  Perry showed glimmers of why he just might make a splash in South Carolina and get back into things.  I still don’t think there’s quite enough time but maybe.  And again I do think there’s a good possibility for Perry to be a great candidate in 2020 if he still wants it.  There’s also a possibility that come 2020 Perry’s chance will be gone because the great up and comers like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Nicky Haley will be ready to step onto the nation stage.

Mitt Romney– Buy (Hold):  

Mitt had a moment that I pumped my fist at when he said the private sector, not government is going to solve the problems we have for needing new supplies, new products, etc.  I also loved his comment that Obama’s defense strategy is “pretty please.”  He had a good debate.  He’s steady, but he’s not super-exciting, but he did remind me why I would be willing to get behind him in a general election.

Mitt’s would be a Dwight Eisenhower type President.  He’s a nice guy, he’d be steady and solid and he’d be fairly conservative, but right now we have an opportunity to be better than that.  We can get absolute conservatism, we need to take that opportunity to nominate someone who can fire up the electorate about conservatism, and I don’t think Mitt’s the one to do it.  He’ll win if he’s the nominee (as will Gingrich, as will Bachmann, as will Foghorn Leghorn (R) if they face Obama).  However, I don’t think Romney will be the transformational conservative, like Ronald Reagan.  He’ll be a good nominee, we can have a great nominee.

Saturday: Mitt won the Iowa Caucuses, barely, when he was previously expected to not do well at all.  There’s a lot of consolidation of the Republican vote behind him because we’ve begun to believe the line that Mitt has the best chance to beat Obama.  As I’ve said before, Foghorn Leghorn (R) will beat Barack Obama.  The big test for Mitt is can he get above 30% of the vote. 

On Saturday, Mitt was calm, comfortable in his skin and, dare I say it, Presidential.  That is his strong suit.  Mitt doesn’t have a lot of charisma.  What he does have his a steady, confident leader quality.  I recently made the comparison between Romney and Dwight Eisenhower.  Mitt reminds me of speeches I’ve seen and heard from Ike in the 1950s and what I know about the Eisenhower Administration.  Here’s where I continue to be unsure of Romney:  A guy like Mitt might be the perfect President in a booming economy like the 50s…a nice guy who will be a gentle leader in good times.  We aren’t in good times right now. 

Mitt channeled Newt Gingrich when responding to Snuffleupagus on the whole birth control issue.  It was a stupid question and I was thrilled to see Mitt to tell him to shut up on it.  On marriage, Mitt said something that made me cheer regarding homosexual couples forming long term relationships: “It doesn’t mean you have to call it ‘marriage.’ ”  On a final note, Mitt got passionate (for him) when he got on the topic of what makes America great. 

Ultimately, Mitt showed me why, if I can’t have my preferred candidate, why I find Mitt at least palatable.  Some of my fellow bloggers and fellow Tea Partiers argue this point.  Some think Mitt is no better than Obama.  Romney is infinitely better than Obama.  We have better choices, but Mitt isn’t the worst.

Sunday:  Mitt was back on his heels.  Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum especially were hitting him hard early on.  One thing I’ve noticed about Mitt is that he starts to get frustrated in a manner that’s reminiscent of Lou Pinella arguing against a clearly incorrect call from an umpire.  He didn’t kick dirt, but he gets this look of “I can’t believe you’re bringing THAT up” whenever he’s asked about his questionable conservative record.  Where Mitt gets it right is when he continues to hammer the reality that government is not the solution of the problem. 

Rick Santorum - Buy (Sold):           

Santorum is as exciting as Ben Stein in “Ferris Beuller’s Day Off.”  He’s got no chance, and last night he didn’t even try throwing haymakers.

Saturday:  Senator Santorum, welcome to the club of candidates that I was wrong about.  I’d like to introduce you to our other members: Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.  I had written him off.  I still don’t know if Santorum’s success will stick, however, because retail politics don’t work nationally and won’t be possible leading up to days like Super Tuesday. 

I have issues with Santorum’s definition of conservatism.  Or, at the least, I believe Santorum is doing a poor job so far of communicating conservatism.  I do agree with him that there are certain things government should be spending on.  These things include provision for a common defense (which includes both military and police) as well as, on the local level, such public works as roads, water mains, etc.  I do not believe Ron Paul is perfectly accurate when he calls Santorum a “big government” guy.  I think the problem is that Santorum has not yet figured out how to communicate that point.  I think Santorum is also incorrect when he says “I’m not a libertarian, I’m a conservative” because it creates a poor definition of conservatism.  As a general rule the places where genuine libertarians and genuine conservatives differ is social issues and not the issues of what things government should do.  We generally agree with the topics government ought to do. 

Now I confess I need to do my homework on Santorum.  I have considered him a candidate without a prayer.  What I genuinely need to know is if Santorum’s issue is failure to communicate conservatism or failure to be conservative.  I will give him huge credit for calling out Romney when he even mentioned “middle class” because I agree with Senator Santorum: the Republican Party is not about class.  We are about people.  All people.

