Exiting Florida with its Decisive Primary Vote

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) scored a decisive victory in the Florida primary, winning 46% of the GOP vote, followed by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) at 32%.  Exit polls revealed that Romney carried nearly every demographic group.  But there were two striking data points from surveys of Florida voters. Firstly, 2/3rds of Sunshine State voters said that the debates mattered.  Most strikingly, the exit polls indicated that Romney carried the female vote by a 61% to 29% margin.

These results are a stark contrast to ten days earlier at Newt’s Sweet Caroline victory in which Gingrich bested Romney by a 40% to 29% margin in the Palmetto primary.   The internal numbers from South Carolina exit polls showed that Gingrich decisively carried the female vote as well as those who thought that debates mattered.

This significant swing of 25 points must be considered in the context of time and place as well as what happened on the ground.   Newt has premised his revived campaign on his prowess in debate performances.   Gingrich had two stellar debate appearances in South Carolina that garnered standing ovations from the audiences.  Moreover, Gingrich used jujitsu on the messy marital hit piece to rail against the media and personal attacks.  Since there was only a couple of days between the memory of the standing ovations and casting ballots, emotions seem to have swayed the voters.  Moreover, it is worthy to think that voters wanted to send a message against a perceived media hit piece along with supporting a self described Reagan conservative.

South Carolina is a relatively small state which does not have expensive media markets. Politics in the Palmetto State can be effectively conducted by retail politics.   Moreover, South Carolina has an open primary, where independents and others can change their registration to participate.  That may somewhat skew the results, particularly exaggerating the strength of libertarian leaning Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX 24th).

Florida is quite a different field of battle.  Florida is a large state with ten media markets, so a ground game is insufficient and competing in the Sunshine State is quite expensive.  This requires organization and financing, both of which put Gingrich at a significant disadvantage to the better organized and financed Romney.  The Romney campaign and its SuperPAC spent around $13 million in ads in Florida, which outspent Newt’s forces by 3 to 1.

Florida is a closed primary, so it was more difficult for party crossers to make mischief.   Furthermore, Florida had extended voting, which minimized the effect of a candidate peaking, as Gingrich did in slamming Jon King at the CNN Battle for the South Debate.

Before one cynically concludes that a well financed candidate like Romney “bought” Florida with negative ads, one must account for the primacy of debates and how Gingrich did not deliver that vote in the Sunshine State.   Newt did not score points with the audience during the NBC Florida debate. Consequently, Gingrich threatened not to participate in future candidate forums unless the crowd was allowed to react, effectively being televised pep rallies.  But during the CNN Florida Debate, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) seemingly stole Newt’s thunder and Gingrich did not stand out.  Moreover, Romney adapted a more combative stance during these debates, which both took the fight to his GOP challengers as well as to President Obama. Hence, it makes sense that these latest debate performances informed Floridians as they cast their primary ballots.

Of course, campaigning mattered.  Gingrich made headlights when he was positioning himself for votes along Florida's hard hit Space Coast by boasting that in Newt's second term, there would be an American Space Colony on the Moon. Moreover if this Moon colony had 13,000 voters, they could apply for statehood following the Northwest Territories model. When Newt was not floating such high concept campaign promises, Gingrich went hard and personal against his main opponent Romney.

Another factor that Florida voters strongly considered for their primary was electability.  More than half of primary voters thought that electability was crucial and 58% thought that Romney was most likely to beat President Obama whereas only three in ten voters thought the same of Gingrich.

The results showed Romney’s success with winning the Hispanic vote.  In Florida’s 2008 primary, Romney only took 14% of the Hispanic vote but this time around he took a majority.   As for the Cuban-American vote, Romney improved his standing from 2008 from 7% to 57%, which was particularly evident in Miami-Dade County.  While Senator Marco Rubio steadfastly did not endorse anyone for the Florida primary, but Rubio did intervene against Spanish language ads which Newt’s attack campaign against Romney.  Rubio’s actions may have been as influential as the last minute endorsement by former Governor Charlie Crist’s (R-I-?) of Senator John McCain, which put him over the top in the Florida primary in 2008.  Obviously, Gingrich’s pandering to long term illegal alien grandmothers during the debates did not translate into votes.

