This ad was not paid for by any political campaign.  It has been embeded by the editor of this blog as part of his personal endorsement of Newt Gingrich and is therefore not subject to equal time requirements.

Reactions to the Fox News-South Carolina Debate

Last night, the five remaining Republican candidates met for a debate in South Carolina.  It was good to see the candidates play a home game for a change, debating on Fox News.  If it was up to me, of course, Fox would get basically all the debates rather than subjecting ourselves to the gotcha game from the Drive-By Media.  (Then again, we did have Juan Williams playing the gotcha game.)  The format was different also because we’re down to five candidates, as opposed to the nine we had on the stage at one point.  The fewer candidates allowed for longer responses by candidates so we could get a better view of each candidate.

One final note:  In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to remind everyone that, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism, I have endorsed Newt Gingrich. 

So let’s play a round of everyone’s favorite debate analysis game, Buy, Hold, Sell or Sell All.  As always, my reaction to the candidate's LAST debate performance (or in this case performances, from the two back to back New Hampshire Debates last week) are in italics above.

--------------------------------------------------

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Hold):   

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. 

Newt started off talking about why he was going on the attack against Mittens.  He did just an ok job at first explaining why he was making those attacks.  I didn’t like that Newt at first seemed like he was admitting to playing spoiler and not trying to win the nomination.

And then Newt turned back into Newt.  When he said regarding the length one can receive unemployment benefits, Newt said (accurately) that 99 weeks is an associate degree.  I also loved when Newt explained conservatism thusly: “Saying to someone I’ll help you IF you’re willing to help yourself is good, and we think unconditional efforts by the best Food Stamp President in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country.”  Bingo.  That’s the Newt Gingrich I endorsed!  Conservatism is not about telling people they can starve, but it’s also not about just giving people benefits forever.  Welfare and unemployment are meant to be an insurance…a just in case situation. 

I have car insurance.  I pay my premiums hoping that I’ll never have to use it again.  I’ve had to use that insurance a few years ago when I was in a bad accident, including receiving short-term disability coverage when I was out of work.  (This insurance was private insurance that I paid for, not government insurance, by the way.)  However, as soon as I was able I went looking for a new job because I was physically unable to perform the job I had at the time.  I went to work as soon as I could.  I didn’t milk it for every penny so I could not work.

Another place where Newt nailed it was this: “I’d like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue and not raise revenue to meet the government.  He also had a great point to Juan Williams’ attack on Speaker Gingrich’s point on letting kids work to help clean their schools.  His story that his daughter worked cleaning their church at 13 and was pleased to do that job and learn that when you work you get paid.  It’s a great point. 

When I was younger I was taught that work pays.  As I child I created a few “businesses” making crafts and things which I sold and even enlisted neighborhood kids to help me sell those items, splitting the sale with them. Many times my father gave me the opportunity to work for a few hours with him at his office sorting papers and other odd jobs in exchange for some money.  My mother once paid me to clean the living room carpet rather than paying a professional.  I was a babysitter for a while as well.  When I was 14 my father gave me a job for 5 hours per week doing data entry for his company.  When I was 16 I got a part-time job and have worked ever since. 

Jobs are good for kids.  They have to be responsibly regulated.  When we talk about kids doing janitorial work at their school, that should mean things like sweeping and mopping, not doing maintenance on the boiler.  But it’s a good policy.

Best Newt moment of the night: “I know among the politically correct you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable,” to Juan Williams.

This debate was exactly what I meant when I said that the debates could give Speaker Gingrich a boost.  Let’s see if it pans out, but I do believe you could see Newt win South Carolina and reinvigorate his campaign, especially if he has this strong of a debate on Thursday night.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Newt said: A 15% Flat Tax.*

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):         

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. 

Let’s be honest with ourselves as to why Congressman Paul is in this race. He wants to get his policies onto the eventual Republican platform.  Provided he realizes that his foreign policy doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in July of being part of the GOP platform, I would LOVE to have Congressman Paul’s policies in our ticket.  I want Ron Paul’s economic policies to become part of the platform.  Make no mistake about it: The Tea Party has pushed the GOP to the right, and people like Ron Paul deserve a share of the credit for that.

In the debate, however, Ron Paul did his usual out of touch with the GOP foreign policy statements.  Again, this is why he won’t be the nominee.  The audience booed him in many places, then others cheered his desire to end wars.  It’s a great example of the Ron Paul phenomenon: 75% of the room boo his foreign policies, 25% cheer.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Congressman Paul said: We should have the lowest tax we’ve ever had and up until 1913 it was 0%, what’s so bad about that? (Note: This would require reinstituting widespread tariffs, but hey, sounds good to me!)