Sunday: Senator Santorum did a good job of handling the gotcha questions against him and also getting after Mittens.  He’s answered well and the Senator seems comfortable in his skin.  He had great moments and really didn’t have bad moments.  He did still seem a little too safe in his answers.  As I said above, I need to do some research into the Santorum plan, and I feel like I owe both you my regular readers and frankly myself a study on the Santorum plan.  So look for a “Here Comes Rick Santorum” post in the coming week and we can discuss that further.

Debate Winner(s) Saturday:  Mitt Romney

Debate Winner(s) Sunday: Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum Honorable Mention: Rick Perry

Here is the point where I have previously told you the race for my personal vote.  However, that race is over, which is good because if I had endorsed Newt without being certain that I was going to vote for him myself, that would show a lack of integrity, don’t you think?

How about you?  Let me know in the comment section, on Twitter (@UpstateMetFan) or on the Biblical Conservatism Fan Page on Facebook!

Prediction: Newt Will Rebound After Upcoming Debates

Last night Mitt Romney narrowly won the Iowa Caucuses by an eight vote margin over surging Rick Santorum.  Tomorrow I'll give my breakdown of the results in an effort to give the best possible analysis rather than a hastily put together one.

The candidate I have endorsed, Newt Gingrich, came in foruth place last night.  Some feel this is a dissappointing showing for Newt, given that he was winning Iowa handily according to polls only a few weeks ago. Then Mitt Romney and others went negative against Newt and Newt began to slide.  At least that's what the pundits in both the Conservative and Drive-By Media classes have been telling us.

But if you look at the calendar and see when Newt began to drop off you'll notice it coincides with the last debate on December 15th. If you also look at the calendar, you'll see two debates this weekend prior to the New Hampshire Primary, two debates the week before the South Carolina Primary and two debates the week before the Florida Primary.  South Carolina and Florida, I believe, are far more important because New Hampshire is Romney's to lose.  (Recent polling shows him with a commanding lead in the Granite State.)  However, in the most recent South Carolina polls, Newt has a solid lead and in the most recent Florida polls, Newt is basically tied with Romney. 

Gingrich just needs something to put him over the top against Mittens, and I think two debates the weeks before each debate (four total) will be just the thing Newt needs to beat Mitt.  There are also two debates immediately before Super Tuesday in March.  

Here's my point:  I believe Gingrich is going to rebound nicely.  It isn't over, no matter how many times the Republican Establishment tries to cram Mittens down our throats or how many times the Drive-By Media pretends the race is over.  Remember, nearly 3/4 of Iowa voters voted against Mitt. There's still many votes to be cast, including the critical South Carolina and Florida primaries in a couple weeks, where Newt remains strong.  Combine that with four debates where voters can remember why they love Newt, I think he's going to rebound.

Before the Caucuses

Well friends, it's today.  The first votes will be cast in the 2012 Presidential campaign tomorrow as part of the Iowa Caucuses.  Yesterday, I told you who I urge you to support when Biblical Conservatism officially endorsed Newt Gingrich.  Regardless of what happens tonight, I intend to continue to support Newt and to vote for him when my state's primary comes around.

The polls have been so fluid it's nearly impossible to predict what will actually happen.  It's a fair bet to say that the winner will be one of Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul.  I wouldn't be surprised to see either one of these three men win. 

For the record, if Congressman Paul wins, I don't think this means he's now a legitimate candidate for the nomination.  I have said before that I think Ron Paul will do better in Caucus states because of the nature of his supporters.  Paul's strength is garnering support and making those supporters passionate.  Given the right atmosphere at a caucus this could bode well for Paul.  (For the record, only 11 states have caucuses instead of primaries and those caucuses make up less than 1/3 of the delegates, also none of the caucus states are winner-take all.)

If Mitt Romney wins, this may be the beginning of the arranged marriage we all fear.  I've said before that I can live with Mitt Romney, and I do feel he is a better candidate than John McCain was in 2008.  As a matter of fact I voted for Mitt in my state's primary in 2008.  I can live with Mitt, I just hope for better.

Which brings me to my choice: Newt Gingrich.  I believe Newt is the best conservative leader in the race.  I do hope Newt wins, but I do expect him to finish top 3.  I also expect him to finish in second in New Hampshire next week and win South Carolina handily.

Bottom line, friends, is we could see Ron Paul win Iowa, Mitt Romney win New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich win South Carolina.  Which means an awful lot can happen. There will be no clear cut path for anyone, I believe, unless one candidate sweeps the three first contests (which I doubt).

On one final note: Given that the Iowa Caucuses will close later tonight and I work in the morning, given the time differences, my reactions to the Hawkeye Cauci will have to wait until Thursday. 

Things are about to get fun.  Buckle up and let's see what happens!

Winning the Future with Battle Tested Conservatism

Tomorrow, the first votes will be cast in the 2012 Republican primary season in the great state of Iowa, followed by the New Hampshire Primary next week.  As so many conservatives have done, I have spent many hours thinking long and hard as to what candidate I would personally support. 

The candidate I considered to be my #1 choice, Sarah Palin, chose not to seek the Presidency.  Since that time, I have considered Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich as options to receive my vote and my endorsement here on Biblical Conservatism.  Each one has their strengths, each has their weaknesses, and each is a strong, genuine conservative.

