3 for Romney, the Problem w. Santorum & the Final Debate
In this post: recent (AZ, MI & WY) primaries, Super Tuesday & the big picture road ahead, strategic voting tactics, another case against Santorum, the last (20th) debate, Andrew Breitbart’s untimely death, and more inept “leadership” by Obama.
Recent primary results:
Arizona: Mitt 47%, Rick 38%
Michigan: Mitt 41%, Rick 38%
Wyoming: Mitt 39%, Rick 32%
From the Romney campaign: “The exit polls again showed that Mitt's support is wide reaching by winning among men, women, Catholics, Republicans, and those families most impacted by the economy in both states.
“The bottom line is that Mitt is continuing to build his delegate count and has now won 40% of all votes cast in the GOP contests. It is getting increasingly harder to see a path to the nomination for any of his rivals.”
Regarding Michigan, Mitt came from 15 points behind a couple weeks before to win. And his win would have been even larger if not for the participation of some 10,000 Democrats (9% of those who voted) in the open primary, who concertedly (especially the union) voted for Santorum. This was due to what has been noted as the first “strategic voting” campaign by an incumbent president in the opposition party's primary, to influence the election to his liking. I.e., Obama would rather run against Santorum, whom he obviously feels he has a better chance against. That’s just another excellent reason to vote for Mitt -- we should choose his opponent, not Obama.
And so we see the incursion of more Chicago politics courtesy of Obama. And this is hardly the first meddling in the GOP primary – as described in earlier posts, there is clear complicity between the Dems and media influence in the debate questions and coverage of issues. Even attacking Mitt for the time he took their family dog on their vacation in a pet carrier on the roof of the station wagon.
But if that wasn’t bad enough, enter Rick Santorum, whose campaign made robocalls to Democrats & independents to get them out to vote for him. Which clarifies even more what Santorum meant by being a “team player,” which is how he defended some of his earlier bad votes. This time, he found himself on the same team as Obama. Contrast w. Mitt’s record of being a true team player (see below). Further, Santorum appealed to union Dems by saying Mitt opposed auto bailouts, but failed to mention that he (Santorum) also had. True, Mitt supported some of the financial system bailouts (unlike Santorum), but there are arguably better reasons for that (more on that later).
Not exactly the kind of endorsement a GOP presidential candidate should be seeking, and a clear act of desperation. And it shows him as being even more unprincipled and mercenary. And he's protesting over one delegate awarded to Romney. It all calls into question what tactics he used in the states he’s won so far – as I have suspected in previous posts that he pandered to anti-Mormon prejudice, etc. – his evangelical support was extremely lopsided compared w. all other categories of voters.
Santorum’s calling himself the “conservative heavyweight” in this contest (what about Newt’s girth?). And says Romney’s weak, relative to Obama. Not what the polls show, nor that Santorum has any advantage there. Nor what the primary results and delegate count to date show. Nor what is expected to be shown on Super Tuesday. Santorum lost in every category in Michigan except evangelicals (and pro-Obama Democrats). Can you spell “anti-Mormon bigotry?” But as Dennis Miller said, after Michigan, Mitt’s battle-tested.
The Problem with Santorum
I’ve presented arguments against Santorum (much as I like him & much of what he believes – except his condescending smirks & attacks on Romney) in recent posts, but Ann Coulter presents some powerful ones in her latest article, “The Problem with Santorum” at http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/02/29/the_problem_with_santorum.
The delegate count as of now:
Romney 168 (55%)
Santorum 86 (28%)
Gingrich 32 (10%)
Paul 19 (6%)
Projections for Super Tuesday & Beyond:
466 delegates are to be decided on Super Tuesday (March 6) among 11 states (listed below), and 1,144 are needed to win the nomination outright.