Rick Perry – Hold (Sell All):             

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.

Perry had a strong debate.  Judging by the reactions he received last night, I can see a chance for Rick Perry to forge a comeback.  It’ll be hard, don’t get me wrong.  But Perry really effectively communicated conservatism last night.  I wish Perry had gotten this strong back in August when he got into the race, because I do believe he was one of if not the most conservative candidate in the race. 

I’m rating Perry as Hold for now for one reason:  South Carolina is a home game for Perry, and in a home game occasionally you get a surprising upset.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Perry said: A 20% Flat Tax*

Mitt Romney– Buy (Buy):     

Mittens 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. 

I want to go on record as saying I do not buy into the attacks on Bain Capital being levied against Mitt and I think they are bad for the country.  I think it was good that Speaker Gingrich retracted and instructed his Super PAC to back down from this attack. 

Mitt was under fire tonight.  He did a pretty decent job responding to the attacks.  I find it interesting that Mitt was absent in a lot of places in the debate.  He was steady and strong, and as I’ve said before I can live with Mitt, but I want better.  I do think Mitt had a weak debate.  I do not believe he scored as many points as he could have.  Mitt was Presidential in the debate.  His best moment was when he talked about the difference between himself and President Obama (and also Ron Paul) in foreign policy.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Mitt said:  I’d like to get it down to 25%.

Rick Santorum - Buy (Buy):

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.

Senator Santorum was steady tonight.  He had a couple good moments, but he was otherwise kind of tepid.  I do love that Senator Santorum stands up for marriage and for strengthening the American family.  His statement from the Brookings Institute Study that people who do 3 things have a 98% chance to avoid poverty: Those things are 1 – Work 2 - Graduate from High School 3 – Get married before you have children.  Aside from the fact that “people who work are less likely to be in poverty” is a DUH statement, it’s a great point.  The traditional path for life is one that leads people to be functioning, self-sufficient members of society. 

I’m coming back to my belief that Santorum is more likely to be Vice President than President.  (Again, if the Vice Presidential nominee comes out of the field of candidates, I believe it’ll be either Senator Santorum or Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann).  But I don’t think he gained any points tonight.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Santorum said: My plan has two rates, 10% and 28% which was the highest rate under Ronald Reagan.

--------------------------------------------------

Debate Winners:  Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry

This debate was very interesting.  Mitt Romney was just ok, Santorum was just ok, Ron Paul was his usual crazy self, and Newt and Rick Perry were truly excellent.  I liked that the conservatives rose to the top.  We’ve got another debate on Thursday before the South Carolina primary on Saturday.  One statement though: This race isn’t over, yet.  Mitt Romney is not our nominee, yet.  Newt could still make a run, and if Perry can pull off an upset then he could make a run too.  Game on. 

*Rick Perry’s 20% Flat Tax provides more deductions and a higher standard deduction that Newt Gingrich’s 15% Flat Tax plan, so it actually would mean less taxes for the average American.

This ad was not paid for by any political campaign.  It has been embeded by the editor of this blog as part of his personal endorsement of Newt Gingrich and is therefore not subject to equal time requirements.

Best of Biblical Conservatism: Failing Dr. King - How the Left Ignores the Dream

Last year on Biblical Conservatism, I took time to reflect on how the Left in America fails to live up to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous dream.  Today, on Martin Luther King Day, I felt it was a good time to repost that reflection.

In 2011, America celebrated the 25th Martin Luther King Day. As it has in the past, this day brought to mind a panel discussion I was priveleged to join back in 2001 (my senior year of high school) sponsored by Umoja (student lead-group at my school). I was known in my high school as one of the best Conservatives (a small pool of talent in a New York state high school I must admit). A Liberal friend, with whom I had enjoyed many great debates with through our honors History and English classes over the past years, was a member of the group Umoja’s branch at my school. The goal of this panel was to discuss race relations 33 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I will never forget this event. It was the day I truly understood how the American Left has failed Dr. King's dream.

The panel consisted of some black students and some white students. I recall most vividly the stories of "racism" that some of these students claimed to have experienced at our school. Included among the most prominent "offenses" as being asked questions about their hair and how difficult it was to manage! I have always believed that the greatest problem that caused racism in America was ignorance. If this is the case, how is it racist to ask questions in an effort to understand? Further, aren't questions like this a demonstration that our generation does in fact recognize that race differences are purely skin deep...that black people are simply PEOPLE...people who have different physical traits but otherwise 100% the same!