So today, on the eve of the Hawkeye Cauci, as both an individual and as the writer of Biblical Conservatism, I am formally endorsing Newt Gingrich for President of the United States and urging my tens of readers to join me in pulling the lever for Newt in your state's primary or support him in your local caucus.

While you consider what I am asking you to do, I ask you to think back to the last time you felt as though anyone in the Federal government was genuinely governing by conservative principles.  I'll wager you're thinking about the mid-1990s, aren't you?  Do you remember who co-authored the Contract with America?  It was Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich.  Speaker Gingrich was also the man who lead, against the desires of former President Bill Clinton, to genuine welfare reform, spending cuts, tax cuts and balanced budgets. 

Now I ask you to read the 21st Century Contract with America as well as the Biblical Conservatism breakdown of the Contract.  You will find a fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment that will effectively eliminate 99% of budget deficits, a national Flat Tax, repeal Obamacare, and reduction in the unecessary regulations that Barack Obama put into place including the absolute job killer that is Dodd-Frank.

I support Speaker Gingrich also because he can effectively communicate conservatism.  He will debate Barack Obama with the strength that John McCain refused to do.  He will give America a real choice between Obama's liberal Socialism and tried and true conservatism.  I support Speaker Gingrich because I believe he will be more concerned with making America respected in the world and not worry about being liked by people who aren't going to like us anyway.

I support Gingrich because I believe he is a genuinely repentant man who recognizes his past sins and understands the meaning of the words "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."  A good friend of mine own's a shirt that says "I'm the wretch the song refers to." Newt is a wretch like the rest of us, saved by God's Amazing Grace. 

And so I ask you to give your support to Newt Gingrich in 2012.  Newt is a battle-tested conservative who has proven he can get the job done, even swimming upstream.  If Newt becomes our nominee in 2012, America will have a clear choice against Barack Obama, and, if Gingrich is our nominee, I believe he will become our nation's 45th President.  We can win the future in 2012 with Newt Gingrich.

Dear GOP & Fellow Conservatives: Enough with the Cannibalism!

Political cannibalism, that is...and I'm looking right at you, Karl Rove (and Dana Perino, and Bret Baier, and Al D'Amato, and George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, and Brit Hume and...) STOP PLAYING THIS GAME!  Even certain people whose opinions I generally respect, like Laura Ingraham, are joining into this game.  I'm sick and tired of it.

I'm sick and tired of the Republican Establishment types like Rove who are trying to jam Mitt Romney down our throats the same way they jammed John McCain down our throats four years ago.  We don't give a darn whose "turn" it is...we want a real conservative. You will not pick our candidate this time.

I'm sick and tired of conservatives like Ingraham or "AP" over at Hot Air, who are pretending that there's such a thing as a perfect candidate...and then are arguing that Newt isn't really a conservative. What the heck is your definition of a conservative if it isn't Balanced Budgets, a Flat Tax, and Peace through Strength?  And these things are not only policies of convienence, they are longstanding policies supported by Speaker Gingrich.  He's the guy who lead to four straight balanced budgets...or did you forget about that?

I'm sick and tired of people who pile on to the Left Wing attacks on whoever is the new conservative frontrunner in the race.  First it was attacks on Michelle Bachmann for daring to say that an unborn child's right to life outranked a mother's right to pursue happiness as it pertained to abortion, regardless of how that child was conceived, then it was Rick Perry for an unfortunate piece of graffiti on a rock at a camp that the Perry family painted over and then flipped over to make sure the slur wasn't available, then it was (still) unproven claims against Herman Cain that (still) have not been substantiated with an ounce of hard evidence. Now the attack machine is going after Newt.  If your candidate is the nominee (looking at you Romney Fan) your guy will be next...just in the general election.  The Drive-By Media will not support you, no matter how wishy washy you are...they want Obama re-elected.

I have one very serious question to ask all of you:  Would you honestly rather four more years of Obama?  I personally think this country can't survive another four years of Obama, at least as founded.  This is a serious time and we need to be serious with each other.  I'm not saying don't pull for your candidate and do it with all your heart...please do!  But we all need to agree with each other that, whoever the Republican nominee ends up being, whether it be Newt or Mitt or someone else...whoever really...that we will get behind that person.

Stop throwing around the word "RINO" for everyone who doesn't perfectly agree with your perfect policies.  I have news for you:  THERE IS NO PERFECT CANDIDATE.  Period.  There is no candidate whose past is so squeaky clean that the Drive-By Media won't attack them as unfit to be President...remember truth does not matter to these people...it's all about winning and seeing Obama re-elected.  Don't believe me?  The accusations at Herman Cain STILL have not been proven...haven't even backed with a shred of credible evidence.  And by the way, according to the Media, who was Trigg Palin's mother? (It really is Sarah Palin, by the way, regardless of what heresay and inuendo is passed around, and Todd Palin is really his father.)  Your candidate will be subject to the same game (again, looking right at you, Romney Fan).