The two data points which may give slight solace to the Gingrich campaign is that 33% of self described “very conservative” voters supported Newt over Mitt by 41% to 30%.  But for the 36% of  “somewhat conservative” voters opted for Romney over Gingrich by a 52% to 30%.  As for 35% of self labeled strong “Tea Party” supporters, they voted for Gingrich over Romney by a margin of 45% to 33%. Yet for the 30%  moderate “Tea Party” partisans, Romney beat Gingrich  by 50% to 28%.

Some may discount the Florida primary vote because there were fewer participants in the GOP contest in 2012 compared to 2008.  Perhaps this was due to the number of negative ads that were broadcast to stem the tide of Newt from his South Carolina victory.   The number of Jewish GOP primary voters dropped from 7% to 1% in four years.  Maybe this was influenced by a totally untrue dirty trick robo-call in South Florida supposedly from the Newt 2012 campaign which alleged that Romney forced holocaust victims to eat non-kosher food.  Gingrich claims that he knew nothing about the robo-call, yet he made the same accusation while campaigning on Monday.  In the end, that did not matter as Romney amassed more votes (46%) than Gingrich (32%) and Santorum (13%) combined.

Due to the decisive results, Romney delivered an early victory speech.  Some might have wondered why the victor did not wait for his opponents to concede first.  Well, if one listened to Newt’s speech calling for People Power and a new Contract with America, he did not really concede nor did his congratulate Romney’s victory.  But an insightful analysis by Hugh Hewitt concluded that Romney took to the air waves early in Florida because his speech would be carried live in drive time in Nevada, Colorado and Arizona, all of which will have contests in February.  That is the mark of a methodical problem solver, not a populist politician who is trying to (right) wing it.

Gingrich has pledged to fight on for the next five or six months, unless Romney drops out in the meantime.  Such a comment was mildly amusing to rally the troops, but it is a grandiose delusion after a 14% thumping and displaying a gracelessness that has not endeared himself to many of his political colleague. Newt’s mildly spoken call to arms may be continuing to enlist very conservative and strong tea party supporters to rally to a non-Romney candidate like Newt, but it is odd to use leftist leaning People Power framework to do so.   This is particularly ironic since Gingrich campaign account only has $1.2 million and much of the advertising muscle has come from SuperPAC support from one source, Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson.

Well, February is a time for Newt’s People Power to put up or shut up in Republican, as caucuses are all about grassroots support and organizing.  Do not be surprised if Paulistinian forces make a strong run in the Maine Caucus on Saturday and Santorum becomes the mainstream non-Romney in February. Not qualifying for the ballot in Virginia and Missouri makes it exceedingly difficult for Gingrich to win outright. Gingrich needs to be able to hold on until Super Tuesday on March 6th.  Then his only hope is to score a few victories and hope that enough non-Romney delegates can be garnered to prompt a convention fight in Tampa.

Some pundits wonder if Gingrich is toying with a third party candidacy.  Surely a right leaning historian would know how disastrous it would be to have such a vanity candidacy. But such a run requires financing and organization.

The spotlight may temporarily exit Florida after the primaries but it will be the host of the Republican Convention in August.   Moreover, the Sunshine State is a swing state that is key to a Republican victory.

h/t: HughHewitt

The Finger of Truth

President Obama recently had an intense encounter with Gov. Jan Brewer over characterizations of their prior meetings in her new book Scorpions for Breakfast.  During their exchange, Governor Brewer was seen gesturing with her index finger while responding to the Chief Executive’s harangue.

Most editorial cartoons reflected their liberal lamestream media roots and depicted the Arizona Governor either as a crazed crone or a witch with “agua” on the ready for her meltdown.  Of course this is a double standard as campaign ads in the 2010 cycle that depicted then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th) as the Wicked Witch of the West by Republican opponent John Dennis was universally decried as being the pale. But politics is not beanbag and events can be interpreted through rose colored partisan glasses.

But some old school progressive agiprop artists want to push those liberal boundries of politicking. Jessie Jackson offered a desultory diatribe during a PUSH forum broadcast on the Word Network.  The Reverend Jackson ejaculated:

Also, while it’s on my mind, Gov. Janice K. Brewer, the finger person.  Gov. Janice K. Brewer, who gave President Obama the finger, governor of Arizona, call 1 800 253 0883.  Keep that line real busy.  1 800 253 0883.  We’ll give you the number later a little later today and this week on the email number of her press secretary.  We want to keep Arizona. . . until she can put her hands in her pocket and have some good. . . do you know how insulting it is to put your finger in somebody’s face?  Try it with the cameras rolling, she knew the cameras.