Massachusetts – Mitt
Virginia – only Mitt & Ron Paul on the ballot, so a blowout by Mitt
Washington – Mitt’s up by 5 points
Vermont – Romney up 7
Alaska – Romney won last time & expected to again
Idaho – Romney expected to win
North Dakota – Romney expected to win
Ohio – too tight to call now (Mitt up couple pts in one poll, down in another), though Mitt has been trending up
N. Carolina – Santorum up by 6
Tennessee – Santorum up 21
Georgia – Gingrich up by 12
So 7 (+1?) states for Mitt, 2 (+ 1?) for Santorum & 1 for Newt. But even if Mitt only gets 5 (allowing for a couple more "Santorum surprises"/Democrat tactics), pundits say that's good enough.
The grand total number of delegates up for grabs is 2500, including those already allocated. After Super Tuesday's 466, another ~300 delegates later in March (7 states & 4 territories), ~550 delegates (9 states) between April 3 & 24, ~350 in May, ~350 June 5 (incl. California & 4 other states), and Utah last at the end of June. Then the convention is late August. Leaving 2 full months until the general election early November. You can see the graph I pulled these eyeball estimates from here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/11/us/election-news/candidates-going-the-distance.html
Unless Santorum begins to come on stronger than he has so far, it’s extremely doubtful he can catch up and pass Romney, and win the nomination. Or even keep Romney from winning it before the convention, and force a brokered convention. Pundits place those odds very small (5-10%). The best Santorum can probably do is extend the length of time until Romney does reach 1144 delegates, and deplete more of the valuable GOP financial & PR capital. And he seems hell bent on that. Such a team player.
Polls indicate that most of what's left of Newt’s & Ron Paul’s support would go to Mitt instead of Santorum, so giving Mitt their current share (after they drop out of the race), he’d have 72% of the vote/delegates. Assuming Mitt maintains that fraction from here on (his delegate fraction is higher than his vote fraction due to superior organization & strategy), and that Santorum stays on to the bitter end, I calculate that Mitt will break the 1,144 barrier May 8. But if Santorum comes on stronger, and/or the others don't drop out for a while, it could go to June & California. Or even the end of the line at the end of June -- Utah. Wouldn't that be ironic -- a Mormon state giving the nomination to a Mormon candidate? That wouldn't go over well in Evangelical circles.
By this date 4 years ago, Romney was in 2nd place in delegates, with 272 (there was more front-loading of state elections then). But opted out of the race in deference to the front-runner, for the good of the party (team player) -- much to the dismay of many at CPAC who viewed him as the most conservative in the race. But he immediately began to enthusiastically support & campaign for McCain, and in the intervening 4 years for many local GOP candidates (team player).
As Ann Coulter has said, how about the others besides Mitt dropping out (she, too, notes that Mitt had by now 4 yrs ago), and stop depleting Mitt’s resources and reputation (maybe another reason for the Dems doing strategic voting & media manipulation). But don’t expect Santorum to get out anytime soon – it seems a bit too personal for that. And as McCain says, this is the most personally negative of any campaign he’s seen. And clearly having a negative impact on the GOP in polls against Obama. And draining valuable resources that will be sorely needed in the general election against the resource advantages of our part-time fundraising president.
For the general election, recent polls have shown Mitt either slightly ahead or even/very close w. Obama. Expect that to change in Mitt’s favor after the GOP bloodletting is over and the focus turns to Obama’s record, and of course the convention bump.
The Last Debate
The Feb. 22 GOP debate in Mesa, Arizona on CNN (moderated by John King) was, it appears, the final (20th) GOP primary debate. Anyone who doesn’t have a fair feel for the candidates by now (or at least as much as can be expected with 1 minute sound bites), hasn’t been paying attention and/or needs to do some more homework beyond the ads & news coverage. Not much new substance, except Santorum got more time and attention to go with his rise (& Newt & Ron Paul’s fall) in the polls & recent wins.
Asked how they’d reduce the debt (now > GNP for the 1st time), Santorum would cut $5 trillion over 5 yrs, incl. entitlements, Obamacare. Mitt accused Santorum of not being a fiscal conservative in several of his votes, at the time Mitt was balancing budgets in Mass. & Olympics & in business. He’d cut fed. Employment 10%, link gov’t pay to private, cut taxes 20% across the board, cut, cap & balance.