So for crying out loud, people, stop the cannibalism. Do you think your person is better?  No problem.  Back it with policies and discussion of your candidate's experience.  Let's talk about whose policies are best.  Forget about "who can beat Obama."  The answer, my friends, is absolutely anyone with an (R) next to their name.  If Foghorn Leghorn registered as a Republican then ran for President and was nominated, he'd beat Obama.  Obama is an abject failure as President.  He has done nothing of what he promised except for ramming Obamacare down our throat, a law we did not want...that was Obama's one fulfilled promise. 

We can beat him, we WILL beat him, so let's get the best, most conservative candidate available.  The three real conservatives that are left are Bachmann, Gingrich and Perry.  I have come to believe Gingrich is the one who can best effectively communicate it.  If you disagree, fine.  Let's have a debate on issues, but stop stabbing each other in the back!  Let's stop jumping on the attack bandwagon of these false accusations and other nonesense.  Let's not play the Media game, period.

Gallup: Obama in Trouble with Independents

Political elites on both sides of the aisle will tell you that a candidate in a national election needs to reach those "independents," the great unwashed middle who "makes their decisions on each issue at each election" to win.  The conventional wisdom is, of course, that 40% of Americans will automatically vote Democrat at 40% will automatically vote Republican, so the election tips on that 20%. 

I've never bought this, or the so-called moderate/independent self definition of wisdom beyond compare to decide their positions issue by issue, in the least. Most of these people somehow find a way to land with one leg on either side of the fence on every single issue then call themselves wise beyond compare.  The truth is they are a) not willing to take time to consider issues b) want to be perceived as smart and c) are persuaded not by substance but by style.  But I digress.

Gallup, recently, brought out some more very bad news for President Obama, in a new poll breakdown released on November 29th. According to the poll, of the 14% who self identify as "pure independents" (that is, neither lean Democrat or Republican), only 30% approve of the job President Obama is doing.  This is compared to 43% that the President is receiving across all party lines.   Once we add in those who lean slightly to the Democrat or Republican side, the President's approval rises only to 35%.  Again, that's not good for Obama (but great for America).

I've been saying this for quite some time, my friends, Obama is in trouble. He's going to be defeated in 2012.  I can hear you who buy into the whole moderate/independent baloney now telling me that we must nominate Mitt Romney or...gaaaaa...Jon Huntsman...to get those independents.  Look, it does not matter. These proud independents/moderates are convinced not by ideas but by personalities.  That's the reason they voted for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.  They will be convinced by a conservative with great ideas just as easily as they bought into Hopey Change.

The President is headed for a big defeat in the 2012 Election.  So let's make sure he loses to a real conservative.  This is our time, friends.  Let's go!

Reactions to Herman Cain’s Withdrawal

Saturday, Herman Cain officially announced that he was ending his campaign for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, amid many alleged scandals.  Some in Republicans and conservatives are glad to see him out (the former group consists mainly of establishment types who want to cram Mitt Romney down our throats and the latter consists of people who are backing some other candidate).  Cain’s withdrawal was not unexpected to anyone paying attention, ever since he rose to the top of the Republican polls he’s been under attack.  The Leftwing attack machine, supported by their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media, has had their sights on Cain and they’ve finally succeeded. 

I’m on the record as saying that I believe Cain when he denies these allegations.  For starters, the way these accusations kept coming out one at a time as the previous didn’t work.  They were all unprovable, with the best available accuser being a woman had a history of claiming sexual harassment every time she didn’t get her way at work.  I believe Cain because I’ve looked in his eyes.  I can’t explain it any further, save for saying that as a Christian, I’ve learned how to discern the spirit of a man.  I believe Cain.  He has admitted to giving money to this woman who is now accusing him.  As a Pentecostal Christian, I can tell you I’ve seen that before.  It’s called caring for the needy amongst you. 

Cain is gone now.  The Media hit job has worked.  They’ve gotten Cain out of the way.  I for one do not believe this was entirely a consequence of the Media attacks.  Cain lost a lot of conservative support from people like myself who were inclined to support him because of his poor performances recently on foreign policy.  Whenever Cain got off the subject of 9-9-9, it seemed to hurt his support.  My concern now is that this may hurt the chances of Mr. Cain to serve in a cabinet post or, in the role I believe he is wonderfully suited for, the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee.  Regardless of his political future, however, I believe Mr. Cain is destined to be a player in the political arena for a long time to come.  If he does not seek some sort of elected office he will be a major power broker in the Tea Party and the larger conservative wing of the Republican Party, similar to Sarah Palin. 

Now to those of you who back other candidates and therefore jumped on the bandwagon in attacking Mr. Cain, I have a message.  I absolutely guarantee that your candidate will be next if he becomes the nominee.  If it’s Mitt Romney, don’t be assuaged by his squeaky-clean background, because truth does not matter to the Left Wing attack machine.  If it’s not “Mormonism is weird,” they will invent something.  Trust me.  If Rick Perry rebounds to the top of the race, it’ll be more of the same baloney about daring to purchase a name that had a racist name on a rock long before the Perry family bought it and that the Perry family painted over and turned to hide said slur.  If Michelle Bachmann were to rise back up, it’ll be more attempts to paint her as a fire-breathing dragon.  If pigs fly and Hell freezes over and Ron Paul becomes the nominee, his foreign policy alone will see him torn down by the Right and the Left will go after him as the single most uncaring person in the world for his reasonable desire to spend only the money we receive in taxes. 