She knew what she was doing.  She was telling him off.  She was cutting him down to his size.  She must never get away with that.  Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face.  Say, enough is enough.

Obviously, Jesse Jackson wishes to ingratiate with his Chicago comrade in the Oval Office, especially after the Reverend’s cutting off mike comment in 2008.  It is loathsome that Jackson is hustling a racial angle with his framing of the Brewer v. Obama match-up.  But it is just plain dishonest for Jackson to insinuate that Brewer gave the President the “Lone Eagle Salute”.  Watch the dust up in the desert video, as it is an impassioned index finger which may have crowded Obama’s space but was no disrespect to the office of the Presidency.

It is worth noting that Barack Obama has a habit of coyly slipping his opponent “the Finger” while out on the campaign hustings.   Recall how he treated his then 2008 Democrat opponent (and now Secretary of State) Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Later during the general election campaign, candidate Obama seemed to return to the gesture when “honoring” his opponent Republican Senator John McCain (R-AZ).

Giving the finger is not simply a crude sexual insinuation.  The long finger salute is also an aggressive battlefield gesture.  Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French threatened to cut off the middle finger of any Englishmen captured.  This was meant to thwart the English advantage, as without a middle finger plucking the yew their skilled longbow archers would be rendered moot.  Well, the English won an upset victory over the continentals.  So as a taunt to the French forces, English soldiers held up their middle finger so as to say "See, we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!".  In time, the difficult consonant cluster devolved to what a cunning linguist would call a labiodental fricture which makes modern interlocutors think of For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

What is actually the finger of truth for Obama-ites? Is Mr. Obama just is an itchy individual from his thin skin? Or maybe his middle school civic education missed lessons on civility?  What is more likely is that rules for mere mortals do not apply for chosen ones and Obama 2012 surrogates mirror their own crude political instincts. 

h/t DaveGranlund.com

h/t: Mike Bates

Who Doesn't Like Scorpions for Breakfast?

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and President Barack Obama January 25, 2012

On the heels of his 2012 State of the Union show, President Barack Obama flew to the battleground state of Arizona to further promote his agenda.  Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) led the official state delegation tat the tarmac in Phoenix to greet America’s Chief Executive. After exchanging perfunctory greetings, Gov. Brewer handed President  Obama a handwritten invitation for the Chief Executive to join her in a tour the border with Mexico to get a first hand view.  President Obama tossed the letter aside to consider later so that he could get to the real issue--his ire over characterizations about him in Gov. Brewer's new book Breakfast with Scorpions.  It seems that Obama  objected to the meetings with Brewer being framed as confrontational.



During the intense airport exchange, the two leaders talked over each other several times.  Brewer asked if Obama had read her book but he had only read excerpts. The hand inscribed copy of the book was tossed into the car.  Gov. Brewer indicated that she was in mid-sentence when the President turned and walked away. Brewer said that she was so stunned by apparent peevishness of President Obama and his thin skin.

It was a different story from the Summit of the Americas in 2009, when Venezuelan Caudillo Hugo Chavez presented President Obama with a book.  Obama accepted the gifted tome from the Venezuelan dictator. Obama claimed that he accepted the tome as he thought that it was actually authored by Chavez but Obama exclaimed “I like to read.”  Oh, well maybe Obama only  likes to read authors with whom he's inclined to agree.

President Obama’s staff has tried to tamp down the turmoil from this contentious exchange with Gov. Brewer claiming that the incident was overblown. Actually, the hot and bothered reception in Phoenix might work well for both participants.  President Obama can be seen dressing down a nemesis who has dissed him.  Moreover, Obama’s  public sizing down of the Arizona Governor gives a strong signal to Obama’s allies that he is up for a fight and will not take any  guff from his opponents.  As for Governor Brewer, she does not cower from a petulant power.  In a more practical metric, Brewer’s book instantly climbed the charts after the close encounter of the perturbed kind.  Scorpions for Breakfast leaped from number 285,568 to number nine on Amazon book sales charts overnight.

The only things that would have made the contentious encounter more satisfying are if Air Force One had landed at Barry Goldwater Airport in Phoenix and certain knowledge if scorpions are thin skinned.