If I may step away from the point of this article for one moment, I'd like to take time to explain the real purpose of race. The physical traits of different races on Earth were caused due to the process of physical adaptation as people moved into different parts of the World. For example, the physical traits of people from eastern African descent. People in Africa generally have long and lanky frames. Their skin has a high amount of melanin in their bodies because melanin is essentially sun block built in to the human body. The more melanin a person has in their skin, the more they can be in the sun without the sun's rays damaging their body. The lanky frame and high amount of melanin in black person's body is the ideal combination of traits to dissipate heat and to withstand the longest possible time in the sun.

People of northern Asian decent are generally shorter and squatter. They have thicker, darker hair and almond shaped eyes which reduce the glare of snow and ice. They tend to have flatter noses because that shape nose is less exposed to cold. People of Asian descent often have minimal facial hair because a man's breath often condensates on the beard, making the face colder. These traits make a person of northern Asian decent best able to withstand the cold temperatures of northern Asia. Both these examples show that the human body adapted to its surroundings!

Back to the original story. The one question that I recall as if it was yesterday from that panel discussion from ten years ago was "How do you see yourself as a minority or majority in America today?" I remember I was quite bothered by this question because it ignored the point of Dr. King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Dr. King said famously:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."(1)

Yet these students wanted to talk about people in categories based upon the color of their skin! I spoke about my personal beliefs on race: That skin color is exactly the same as eye color...a physical trait. I do not consider people to be different than me if they have blue or brown eyes (I have green eyes, for the record). I do not consider a person different from me if they have blonde hair or black hair or red hair (I have brown hair, for the record). I also do not consider people to be different because they are of Asian descent or African decent or American Indian decent (I am of European Decent, for the record). These are only physical traits. They DO NOT MATTER to me!

Another statement made was "Everyone is at least a little racist." I stand living proof that this is not true! My response to this was: "I look at you and I see a person. You look at me and you see a white person. Who do you think is REALLY racist here?" I said then, and I still say now, that the person who sees a fellow human being through the lens of their race is the racist, regardless of what that racist person's skin color happens to be!

The truth is the Left has failed Dr. King's dream. They have spent a generation telling minorities that they can't succeed on their own. They have spent a generation telling minorities they need the Democrat party to fight for them because they can't fight for themselves. The Left has spent a generation crying racism every time someone argues against a policy of a minority. Look at Barrack Obama. The Left should be thrilled that the Right debates President Obama's policies on merit alone if they were living up to Dr. King's beliefs. But the Left instead cries racism because we criticism Obama. The reality is we ARE judging Obama by the content of his character...and we don't like that content! I despise President Obama's policies with my eyes closed...his race does not matter. I am the same person who liked the idea of Condoleezza Rice running for President at one point because I liked the content of her character. I oppose Obama's policies because he is a Socialist, not because he is black! Something tells me that you, my readers, oppose Obama's policies for the same reason.

The Left has failed Dr. King's Dream, and done so intentionally. They fail the Dream because it means they can't use race to convince minorities to vote for them. The Right, on the other hand, has succeeded. We as Conservatives do judge people by the content of their character. We happily support Conservative minorities like Condoleezza Rice, Judge Clarence Thomas, Governor Bobby Jindall of Louisiana, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and others. Because it's about the ideas, not the skin tone. We argue against minorities who are on the Left, like President Barrack Obama, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. It is for their policies we oppose these men. If they were white, we'd fight them just the same.

So I ask you what I asked ten years ago: If the Left looks at a man and sees a white man or a black man or an Asian man and the Right looks at a man and sees a man, who is the racist? It is the side that sees simply a man that has fulfilled the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) "I Have a Dream" speech by Dr. Martin Luther King

Recent Debates and Media Bias

Last weekend, when the Republican candidates met for two debates, moderated by two Drive-By Media networks, ABC and NBC. The specific moderators who I believe deserve to be smacked are George "Mr. Snuffleupagus" Stephanapolus and, now NBC (formerly PMS-NBC) anchor David Gregory. 

If you watched these debates, you likely found yourself wanting to smack Snuffleupagus and Gregory. First and foremost, this was Media Bias on parade.  Watch a Democrat debate next time there is one. You won't see Snuffleupagus and Gregory and Rachel Maddow and their Drive-By Media colleagues arguing points with the Democrat candidates in the middle of debates.  They won't find themselves trying to join the debate in an effort to play gotcha.