Ron Paul called Santorum a “fake” – voted for no child left behind & now against, for increased deficits, foreign aid, etc. This later prompted some into a conspiracy theory, that Ron Paul & Mitt were tag-teaming against Santorum. Something both denied. But the Santorum supporters weren’t used to the double- (or triple-) teaming that every other front-runner, and especially Romney, has experienced, and had to whine.
Mitt cited his conservative credentials, incl. balanced budgets, English immersion, standing on the side of life, with Catholics on adoption agency attacks, and the necessity of fiscal conservatism in business.
Regarding earmarks, Santorum said some are good, others abused. Mitt said Rick voted for the Bridge to Nowhere when he was balancing budgets in Mass. Rick said Mitt was constitutionally required to balance budgets, but I note that Mitt went beyond that, creating surpluses – Mitt maybe should have said that, and, as Ann Coulter pointed out, he did it without raising taxes, something even Ronald Reagan didn't do. Mitt was teamed up on by the other 3 – all legislators – regarding some minutia on earmarks, but all it did was point out (to Romney’s benefit – I think maybe he artfully drew them out) that they know the Washington system all too well, being the insiders that they are, contrary to the claim that Mitt is the “Establishment” candidate.
On bailouts, Santorum opposed auto & Wall Street bailouts, claimed Mitt inconsistent in supporting the latter & not the former. Mitt said “nice try, look at the facts” – 3 CEO’s wanted $50 billion, he wrote an op ed pointing out the benefits of reorganizing, vs. giving the companies to the UAW. And on TARP, he didn’t want to lose all our banks. Newt agreed. Ron Paul said gov’t should protect contracts, not alter them – all bailouts are bad.
The audience loudly booed the question on birth control. Mitt said we’ve never seen such an attack on religion as under Obama – trying to determine who ministers are (Supreme Ct. voted 9-0 against), contraceptive issue, etc. Santorum spoke of the cultural prob. Of unwed children having children, 5x rate of poverty in single parent homes – he’ll talk about it, but doesn’t mean he wants a gov’t program to fix it – that’s what liberals do [good line]. R. Paul said gov’t’s involved in things it shouldn’t be. Rick harped again on Romneycare being a model for Obamacare. Mitt pointed out that Rick endorsed Mitt 4 yrs ago, said he’s a real conservative, and if anything, he’s only gotten more conservative in the mean time. Obamacare 2000 pages, Romneycare <100, a lot he differs with. Mitt pointed out Santorum supported Arlen Specter who cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.
On illegal immigration (Arizona under attack for trying to secure its border), Ron Paul said we reward illegal immigration, Newt emphasized building a double fence. When asked if we should aggressively arrest/deport illegals, Mitt once again emphasized use of e-verify which has dropped illegal hiring 14% where used, and the self-deporting that should occur when they can’t find work.
Regarding women in combat, Mitt said to listen to the commanders, and that Obama is shrinking the military in a more dangerous world. Newt agreed. R. Paul of course doesn’t want anyone in foreign aggressive wars, believes in the Christian just war theory. Sant. Has concerns over women in infantry.
How to deal w. the nuclear threat of Iran? Newt said if a madman has nukes, then there’s a moral obligation to prevent another holocaust. Mitt said the price of gas pales to nukes in Iran – the biggest failure of Obama is on Iran – no crippling sanctions, backed down on Russia vs. Iran, supported the bad election & not the protesters. Sant. agreed w. Mitt. R.Paul said we’re encouraging Iran to get nukes, and the sanctions are backfiring.
Should the US intervene in Syria? Sant. – Syria’s a puppet of Iran, Obama’s been weak. Newt – should open drilling so invulnerable to Iran closing the straits. Mitt agreed w. Sant. & Newt – should take advantage of the situation in Syria & turn things around.