Gestating a Respect for Personhood

January 22nd is the 39th Anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade which open the floodgates across America for abortion on demand. Associate Justice  Harry Blackman mooted some state anti-abortion laws in his 1973 majority opinion under the guise of an unwritten “right to privacy” that was contained in penumbras and emanations of the bill of rights as applied to states via the Fourteenth Amendment.  This vague and confusing “logic” was the legal modus operandi for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench by imposing progressive moral sensibilities as "choices".

Pro-Life protestors have demonstrated in our Nation’s Capitol every year around that January 22nd anniversary to protest this perceived injustice to the unborn. Tens of thousands (organizers estimated up to 400,000) to take a stand for  anti-abortion policies.  But you would never know it if you relied upon the elite Lamestream Media.  For the fifth year a row, the print edition of the New York Times ignored this story, yet they were happy to highlight the motley meager mob of Occupy Wall Street protestors for months on end. Perhaps because the 99% redistributionists are the cat’s paw of Obama Presidential re-election campaign.

From my vantage point at a staging area and comfort station on Capitol Hill, it is impossible to give precise numbers. But I can note that 200 dozen donuts were ordered and by 5 p.m. that 95% percent were consumed just at one small church basement. The  Immaculate Conception National Shrine is the second largest Christian church in America, behind Washington’s National Cathedral, so it can comfortably seat 4,000 worshipers. But the Vigil for Life prior to the March typically draws a crowd of 8,000 strong in the Upper Church.  That does not account for the Mass for Young People at Verizon Center that hold 19,000 faithful nor the Mass at the DC Armory.  And that’s just part of the Catholic contingent.  But when the Washington Post runs a story about the event, the picture is cropped to hide the crowds size. Even better is CBS Washington newsite  which “covered” the March for Life but all five of their photos were Pro Abortion supporters.  Could the media be biased or shaping the news? Maybe such dissenters to the secular humanist norm are not really persons. Heavens (sic).

Although the large numbers of pro-life  participants are impressive, they are not as important as speaking truth to power.  As Soviet dissident author  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn affirmed in his 1970 Nobel Lecture-- “One word of truth outweighs the world”.

The commitment that March for Life participants made to represent their beliefs were impressive. A group of 180 students traveled 24 hours on a bus from outside Naples, Florida to live their faith for the sanctity of human life.

What was truly touching for me was the  earnestness of an adult leader from Springfield, Illinois. Our conversation was prompted by the distinct graphic on the group’s tee-shirts.  The gentleman proudly showed me a picture on his cell phone of his grandson who only lived for fifteen minutes before dying.  Presumably,  it was a difficult pregnancy, yet the mother insisted on taking it to term as every human life is precious. The youth group surprised the leader by adopting his deceased son as their “mascot” by dedicating their march to him and using footprints as their symbol. To reinforce that they did not just care abstractly about life in the womb, their banner was emblazoned with footprints of children from an early day care center.

 A placard from another group echoed preciousness of all human life by using Dr. Seuss’ Horton as a symbol with the message: “A person’s a person no matter how small”.  For those who may have trouble stomaching the gruesome realities of ripping a fetus from a womb, this childrens’ literary conceit ought to make the same point.

The 2012  March for Life was even more poignant, especially after the Obama Administration utterly abrogated religious liberty by bureaucratically dictating that all American health plans must include no-cost contraception, despite earlier assurances that there would be a conscience clause.  During his homily at the National Shrine, New York Cardinal designate Archbishop Timothy Dolan was a happy warrior yet he pulled no punches in speaking his peace.  Dolan acknowledged that most of the worshipers had been there all night in a vigil for life so they might not be aware of two items in the news.  Dolan ad-libbed from his prepared text that the first piece of “good news” is that the NEW YORK Giants were going to the Superbowl [ed.-  apologies to Vice President Biden and the San Francisco Giants (sic)]. The other news is that due to icy roads, the Federal Government will be opening three hours later.  Dolan joked that was three hours fewer that the government could take away more American religious liberties. That was both amusing yet too true.