There was no better example of this than Snuffleupagus' arguing about making birth control illegal with Mitt Romney.  For all my arguments with Mittens, he did a great job of answering this ridiculous premise. The reality is absolutely nobody is saying "make birth control illegal," at least unless you think abortion is birth control.  (Conservatives oppose abortion because we believe that unborn child is a human being and, above all else, is entitled to their life.)  Abortion aside, I know almost nobody who opposes legitimate birth control methods (defined as methods that, through either barrier or hormonal method, stop a male's sperm cell from fertilizing a female's egg cell). 

Look, I've stated this before, the Presidential candidates must not have an issue with birth control when, for example, Mitt Romney and his wife Ann have five children in 42 years of marriage.  You just don't get that sort of results with Natural Family Planning when a couple has multiple years between children and only five total children. This was always an invented issue.  The Drive-Bys might have well asked the GOP candidates if they favored banning the sale of bubble gum and socks.  As Romney stated, nobody wants to do it, leave it alone!

For those of you who argue that there is no media bias, please, wake up and smell the coffee!  This type of baloney is soaked into the Drive-By Media mentality. They play gotcha with Republicans and handle Democrats with kid gloves.  I guarantee Barack Obama doesn't receive the same scrutiny on gay marriage that Republicans do, even though (at least on paper) his opinion is the same as the GOP candidates. And yet, only the Republicans receive this Drive-By Media rectal exam.  But hey, there's no media bias, right?

       

This ad was not paid for by any political campaign.  It has been embeded by the editor of this blog as part of his personal endorsement of Newt Gingrich and is therefore not subject to equal time requirements.

Reactions to the New Hampshire Primary

Tuesday night, our nation’s first primary was won, as expected by Mitt Romney (and not Tim Tebow for that one person who actually drunk enough to believe yesterday’s post*).  Not only that, Mittens finally broke the 30% poll with his 36% finish.  My fellow conservatives are starting to sing the song of inevitability.  I’m not buying it…yet.  I may yet be forced to…and if I am forced to I will at least find that moment less difficult than holding my nose and voting for McCain…actually voting for Sarah Palin and her boss.  But I still do not think it’s 100% over yet.  The conventional wisdom is pretty much out the window this time.  Too much has changed. 

Ron Paul finished second garnering his predictable 20-25% that he will continue to receive.  Ron Paul’s coalition is what it is and frankly it’s not growing.  I think Ron Paul has got a great place in the GOP, and I’m glad he’s around and making young people excited about small government.  He’d make a great treasury secretary or maybe even a Federal Reserve Chief.  Ron Paul’s support is set. 

Which brings me to my favorite joke, Jon “Grover” Huntsman.  He finished third in New Hampshire after throwing his entire campaign on the line and only finished third with 17%.  Given that he put all his effort into New Hampshire, and by the way half his support came from fellow wimpy moderates in an open primary state, he just doesn’t have a prayer.

Now to my candidate:  Newt Gingrich came again in fourth place with 9% of the vote, beating Senator Santorum by less than 50 votes.  Considering Newt didn’t push hard for New Hampshire and it was basically Romney’s state to lose, I don’t put a lot of stock in it.  South Carolina is what is going to really matter for Newt.  Newt’s really needs to win or at least place in South Carolina and Florida.  I think he can do it.  There are four debates between now and then.  One of which is with friendly Fox News, instead of the gotcha Drive-By Media.  Also important is that Newt’s got the money to take it to Mittens in South Carolina in Florida.  It’s important that Newt is continuing to run second to Mittens in national polls of Republican voters.

The flavor of the month, Rick Santorum, finished fifth (barely).  I stated after Iowa that it was going to be really difficult for Santorum to continue the retail politics that got him his second place finish in Iowa.  I do think that the Vice Presidency could be a real possibility for Santorum now.  (Actually, given the hit job done on Herman Cain, if the VP is going to come from the Presidential field, I believe it’s going to be either Santorum or Michelle Bachmann.) Santorum isn’t done yet, but like Gingrich, he needs to at least show in South Carolina and Florida to keep his momentum.

Finally, we’ve got Rick Perry.  For a long time before I ultimately endorsed Gingrich, I strongly considered backing Perry.  His plans were great, but his poor debate performances knocked him out of that possibility.  Finishing last place again in New Hampshire (except for that Buddy Roemer guy, who I have only heard about because of a nice lady on Twitter who follows me who has tried to get me to support him) is quite possibly going to be the death knell for Perry.  The unfortunate thing for Perry is that I don’t know if there will be a next time for him.  It’s going to be eight years before we have another Republican nomination contest (because we are GOING to beat Obama), and by that point young up and comers like Bobby Jindall, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, and of course (legitimate shivers of excitement) Marco Rubio will be ready to step onto the national stage.  Perry may not have that chance.  This may well be the end of Perry.  There’s only one thing that can make a difference for Perry:  He’s got a whole lot of money to spend.  Candidates don’t drop out because they’re losing, they drop out because they run out of money. 