The same type of attacks have already begun on Newt Gingrich, whether it’s rehashing the same false story about Newt supposedly divorcing his ex-wife on her deathbed back in the 80s (by the way, the same woman is still alive today, so the deathbed claim is already patently false) or misrepresenting his role with Freddie Mac, the attack machine is already started on Gingrich.  I think Newt will deal with these claims in a completely different manner.  To quote Herb Brooks, he’s not going to defend against the Drive-By Media, he is going to attack them.  Quite frankly I think it’s going to be fun to watch. 

 I wish Mr. Cain the best in his future endeavors.  As his brother in the Lord Jesus Christ, I pray for Herman Cain, and for Gloria Cain.  I close with this, and I know I will take heat from some for it:  I believe Mr. Cain when he says the accusations are false.  If one is innocent, there is nothing more you can do but proclaim your innocence.  The same gut that told me Bill Clinton was lying in the 90s tells me that Cain is telling the truth.  I close with this:  if you piled on to Cain because you support someone else, your candidate will be next if he or she rises to the top of the heap.  I guarantee it.

Reactions to the CNN – Heritage Foundation Debate

Last night the Republican candidates met for a debate on National Security in our nation's capital. First and foremost, I'm going to give props to a network that I usually lambast: CNN did a good job of moderating a very fair and balanced debate. They did a nice job of spreading out the questions to all candidates and they didn't play "gotcha." As many questions came from members of the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups were asked as questions from Wolf Blitzer. Also, although Blitzer tends to lean left, that's better than falling directly to their left side like most in the Drive-By Media. Also, Blitzer reminds me a combination of my favorite college professor, the late Dr. Billy Reed (a teacher who I remember very fondly) and Mr. Feeney from Boy Meets World. Oh, and also he reminds me of the guy in the Men's Warehouse commercials (you're going to like the way you look…I guarantee it.)

So let's play a round of everyone's favorite post-debate analysis game: Buy, Hold, Sell, or Sell All.

Michelle Bachmann – Sell (Sell):


Bachmann had a great debate. She said some great things. For example, "President Obama is letting the ACLU to run the CIA." That being said, it's going to take an awful lot for Congresswoman Bachmann to get back into this race at this point.

Again, Congresswoman Bachmann had some great moments. She had a great exchange with Governor Rick Perry on the subject of Pakistan. Her debate performances keep going up…but her poll numbers don't. I think Congresswoman Bachmann might be a good Vice Presidential nominee, I also think if, as expected, Speaker of the House John Boehner faces a Tea Party primary challenge, and if he loses, Bachmann would make a fine Speaker of the House. But right now I do not see her rebounding.

Herman Cain – Hold (Buy):

Herman Cain is still hanging in there. He's winning most national polls still and, despite the Drive-By Media's best efforts, this sexual harassment scandal is not forcing Cain out of the race, even given the stories that the Drive-Bys are ignoring (more on that later this week). This debate was out of Cain's wheelhouse, at least on paper. His strength is in the area of jobs and the economy. Yet he came off as more knowledgeable than I expected. Clearly Cain has done his homework and has good people advising him on the subject, because it's not as important to be knowledgeable on your own but rather to surround yourself with knowledgeable people. Cain did get tripped up some on the "torture" question. However, I do trust him to surround himself with the right people, and ultimately, that's what matters. As my good friend and fellow blogger the JC Freak said to me after the debate, Cain's strategy is to "not be Hitler and assume that he is a military genius who micromanage everything, but instead listen to his generals."

Foreign Policy is not Cain's strong suit. He spent a whole lot of time obfuscating in this debate. He gave a lot of safe answers that didn't have a lot of substance. He's also dropped to 3^rd place in many polls.

Now to give you a shocker: I don't think it has a whole lot to do with the Drive-By Media hit job with the unfounded claims of sexual harassment. I think why Cain is dropping is due to the very issue last night's debate handled: National Security. Conservatives, including yours truly, is becoming concerned about Cain's ability to be Commander-in-Chief and his lack of knowledge on National Security. He had one great line, "Enforce the laws we already have…we don't need new laws!" I couldn't agree more. The laws we have are enough, now enforce them! Great moments aside, though, I have serious doubts that Mr. Cain is ready to be the Commander in Chief.

Now I can tell you what a great job to learn those issues would be for Mr. Cain: Vice President of the United States. Seriously….as the #2 man behind Newt Gingrich or (sigh) Mitt Romney, Cain would get the experience he needs and have the opportunity to step up to the proverbial big chair in eight years.

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):

Newt has now pulled into a 2^nd place tie with Mitt Romney and within the margin of error of frontrunner Herman Cain. He's for real in this race. I said for a long time that if Gingrich showed me he could win, I'd love to back him. Well here we are…and I'm leaning toward backing him.
What I love about Gingrich most of all is the looks that he gives the moderators when they ask really stupid questions…a look that says "are you REALLY that stupid?" before he answers it. He nailed it agreeing with Rick Perry about starting at $0 in foreign aid and then requiring them to prove why we should support them with foreign aid.