Social media was another forum for considering the merits of personhood.  An evocative picture revealing the reality hidden in the womb was accompanied by a “Modest Proposal” styled story about a beleaguered mother who was pregnant again but instead of a being offered an abortion, the gynocologist  was willing to kill her firstborn instead.  A dissenter from this pro-life parable was an earnest student  who “crossed the pond” to pursue course-work on evolutionary biology.  The abortion friendly interlocutor objected to equating a child who can dream and experience with a cluster of “biochemically-active tissue”.  Hoping to bolster a spirited yet thoughtful colloquy, I pressed the budding scientist pro argumento for a probative test for WORTHY human life and how such a standard could be applied today.

 As the exchange evolved, the B.S. candidate admitted that he was also in favor of eugenics for defects like Downs Syndrome.  His definition on “real” human life (my words) centered on development of the embryo’s  nervous system, for which he admitted that a simple probative test could not be cited.   I noted that his supposed baseline on worthy human beings as having dreams and experiences was mooted by the application of eugenics.  If the community decides whether a person is worthy, it is not likely to be delimited to genetic defects.  What if the proto-person is the wrong sex or race–after all, it’s a woman’s body (sic)?  What if that being is deemed handicapped? Moreover, why why should community standards on worthy human life stop at the womb?

Absent moral or ethical standards, anything goes.  Progressives are convinced that they are so much smarter than “flawed” traditional thinking.  But not everything is easily measurable.  Einstein postulated “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”.  When I noted that the science was unconvincing and in that case we ought to err on the side of caution.  That sentiment prompted the well worn bromides over a woman’s right to her body and being free to choose etc...

What the cyber chautauqua showed me is that abortion advocates can not bear to consider to discern personhood.  Although aborted fetuses are the most dramatic victims of the callousness of character to deny personhood, it seems that liberals deem conscientious objectors of their progressive sensitivities as also not being worthy of attention or protection.

Talk Amongst Yourselves for Presidential Debates?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) now seems to have a schizophrenic attitude towards debates in his run for the Presidency.

Gingrich made a virtue out of necessity after his Newt 1.0  Presidential campaign nearly imploded in June by going deeply into debt with advisors, private planes  and his ill-timed Greek vacation as the campaign ramped up.  Newt decided to make his mark by impressing voters with his virtuoso performances during debates.  Gingrich’s two Moments in the Sun during this Presidential run have been premised on strong debate performances.

Gingrich is so enamored with his intellect that he challenges his opponents, both for the nomination and in the abstract for the White House, to Lincoln Douglas styled debates.




Both Herman Cain and former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) to one-on-one debates that were supposedly in the fashion of the Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.  Both of these lesser opponents to Gingrich agreed to the event  as it raised their own profiles as it gave the aura of gravitas.   As for the Gingrich-Huntsman “debate” it was actly a wonkish ninety minute love-in on foreign policy which barely needed a moderator.  The non-adversarial chautauqua was interesting for the range of nuanced answers about public policy minutia but it would be unlikely to hold the attention or influence the average voter.  Besides it is dubious that President Obama will agree to the challenge of seven three hour match ups in the fall, with or without telepromter.

What is curious is Gingrich’s petulance after the NBC’s “Rock Center” debate in Tampa  in which  moderator Brian Williams instructed the audience of 500 not to make nary a noise during the debate.  Now Gingrich is threatening not to participate in future debates if the audience was silenced. This seems hypocritical both due to his Huntsman “debate” and presuming that Newt’s policy prowess is so supreme.

Since I have a life, I failed to watch the 18th GOP Presidential debate.  But if Newt is threatening not to play in future debate scrums, it makes me think that the self-styled philosopher king was unhappy at the fact that he could score easy points by playing populist politics with his audience.  Gingrich often makes his mark in debates by railing against the Media Machine or snidely focusing his fire on the eventual opponent--President Obama.  Newt earned two standing ovations in a week by chafing against Juan Williams facile insinuation of racism  and later with John King echoing spousal slurs as the leading question at a debate.  Previously, Gingrich got plaudits from the audience by not taking the bait for GOP but rather chafing for a fight with President Obama.

Rather than rebuffing a lack of audience interaction in any debates, Republicans ought to choose their sponsors more wisely.  The nearly score of debates have been hosted by liberally inclined news organizations which want to embarrass Republicans or engage in trivialities.  Consider: the networks of NBC (MessDNC, CNBC or the liberally aligned NBC); CBS–the Cubic Zirconium network, ABC’s George Stephanopolis (who served as President Clinton’s first Communications Manager); and CNN’s grunting John King.  Given the importance of debates for Republicans during this Presidential cycle, why should the Lamestream Media effectively skew Republican’s choice to be the Presidential nomination standard bearer?