Education reform & No Child Left Behind. Santorum supported it, admits he went w. the team against his beliefs & is now against – fed. & states, too, should get out of education. Mitt enforced testing, supported charter schools & choice, good teachers – need to stand up to federal teachers union. Newt – look at LA Unified – doing so much damage to kids to protect bad teachers; teaching is a missionary endeavor – you kill it when you bureaucratize it. Ron Paul – Santorum’s going along with the team is the core of the problem.
Biggest misconception about you? R.Paul – that I can’t win. Newt – the amount of work it took to get done what he did when in office. Mitt – I have the background & skills that are more important than other perceived weaknesses – to restore America’s promise – more jobs, cut spending, etc. Sant. – Obama will be able to outspend our nominee, need to be able to run on issues.
Spin (Anderson Cooper 360). Ari Fleischer – good night for Newt & Mitt, Santorum missed an opening to capitalize on his recent momentum. David Gurgen – a showdown between Mitt & Santorum – Mitt did much better than Sant. – strong & prepared. This helped Mitt for Super Tuesd. & Michigan. Eric Erickson – agrees Mitt won – Santorum was on defense about his Senate record. Mesa AZ crowd clearly favorable to Mitt [LDS] – Santorum also acknowledged that afterwards. Gov. Jan Brewer – all did well, liked Newt’s statement on working w. governors on illegal immigration, but all supported stronger immigration reform. The 3 congressmen (esp. Sant.) were shown by Mitt as Washington insiders, and made to explain their records – will make them look bad in the eyes of the Tea Party. Dennis Prager – the election is about unsustainable debt (moral & financial) & corrupting the moral character of America – other issues pale (e.g., contraception, Romneycare).
Other Conservative News
This week we lost a valiant warrior against the Liberal/Left juggernaut – Andrew Breitbart. In homage to him, Ann Coulter said, “Andrew Breitbart was the only person I know who enjoys annoying liberals more than I do.”
Obama Watch
Our president today said regarding Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, “I’m not bluffing when I say all options are on the table.” And as if that weren’t as clear as mud, he added that “a preemptive strike by Israel could do more harm than good.” That’s leadership!???
Recent primary results:
Arizona: Mitt 47%, Rick 38%
Michigan: Mitt 41%, Rick 38%
Wyoming: Mitt 39%, Rick 32%
From the Romney campaign: “The exit polls again showed that Mitt's support is wide reaching by winning among men, women, Catholics, Republicans, and those families most impacted by the economy in both states.
“The bottom line is that Mitt is continuing to build his delegate count and has now won 40% of all votes cast in the GOP contests. It is getting increasingly harder to see a path to the nomination for any of his rivals.”
Regarding Michigan, Mitt came from 15 points behind a couple weeks before to win. And his win would have been even larger if not for the participation of some 10,000 Democrats (9% of those who voted) in the open primary, who concertedly (especially the union) voted for Santorum. This was due to what has been noted as the first “strategic voting” campaign by an incumbent president in the opposition party's primary, to influence the election to his liking. I.e., Obama would rather run against Santorum, whom he obviously feels he has a better chance against. That’s just another excellent reason to vote for Mitt -- we should choose his opponent, not Obama.
And so we see the incursion of more Chicago politics courtesy of Obama. And this is hardly the first meddling in the GOP primary – as described in earlier posts, there is clear complicity between the Dems and media influence in the debate questions and coverage of issues. Even attacking Mitt for the time he took their family dog on their vacation in a pet carrier on the roof of the station wagon.
But if that wasn’t bad enough, enter Rick Santorum, whose campaign made robocalls to Democrats & independents to get them out to vote for him. Which clarifies even more what Santorum meant by being a “team player,” which is how he defended some of his earlier bad votes. This time, he found himself on the same team as Obama. Contrast w. Mitt’s record of being a true team player (see below). Further, Santorum appealed to union Dems by saying Mitt opposed auto bailouts, but failed to mention that he (Santorum) also had. True, Mitt supported some of the financial system bailouts (unlike Santorum), but there are arguably better reasons for that (more on that later).