 Newt had so many great lines, however my favorites included:

 "There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran and there are relatively few ways to be dumb, and the (Obama) Administration skipped all the ways to be smart."

 And when asked if he wanted to comment on his statement that Mitt Romney was a "competent manager" but not able to make real changes in Washington, Newt simply said "No," then proceeded to reiterate that ANY of the people on this stage would be better than Barrack Obama, which is so very true.

 Gingrich again showed that he is, in my opinion, the single most knowledgeable candidate on pretty much every issue in these debates. He understands reality and understands how to solve problems. (Yes, I'm becoming a Newt man, if you didn't pick that up.) He understands that developing our domestic energy supplies, namely oil, will solve a whole lot of problems in our national security by removing our dependence on many foreign nations for those supplies. And yes, Newt is right, if we are serious, we can change the face of the oil market by drilling for our own oil in a serious manner.

Newt did a good job, although I do think he was hurt by CNN spreading out the questions evenly because, by other debates have given the frontrunner more questions, and that frontrunner, friends, is Newt Gingrich.

 Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):

 Rather than wasting time talking about Jon Huntsman and his magenta tie, I've decided to provide a link to a video of Abbott and Costello doing their classic routine "Who's On First."

Well, a pig flew by tonight because I agreed with Huntsman on one statement: We do need term limits for Congress. Then he proceeded to drive me so crazy through the debate that I felt I couldn't just make a fun joke about Governor Huntsman. I've seen pieces of wet one-ply toilet paper with more tensile strength than John Huntsman's spine. He's a wimp, and we've already got a wimp in the White House.

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):

You know that 15% of policies where I completely disagree with Ron Paul? This debate highlighted those differences. (For example, I still do not believe that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction based on simple logic, specifically that dictators don't give up easily. I do agree that President's shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war from Congress.)

Ron Paul's issue on foreign policy is that he lives with his Magic Imagination Hat on where every ideal can be realized. I, on the other hand, live in the Real World.

When Paul talked about our spending problems, I stood up and cheered. Yes, I agree that our spending problem is one of our biggest national security issues. That being said, in a few places, Paul also showed a whole lot of the reasons why I can't support him…on the subject of National Security, Congressman Paul sleeps with his Happy Imagination Hat on. I, on the other hand, live in the Real World. Honestly, I do not believe that we can just play the isolationist game in this modern world…we just can't. I'm sorry, but that's the reality. To paraphrase a favorite television show, there's a time and a place for everything, including idealism and it's called college. It's not called the White House.

Overall, however, Paul focused on the 85% of issues I agree with, and stayed away from a lot of the issues where I do agree with Cain, starting with really dealing with our real problem, which again is not revenue, it's spending.

Congressman Paul really fascinates me, because he has a condo up the street from me in the Real World that he lives in 11 months a year, but then decides to take out his Happy Imagination Hat and live at his time share in Happy Imagination Land when it comes to foreign policy. I just don't get it. How can one man be so realistic when it comes to the economy and so unrealistic when it comes to foreign policy?

Rick Perry – Hold (Hold):     

Perry got better this time. Again, he has gotten stronger in the debates. He's learning to communicate his message more effectively. I think perhaps he's doing debate prep and practicing. I say it all the time, real conservatism wins whenever it's effectively communicated. Perry's issue is not being a real conservative, thus far it's been effectively communicating it. I think it was very wise for Perry to join the joke and laugh at his own gaffe in the last debate. Self-deprecating humor was one of the things that made his former boss and our former President, George W. Bush, so approachable and why Bush won two elections against people who were, on paper, stronger debaters.

 My favorite Perry quote was "The foreign budget for any nation in my administration will start at $0," and then we would consider increasing it if a nation proves they are supporting us.

Perry is giving me hope that he might rebound. As I've said, on paper, he's the candidate that best represents my values. I think Perry could be someone who ends up being a frontrunner someday, but not this election. I think being a 2^nd time Presidential candidate in eight years could be a big difference for Perry, much like Mitt Romney is much improved since 2008.

Perry maintained his gains from the last debate. He's begun to pick up a few points in the polls. I really like his plans, I like his Flat Tax, I like his Balanced Budget Amendment, I especially like the idea of making Congress part-time. That being said, I don't really think he's going to rebound THIS ELECTION. I do think you could see Perry be a very strong candidate in eight years as a second time Presidential candidate. So many candidates are better the second time around. Look at Mitt Romney. Also, look at Ronald Reagan. I'm not writing Perry off yet, because his numbers are climbing, but I don't know if there's enough time to climb back to the top.

I also want to give a quick reality check to Governor Perry: Just because you were able to work with Democrats in Texas, doesn't mean you can work together in the same manner with Democrats in the United States Congress. The man Governor Perry served under as Lieutenant Governor of Texas, former President George W. Bush had the same expectation and it didn't pan out…and that's because a Democrat in Texas is often more conservative by a fair margin than a Republican in say, Connecticut or New York.
I think Perry did well tonight, just based on debate performance. I think he stood strong and did pretty well.

Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):

 Foreign policy is a good topic for Mitt. I have my issues with him on domestic policy because I question whether or not he's conservative ENOUGH on taxes, on the economy, etc. But like I said for eight years under George W. Bush, I do trust him to keep us safe.

 I thought Mitt came out strong at several times, including his clear statement against Barrack Obama for believing that his personal charisma would make the difference in a world filled with evil people (I'm paraphrasing here) and that the President thinks of this country as just another nation. I agree with Mitt, America is not just another nation. America is the great, shining city on a hill.
 Tonight's debate gave me reasons that, if Romney is our nominee, I could get behind Mitt and support him. I still hope for better, but I will get behind him if I need to in the general election.

 "What you have is a President who has a priority of spending us into bankruptcy, but he's not just spending us into bankruptcy, he's spending the money foolishly." Amen, Mitt, amen. Once again, foreign policy is a good place for Mitt. I genuinely would trust him to keep ups safe if he became President, just like I trusted George W. Bush to keep us safe. That's the big reason why I could live with Mitt as President. I still want better, though.

Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):

 Santorum bumbled a lot on Saturday. When he said "Pakistan MUST be our friend" to me was a stupid statement. Yes, Pakistan is a nuclear power. So is North Korea. The idea that because someone is a bully that it's better to befriend the bully out of fear that the bully might attack us next, even though we KNOW we would clean said bully's clock in a fight. The better thing to do is to let the bully know that we will take the bully out if they try to pick on any of the other kids.

 Honestly, I'm getting annoyed with Santorum. He's so busy showing he can play the same lame compromise game (I promise I wasn't trying to do a Dr. Seuss impression) that has caused the problems we have in Washington. Democrats want Republicans to compromise when the GOP is in power, and then tells us "elections have consequences, and we won" when Democrats are in power. We do not need to compromise with Democrats. We need to defeat them. Santorum wants to play the same Washington insider game, and we don't have time for that game.


Debate Winner(s): Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul

Please note: My debate winners have zero to do with chances to win the Republican Nomination.

As it sits now, the race for my personal vote looks like this:

1. Newt Gingrich
2. Rick Perry
3. Herman Cain

How about you? Let me know in the comment section, on Twitter (@UpstateMetFan) or on the Biblical Conservatism Fan Page on Facebook!

Reactions to the CNBC “Your Money, Your Vote” Debate

Last night, the Republican Presidential Candidates met for a debate in Rochester, MI. CNBC hosted the debate, and on many fronts I wanted to smack the moderators. It was pretty bad actually. I darn near threw my remote through the television when the moderators tried to play gotcha with Herman Cain. Then I remembered it’s not the TV’s fault. I continue to wonder why the heck we as Republicans keep putting ourselves through these debates? CNBC’s moderators kept trying to join into the debate and that is not what they are supposed to do. Too much gotcha was played. Jim Cramer reminded me a lot of Matt Foley the Motivational Speaker last night.


Aside from that, let’s play everybody’s favorite post debate game, buy, hold, sell, sell all or sold:

Michelle Bachmann – Hold (Sell):

Congresswoman Bachmann came out swinging tonight (look for that statement a lot tonight). She really had some great moments. I honestly do not know if this response will build any support for her. She had some great moments. My favorite was when she brought up that Barrack Obama’s relatives are still in this country illegally. Honestly I don’t know if she’s going to pick up any support, but I thought her debate performance was solid.

Bachmann had good moments, but her place in the polls has tanked. I like what she said about everyone paying taxes, even if it’s $10 a year. I agree. When the Left talks about someone “not paying their fair share,” but they ignore that 47% of Americans pay zero taxes and then consumes more than half of the government welfare. So 47% of people pay no taxes and use all the tax money.

At one point Congresswoman Bachmann was my top choice. Right now I don’t feel she’s got a chance, and I’m not wasting my vote on idealism. Maybe she can be Vice President, but not President.

Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):

He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.


In the last month I’ve done a 180 on Herman Cain. He’s become a viable candidate and is the current contender to Mitt Romney at the top of the race. I thought he did a very good job of explaining his 9-9-9 Plan and continuing to invite people to go to his website and view the plan in full. He did a great job to explain that his plan is replacing significant taxes that go into the price of every product we buy. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to get that fact into people’s heads. Yes, there would need to be significant and potentially Constitutional safeguards for a plan like 9-9-9 to work. But he did a good job I think of shaking off the attacks and staying firm on his plan.

Cain has had a rough couple of weeks. Early on, the moderators tried to play gotcha with Cain. It didn’t work. He came off as genuine in his response. I will say this over and over, when Cain denies these charges, deep down in places I don’t talk about at parties, I believe him. Cain is an honest man. The best phrase to describe him is “what you see is what you get.” He really answered well.

Then he got back on message. He talked about 9-9-9. He talked about making taxes fairer and transparent. He really got back on topic today. I believe if Cain can stay on message he’ll get past this propped up, made up scandal and continue to succeed.