If an event is well moderated and is not playing a hostile game of Trivial Pursuit, audience interaction may not be necessary.  In fact, a vocal audience in Orlando where two audience members booed at question by a homosexual soldier was spun by the Lamestream Media that Republicans hate gays instead of recognizing that it was objections to a set-up question.  Paulistinians show up en-masse into debate audiences and give their beloved Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX 24th) the allusion of disproportionate support.

On the other hand, the electricity of an engaged audience can give an immediate gauge to how well a Presidential candidate is selling his message during a debate.  People seem to remember Newt’s masterful reproach of John King’s salacious messy marriage question due to the strong audience support.  But later in the same debate, Gingrich went to his Bain-ful (sic) attacks on Mitt Romney’s success in capitalism.  Those watching the debates could see how this line of attack fell flat with the in studio audience, but not surprisingly that did not make the highlight reel.

Considering both scenarios, there should be room for events between candidates that allow for audience engagement as well as muted debates.  If there is quality material, a laugh track is not necessary for a comedy which gives the viewer unstated “permission” to feel something.  In a similar vein, elevated and engaged debates need not necessarily have a vocal audience, but that that there is anything wrong with that.

As Gingrich has meteorically risen in the polls, he has gotten somewhat persnickety in campaigning. Gingrich campaigned on being Mr. Nice Guy when he had no money for attack ads.  Now that Newt's Super-PAC is being largely underwritten by casino magnets Sheldon and Marion Adelson, let the negative ads roll.  Newt has done well at rallying the troops during debates, but now is threatening not to participate unless he has his way.  Gingrich loved hammering Gov. Mitt Romney about financial disclosures but when Gingrich's “consulting” with Freddie Mac was questioned as being more than a $25,000 a month historian on retainer, Newt got petulant and somewhat flustered.  It feeds into a longstanding meme that Gingrich is a better underdog than the leader of the pack and recalls the “Cry Baby” moment with President Clinton on Air Force One when the Speaker was flying high on the power circuit  in 1995.

As Linda Richmond would say in Coffee Talk “I’m feeling verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ve already given you a topic”.

After Newt's Sweet Caroline Victory

Newt Gingrich with wife Callista Gingrich after winning the 2012 South Carolina Primary 

After placing fourth in both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) came roaring back with a decisive victory in the South Carolina primary.  Gingrich’s thirteen point victory over the presumed front-runner former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) came in spite of a last minute hatchet job interview with Newt’s second wife on the eve of Palmetto State primary.

The South Carolina primary prides itself  as being the first in the South primary. But for Republicans, South Carolina also has picked the winner of the Republican nomination since 1980.  Typically, the Iowa Caucuses have a dark horse candidate prevailing but that contrarian New Hampshire voters reject.  As the next contest for the nomination, South Carolina tends to pick the front-runner, which bolsters the momentum (and money) for later contests.

At the start of the week, Romney was polling around ten points higher than Gingrich.  But there were two debates in South Carolina where other candidates directly took it to Mitt and Romney could not coast above the fray.  While Romney did not have major oops moments (sic), his performance was not stellar and Mitt’s clumsy responses to calls to release his personal tax forms seem to have stuck in the craw of voters.  So the swing of over twenty points from Romney to Gingrich was dramatic.

The ABC ambush interview with Marianna Gingrich was intended to tarnish Newt’s conservative credentials, especially with evangelicals, at the “revelation” that he wanted an open marriage with his second wife.  Gingrich had previously admitted that he had a messy personal life but that he had repented.  But when John King lead off CNN’s Thursday debate with a tawdry question, Gingrich was prepared to play hardball and knocked it out of the park.

The first five minutes of the Battle for the South debate vaulted Gingrich’s standing. Newt expressed outrage at the media for the triviality of the question, evoked sympathy for character assassination on the eve of a primary and invasive probing his personal life.  As far or the rest of the debate, Gingrich’s perry’s against Bain Capital did not sell and his reiterated idea of long term immigration status being decided by WWII styled draft boards was not particularly convincing.  But viewers appreciated Newt’s fighting spirit and slams against the elite media.