In the end, we’re talking about 12 delegates that were decided.  Twelve delegates, proportionally distributed nonetheless.  Mitt got the big nut from this tree with SEVEN.  There are a lot of votes to be cast still.  It ain’t over, folks, and I suspect it’s not going to be over until at least April. 

*Thank you for making yesterday’s spoof post the most popular post in the year plus history of this blog!

(This ad was not paid for by any political campaign or PAC.  It has been embeded by the editor of this blog as part of his personal endorsement of Newt Gingrich and is therefore not subject to equal time requirements.)

Shocker! New Hampshire Primary Won by Tim Tebow!

Tebow Addresses Supporters after his big win

In a shocking turn of events, the New Hampshire primary yesterday was won by Denver Bronco's quarterback Tim Tebow.  This win is especially shocking given that, at the age of 24, Tebow is not even Constitutionally eligible to be President. 

Sources show that Tebow had barely shown up at all in the balloting until the last 15 minutes of voting, when Tebow had an onslaught of write-in ballots that propelled him to victory. 

Later in the evening, Tebow addressed his supporters in front of a SEC backdrop that was clearly intended to drum up support in both South Carolina and Florida (since both the University of South Carolina and University of Florida are SEC teams) and especially pushing hard to win in Florida with the Gators helmet in the stage.

Said Tebow,

"I knew it was a big primary and a big opportunity.  Many people didn't believe that we could win the New Hampshire Primary and I am very thankful for the platform of running for President." 

Later on, Tebow, caught up in the moment, was quoted as saying,

"We're going to New England to play the Patriots!  Then we're going to South Carolina! Then we're going to either Baltimore or Houston!  Then we're going to Florida!  Then we're going to Indiana! Then we're going to Colorado!  And Minnesota!  And Michigan!  Then we're going to the White House!  YEEEAAAAAH!"

The proceeding article is entirely ficticious. Tune in tomorrow for an actual analysis of the New Hampshire Primaries.

         

(This ad was not paid for by any political campaign.  It has been embeded by the editor of this blog as part of his personal endorsement of Newt Gingrich and is therefore not subject to equal time requirements.)

Before the New Hampshire Primaries

Today is the day of the nation’s first Primary in New Hampshire.  I think everyone, including me, will be surprised if Mitt Romney doesn’t win this thing.  It’s definitely Mittens’ primary to lose.  That being said, it’s very interesting to see how everyone else will break out.  Jon Huntsman, my perpetual humorous whipping boy for being a joke of a candidate, has thrown all his chips into New Hampshire.  He hasn’t polled higher than third and even then it’s a far third.  Ron Paul is going to get pretty much what he’s going to get everywhere, 15-20% or so.  He’s got his supporters and that’s going to be it. 

Which brings us to my candidate, Newt Gingrich.  Newt is finally going after Mittens, but I don’t think he’s got enough time to make a difference in New Hampshire.  South Carolina is a different story.  I do think there’s a good chance to topple Mitt there.  (Implied in that statement of course is the phrase “I hope.”)  Newt needs to rebound hard, if not in New Hampshire than in South Carolina. 

Finally, there’s Rick Santorum.  Most recent polls show him in either third or fourth place in New Hampshire.  I do believe this may be par for the course for Senator Santorum.  It took retail politics to do as well as he did in Iowa, and I do not think his Iowa momentum will keep going.  I think Gingrich’s finally getting off the bench to respond to Romney’s attacks and to deal with Romney’s shortcomings are going to take back some of Santorum’s “Not Romney” support.

New Hampshire matters because it’s the first Primary, but again let’s again remember that only 12 delegates will be decided tomorrow, and that proportionally distributed. Based on the most recent New Hampshire polls, given proportional distribution, you can expect Romney to gain 4-5 delegates, Ron Paul to gain 2-3 delegates, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum to each gain 1-2 delegates, and Rick Perry to gain one or none.  Bottom line, New Hampshire won’t mean that much, no matter who wins. 

Today is New Hampshire.  We’ll know more tonight.  Please remember I’ll wait until Thursday to give full New Hampshire analysis in order to give a well thought out response.  In the mean time, remember what the great Yogi Berra said: “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.”

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!