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):

Newt joins Herman Cain in the category of making me look bad, and I’m glad of it. I really like Newt. If he can show himself to be a viable option and not a throw away vote in my state’s primary, I’d strongly consider voting for him. He’s got great ideas and he would absolutely cream Obama in a debate. He had great moments in the debate. I’d like to see Newt really take the next step. Let’s see what happens.

In debates, Newt is the man. He tells it like it is and does it in a way that people can digest. I loved when he said that there were two points in our history of rapid economic growth, the Reagan Years and the Contract with America (bad news, Clinton fans, it wasn’t Clinton who caused the 90s Boom, it was the Contract with America). Both of those eras had one huge similarity: Lower taxes and let people keep their own money, because private citizens do better with their money than government ever can. Newt is on the rise, and I think he has a chance. I’m seriously considering voting for him now. He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. I’m glad to see his rise.

Jon Huntsman – Sold (Sold):

I’m glad Huntsman wasn’t here. I’ve run out of funny statements for him. I’ll work on it before the next debate. Any suggestions, send me a tweet @UpstateMetFan.

I’m kind of glad Huntsman is in these debates. It gives me a chance to use the bathroom or make a sandwich.

Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):

See Jon Huntsman note.

Johnson showed up at what, one debate? Is he still running? Does anybody care?

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):

Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy tonight. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I agree with him on 85% of his policies. Unfortunately the other 15%, which didn’t come up tonight, scare me about him, like his isolationist policies that do not make sense in our modern world. I stay where I stay, he won’t be the President. But I’m glad he’s in my party. Also, I’d like to give kudos to Paul on one statement, “We have rights, and they come from God.”

I like some of Paul’s plans, namely cutting $1 Trillion from the budget in year one. Unfortunately there’s still that 15% where I can’t agree with him.

Rick Perry – Hold (Hold):

I felt Perry rebounded pretty well. His plans to use the energy resources we have to power this country makes far too much sense to ignore. I can’t tell you what a boon to my budget it would be to see my energy costs go down. I’m fortunate enough to live in a town with local, municipal electricity, but even so, if gas prices were cut in half and energy prices were cut in half due to increased supply, that’d be a 10% increase in my monthly available budget, and that would be absolutely huge to me. For the rest of American that would be so as well. I felt he did a decent job on immigration as well.


Most importantly, I felt Perry did a good job of taking it to Mitt Romney. In fairness, Perry really should have let Mitt finish his sentences, but the reality of the situation was that I think Mitt sounded like a he was whining while Perry seemed like an attack dog. While Perry’s statement about Romney hiring illegal immigrants may not have only been true in name only (and I’ll look for a fact check on that), if Romney’s response was indeed true, it still did bloody Romney a bit. Perry may have started to rebound last night.

Perry got better in this debate before he got worse. At first he was figuring out how to properly present conservatism. As I’ve said recently, I like his Flat Tax. I like his plan to remove all regulations added by the Obama administration based on one critera, “if it costs jobs, get rid of it.” My other favorite Perry statement tonight was “If you’re too big to fail, you’re too big.” And then the gaffes happened.

At one point I thought that Perry was back on the rise, and I was glad, because I think he’s one of the conservative powerhouses in this race and if he can prove he can win I’d love to back him. Then he couldn’t complete answering a question and looked like a bumbling fool. Once again I continue to stay that real conservatism wins every single time it’s effectively communicated. The problem is I still doubt if Perry can effectively communicate it.

Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):

Mitt stood his ground last night and did as well as he’s continued to do. I want to see a fact check on his claim that his “illegal immigrant hiring” was actually him contracting for landscaping with a company who hired illegals, which is, in fairness, not something I can legitimately blame Mitt for. However, where I think he looked bad was when he was defending himself against the interruptions by Perry. I know, it doesn’t sound right, and in most cases I would think that Perry sounded like a jerk and Mitt like a victim. Yet, in that particular instance, Mitt came off to me as condescending and Perry as someone who was legitimately looking for answers.


That exchange (and the subsequent Twitter reactions during it) showed Mitt’s biggest problem. The conservative Republican base really doesn’t want him. That’s why there’s been a perpetual battle of Mitt vs. Not Mitt. (The role of Not Mitt has been played recently by Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.) Republicans are desperately seeking somebody else, and that will hurt Mitt.

Mitt had good moments and bad. One of his best moments was explaining the definition of profits. He got out of his robotic mode and got excited and showed emotion about capitalism. He had a rough moment early on when he was being questioned about his flip flops. What it really comes down to is that Romney would be okay, but we can do better. We’ve got, by my count, five dyed in the wool conservatives on that stage, and I want better than Mitt.

Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):

Santorum was swinging away again tonight, and I still don’t think he gained any traction. I like him, but his highest possible realistic goal is Vice President.

Santorum had a great debate. He really was on the ball. I just don’t see him getting revved up. Maybe I’m wrong. But for now, he’s getting 2-3% in polls. He’s got no chance.


My personal decision is getting closer…at least I’m down to three candidates I’m seriously considering: Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I’m sick of listening to Leftwing Moderators playing gotcha and knowing they will give softballs to Obama when the general election debates occur. Still, The field is winnowing in my mind. We’ll see how that continues. Next debate is Saturday night. We’ll see what happens!