To try and understand Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina, it is worth considering data from exit polling.   The polling showed that 64% of those surveyed indicated that the debates mattered in their support, so Newt’s two standing ovations last week in debates translated into votes.  The data also showed that 53% of participants made up their minds in the last few days, which indicates the fluidity of support.  South Carolinian voters echoed the importance of electability with 45% indicating this is the most important factor in pulling the lever.  Only 17% of voters thought that character was a crucial quality.  A surprising data point was that 36% of women supported Gingrich, despite the damning ABC interview.   Moreover, Gingrich may have been aided by the evangelical vote, despite the last minute hit job, as evangelicals are disposed to not support Mormon candidates during the primaries.

This unclear campaign situation is terra nova for the GOP, as there have been three different winners of nomination contests.  Iowa was an extremely close race, but as the Hawkeye Cauci results were announced this week, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) beat Gov. Romney by 34 votes.  As expected, Romney handily won in New Hampshire.  And Gingrich wooed a decisive double digit win in South Carolina.

If momentum were the only factor, an observer would be led to the prima facie conclusion that Gingrich was going all the way.  However,  there are several factors which are cause to pause in leaping to that conclusion.

Firstly, it is crucial to consider the nature of the forthcoming races.  In smaller states like New Hampshire, Iowa and to a large extent South Carolina, political advertising is either inexpensive or ineffective so retail politics is key.  Not  so for the Sunshine State. Florida accelerated its primary schedule to  capitalize on the aura of early contests.  But it is a state with ten media markets, three of which are in the top twenty.  That means that it will be expensive to get the message out.  So even if Newt can capitalize on being front runner quickly, he will either have to go into debt or not have the resources to effectively advertise in Florida.  But to be fair, Gov. Romney outspent John McCain in 2008 but still lost Florida.

A second calendar consideration that might moot Newt’s momentum is the number of caucuses after Florida.  After the Florida primary on January 31st, Maine and Nevada will hold caucuses on February 4th and Colorado and Minnesota will hold caucuses on February 7th.  The key to success in caucuses is organization and resources. Romney excelled at early fund-raising and anticipated a long march towards the nomination.  Perhaps Mitt learned from then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in the 2008 Democrat Presidential nomination, which was a close race for delegates.  Obama kept racking up convincing victories in caucuses like Idaho, where the Democrats had no chance of winning in the general, but proportional delegate rules still gave him 75% of the delegates.

Considering the next set of races, Romney is poised to do well, as Maine is likely to support a centrist oriented Republican from a neighboring state.  Moreover, residual good will from Romney’s work in saving the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics and Mormon identity politics should bode well for Mitt.  Although Missouri holds a primary on February 7th, it is a beauty contest and delegates will be chosen in a caucus on March 17th.

Newt prides himself on being an unconventional candidate, making a virtue out of running his campaign on a shoestring budget.  That traditionally does not bode well for caucuses, as a candidate must motivate participants spending several hours arguing with their neighbors at ad hoc venues, rather than quickly casting a vote at a familiar polling place.

Although libertarian oriented Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX 14th ) is not likely to do well in Florida, as it is a closed primary with expensive media markets, expect Paulistinians to be in full force at various caucuses, where true believers can boost Dr. Paul’s delegate count.

Another variable which could diminish Gingrich as a shooting star is Newt’s tendency to implode when he is riding high.  Critics charge that when Gingrich stops being a successful insurgent and sows his oats being on top that is undisciplined style and his penchant towards grandiosity diminish his effectiveness and alienates allies.  For example, when Gingrich was top of the polls in early December, a self styled philosopher king suggested that former UN Ambassador John Bolton would be someone Gingrich would like as a prospective Secretary of State.  This Newtonian pronouncement was perilous as he seemed to be naming Cabinet positions before the first ballot was cast in the primaries. Moreover, Bolton then came out in support of his rival Mitt Romney.

In the buzz leading up to the South Carolina primary, Gingrich reiterated his call for other non-Romney conservative candidates to drop out. While Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) acceded due to his anemic standings, Santorum questioned the hubris of Gingrich willingly winnowing the conservative field as he had not won anything yet.

Gingrich’s victory speech in South Carolina renewed the quixotic call for seven three hour Lincoln-Douglas styled debates.  This challenge plays to Newt’s strength as a debater as well as allowing for President Obama’s need to use teleprompters.  But Gingrich is deluded if he thinks that an incumbent President will grant more than one debate.  And Newt’s taunt to follow the President around to embarrass the incumbent into debates is flawed strategy.