Not exactly the kind of endorsement a GOP presidential candidate should be seeking, and a clear act of desperation. And it shows him as being even more unprincipled and mercenary. And he's protesting over one delegate awarded to Romney. It all calls into question what tactics he used in the states he’s won so far – as I have suspected in previous posts that he pandered to anti-Mormon prejudice, etc. – his evangelical support was extremely lopsided compared w. all other categories of voters.
Santorum’s calling himself the “conservative heavyweight” in this contest (what about Newt’s girth?). And says Romney’s weak, relative to Obama. Not what the polls show, nor that Santorum has any advantage there. Nor what the primary results and delegate count to date show. Nor what is expected to be shown on Super Tuesday. Santorum lost in every category in Michigan except evangelicals (and pro-Obama Democrats). Can you spell “anti-Mormon bigotry?” But as Dennis Miller said, after Michigan, Mitt’s battle-tested.
The Problem with Santorum
I’ve presented arguments against Santorum (much as I like him & much of what he believes – except his condescending smirks & attacks on Romney) in recent posts, but Ann Coulter presents some powerful ones in her latest article, “The Problem with Santorum” at http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/02/29/the_problem_with_santorum.
The delegate count as of now:
Romney 168 (55%)
Santorum 86 (28%)
Gingrich 32 (10%)
Paul 19 (6%)
Projections for Super Tuesday & Beyond:
466 delegates are to be decided on Super Tuesday (March 6) among 11 states (listed below), and 1,144 are needed to win the nomination outright.
Massachusetts – Mitt
Virginia – only Mitt & Ron Paul on the ballot, so a blowout by Mitt
Washington – Mitt’s up by 5 points
Vermont – Romney up 7
Alaska – Romney won last time & expected to again
Idaho – Romney expected to win
North Dakota – Romney expected to win
Ohio – too tight to call now (Mitt up couple pts in one poll, down in another), though Mitt has been trending up
N. Carolina – Santorum up by 6
Tennessee – Santorum up 21
Georgia – Gingrich up by 12
So 7 (+1?) states for Mitt, 2 (+ 1?) for Santorum & 1 for Newt. But even if Mitt only gets 5 (allowing for a couple more "Santorum surprises"/Democrat tactics), pundits say that's good enough.
The grand total number of delegates up for grabs is 2500, including those already allocated. After Super Tuesday's 466, another ~300 delegates later in March (7 states & 4 territories), ~550 delegates (9 states) between April 3 & 24, ~350 in May, ~350 June 5 (incl. California & 4 other states), and Utah last at the end of June. Then the convention is late August. Leaving 2 full months until the general election early November. You can see the graph I pulled these eyeball estimates from here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/11/us/election-news/candidates-going-the-distance.html
Unless Santorum begins to come on stronger than he has so far, it’s extremely doubtful he can catch up and pass Romney, and win the nomination. Or even keep Romney from winning it before the convention, and force a brokered convention. Pundits place those odds very small (5-10%). The best Santorum can probably do is extend the length of time until Romney does reach 1144 delegates, and deplete more of the valuable GOP financial & PR capital. And he seems hell bent on that. Such a team player.
Polls indicate that most of what's left of Newt’s & Ron Paul’s support would go to Mitt instead of Santorum, so giving Mitt their current share (after they drop out of the race), he’d have 72% of the vote/delegates. Assuming Mitt maintains that fraction from here on (his delegate fraction is higher than his vote fraction due to superior organization & strategy), and that Santorum stays on to the bitter end, I calculate that Mitt will break the 1,144 barrier May 8. But if Santorum comes on stronger, and/or the others don't drop out for a while, it could go to June & California. Or even the end of the line at the end of June -- Utah. Wouldn't that be ironic -- a Mormon state giving the nomination to a Mormon candidate? That wouldn't go over well in Evangelical circles.
By this date 4 years ago, Romney was in 2nd place in delegates, with 272 (there was more front-loading of state elections then). But opted out of the race in deference to the front-runner, for the good of the party (team player) -- much to the dismay of many at CPAC who viewed him as the most conservative in the race. But he immediately began to enthusiastically support & campaign for McCain, and in the intervening 4 years for many local GOP candidates (team player).
As Ann Coulter has said, how about the others besides Mitt dropping out (she, too, notes that Mitt had by now 4 yrs ago), and stop depleting Mitt’s resources and reputation (maybe another reason for the Dems doing strategic voting & media manipulation). But don’t expect Santorum to get out anytime soon – it seems a bit too personal for that. And as McCain says, this is the most personally negative of any campaign he’s seen. And clearly having a negative impact on the GOP in polls against Obama. And draining valuable resources that will be sorely needed in the general election against the resource advantages of our part-time fundraising president.
For the general election, recent polls have shown Mitt either slightly ahead or even/very close w. Obama. Expect that to change in Mitt’s favor after the GOP bloodletting is over and the focus turns to Obama’s record, and of course the convention bump.
The Last Debate
The Feb. 22 GOP debate in Mesa, Arizona on CNN (moderated by John King) was, it appears, the final (20th) GOP primary debate. Anyone who doesn’t have a fair feel for the candidates by now (or at least as much as can be expected with 1 minute sound bites), hasn’t been paying attention and/or needs to do some more homework beyond the ads & news coverage. Not much new substance, except Santorum got more time and attention to go with his rise (& Newt & Ron Paul’s fall) in the polls & recent wins.
Asked how they’d reduce the debt (now > GNP for the 1st time), Santorum would cut $5 trillion over 5 yrs, incl. entitlements, Obamacare. Mitt accused Santorum of not being a fiscal conservative in several of his votes, at the time Mitt was balancing budgets in Mass. & Olympics & in business. He’d cut fed. Employment 10%, link gov’t pay to private, cut taxes 20% across the board, cut, cap & balance.
Ron Paul called Santorum a “fake” – voted for no child left behind & now against, for increased deficits, foreign aid, etc. This later prompted some into a conspiracy theory, that Ron Paul & Mitt were tag-teaming against Santorum. Something both denied. But the Santorum supporters weren’t used to the double- (or triple-) teaming that every other front-runner, and especially Romney, has experienced, and had to whine.
Mitt cited his conservative credentials, incl. balanced budgets, English immersion, standing on the side of life, with Catholics on adoption agency attacks, and the necessity of fiscal conservatism in business.
Regarding earmarks, Santorum said some are good, others abused. Mitt said Rick voted for the Bridge to Nowhere when he was balancing budgets in Mass. Rick said Mitt was constitutionally required to balance budgets, but I note that Mitt went beyond that, creating surpluses – Mitt maybe should have said that, and, as Ann Coulter pointed out, he did it without raising taxes, something even Ronald Reagan didn't do. Mitt was teamed up on by the other 3 – all legislators – regarding some minutia on earmarks, but all it did was point out (to Romney’s benefit – I think maybe he artfully drew them out) that they know the Washington system all too well, being the insiders that they are, contrary to the claim that Mitt is the “Establishment” candidate.
On bailouts, Santorum opposed auto & Wall Street bailouts, claimed Mitt inconsistent in supporting the latter & not the former. Mitt said “nice try, look at the facts” – 3 CEO’s wanted $50 billion, he wrote an op ed pointing out the benefits of reorganizing, vs. giving the companies to the UAW. And on TARP, he didn’t want to lose all our banks. Newt agreed. Ron Paul said gov’t should protect contracts, not alter them – all bailouts are bad.
The audience loudly booed the question on birth control. Mitt said we’ve never seen such an attack on religion as under Obama – trying to determine who ministers are (Supreme Ct. voted 9-0 against), contraceptive issue, etc. Santorum spoke of the cultural prob. Of unwed children having children, 5x rate of poverty in single parent homes – he’ll talk about it, but doesn’t mean he wants a gov’t program to fix it – that’s what liberals do [good line]. R. Paul said gov’t’s involved in things it shouldn’t be. Rick harped again on Romneycare being a model for Obamacare. Mitt pointed out that Rick endorsed Mitt 4 yrs ago, said he’s a real conservative, and if anything, he’s only gotten more conservative in the mean time. Obamacare 2000 pages, Romneycare <100, a lot he differs with. Mitt pointed out Santorum supported Arlen Specter who cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.
On illegal immigration (Arizona under attack for trying to secure its border), Ron Paul said we reward illegal immigration, Newt emphasized building a double fence. When asked if we should aggressively arrest/deport illegals, Mitt once again emphasized use of e-verify which has dropped illegal hiring 14% where used, and the self-deporting that should occur when they can’t find work.
Regarding women in combat, Mitt said to listen to the commanders, and that Obama is shrinking the military in a more dangerous world. Newt agreed. R. Paul of course doesn’t want anyone in foreign aggressive wars, believes in the Christian just war theory. Sant. Has concerns over women in infantry.
How to deal w. the nuclear threat of Iran? Newt said if a madman has nukes, then there’s a moral obligation to prevent another holocaust. Mitt said the price of gas pales to nukes in Iran – the biggest failure of Obama is on Iran – no crippling sanctions, backed down on Russia vs. Iran, supported the bad election & not the protesters. Sant. agreed w. Mitt. R.Paul said we’re encouraging Iran to get nukes, and the sanctions are backfiring.
Should the US intervene in Syria? Sant. – Syria’s a puppet of Iran, Obama’s been weak. Newt – should open drilling so invulnerable to Iran closing the straits. Mitt agreed w. Sant. & Newt – should take advantage of the situation in Syria & turn things around.
Education reform & No Child Left Behind. Santorum supported it, admits he went w. the team against his beliefs & is now against – fed. & states, too, should get out of education. Mitt enforced testing, supported charter schools & choice, good teachers – need to stand up to federal teachers union. Newt – look at LA Unified – doing so much damage to kids to protect bad teachers; teaching is a missionary endeavor – you kill it when you bureaucratize it. Ron Paul – Santorum’s going along with the team is the core of the problem.
Biggest misconception about you? R.Paul – that I can’t win. Newt – the amount of work it took to get done what he did when in office. Mitt – I have the background & skills that are more important than other perceived weaknesses – to restore America’s promise – more jobs, cut spending, etc. Sant. – Obama will be able to outspend our nominee, need to be able to run on issues.
Spin (Anderson Cooper 360). Ari Fleischer – good night for Newt & Mitt, Santorum missed an opening to capitalize on his recent momentum. David Gurgen – a showdown between Mitt & Santorum – Mitt did much better than Sant. – strong & prepared. This helped Mitt for Super Tuesd. & Michigan. Eric Erickson – agrees Mitt won – Santorum was on defense about his Senate record. Mesa AZ crowd clearly favorable to Mitt [LDS] – Santorum also acknowledged that afterwards. Gov. Jan Brewer – all did well, liked Newt’s statement on working w. governors on illegal immigration, but all supported stronger immigration reform. The 3 congressmen (esp. Sant.) were shown by Mitt as Washington insiders, and made to explain their records – will make them look bad in the eyes of the Tea Party. Dennis Prager – the election is about unsustainable debt (moral & financial) & corrupting the moral character of America – other issues pale (e.g., contraception, Romneycare).
Other Conservative News
This week we lost a valiant warrior against the Liberal/Left juggernaut – Andrew Breitbart. In homage to him, Ann Coulter said, “Andrew Breitbart was the only person I know who enjoys annoying liberals more than I do.”
Obama Watch
Our president today said regarding Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, “I’m not bluffing when I say all options are on the table.” And as if that weren’t as clear as mud, he added that “a preemptive strike by Israel could do more harm than good.” That’s leadership!???
Comments
Post a Comment