It seems that Newt  can not help saying something “special” every few days which mars an overall message.  Newt’s ways may get him into hot soup as the limelights return to the perceived front-runner.

One of Neil Diamond’s most popular songs is Sweet Caroline.  It is an emotive tune that is often used at to entertain fans at  sporting events.  Yet  when one considers the words to Sweet Caroline, there is not much there lyrically.  The Gingrich campaign is right to celebrate along with the lyrics like  “Sweet Caroline--Good times never felt so good. I’m inclined to think that they never would.”  But as the public  focus returns to Gingrich, empty amped up anthems amongst true believers is not going to win support from independents and battleground state voters.

An intriguing theory for understanding the results from South Carolina is that voters were neither  supporting Gingrich as a candidate per se nor his policy positions but what he represents.  The base is not enamored to Romney’s candidacy in the primaries, so this decision could be seen as a temporary galvanization of “Not Romney” voters.  Gingrich likes to claim the support of former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) but if you listen closely, she said that if she were a South Carolina voter she would support Newt to keep the process going.  That is hardly a diehard endorsement.  Exit polling shows that debates heavily influenced voters.  It is reasonable to surmise that voters liked the fight that Gingrich offered, particularly against the media and President Obama.

It is possible that Floridians once  again could decide the Presidency, or perhaps just the Republican nominee.  But do not be surprised if this is a prolonged fight for the nomination, as it was during the 1976 cycle with incumbent  President Gerald Ford and then former Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA).  In such an instance, delegates totals  will become  instrumental to clinch it before the convention.

By moving its primary up to January , Florida and South Carolina supposedly will only receive half their number of delegates.  With the GOP convention in Tampa, it is hard to believe that such a penalty will stick.  But as of March, delegate allotment will universally switch to winner take all results.  If the two leading candidates split on state victories after Florida, it is conceivable that Ron Paul will hold out for a steep price for his garnered  delegates.  And it is possible that Republicans could go into their convention without a clear winner.  After the first vote at the convention, anything goes and dark horses may emerge.

Obama Administration Aborts Religious Liberty

As part of the gradual implementation of Obamacare, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a standard for health plans that will require most employers to cover contraception in their health plans.  Progressive policy pundits at America Progress proudly proclaim that the decision to mandate full coverage of contraception without cost sharing effectively achieves near universal coverage of contraception.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)  & Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) 2008

The Obama Administration ignored entreaties for a broad exemption that would have allowed for religiously-affiliated employer to opt out of contraception coverage. These petitions were made following Mr. Obama’s 2009 Notre Dame Commencement speech, where he suggested drafting a “sensible conscience clauses”.   Well, as it turned out, this clause only applied to those having religious objections to insurance–which covered the Amish, Christian Scientists, Native Americans and (of course) Muslims.

In the end, the Obama Administration is imposing their original narrow exemption to the qualifying health plans, which only applies to houses of worship or religious organizations that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith. As for religiously affiliation organizations that do not qualify for the exemption, they can apply by August 1st, 2012 for a one year transitional waiver to give them time to determine how they can comply with the bureaucratic ukase. Ironically, it will cause many organizations that truly believe otherwise to drop coverage or even to go out of business.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.  Perhaps Sebelius and President Obama believe that these mere words do not apply since it stems from Executive Branch action. Perhaps they do not care as to the Constitutionality since it will win plaudits from Obama’s liberal political base.

No wonder Pope Benedict XVI recently used his periodic meeting at the Vatican with Bishops from Maryland, DC and Virginia to warn:

[I]t is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

It is shocking to think that Americans had to be warned about preserving and protecting their religious liberty.  We are a nation that was established on the example Pilgrims who traveled to the wilderness to freely exercise worshiping in the way that they choose. Moreover,  James Madison worked tirelessly to perfect our union by enshrining the Bill of Rights into our Constitution, which featured the preservation of  religious liberty and the exercise of the freedom of conscience.

It is worth remembering George Washington’s observation about religion:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

But the Father of our country did not count on proselytization of radical secularism by progressive politicians in power.

Obama Briefly Visits a Real Magic Kingdom

                                                                                                              (Reuters Photo)

The latest stop on President Obama’s re-election campaign on the pubic dime was to the Sunshine State of Florida.  Officially, the President announced an expansion of the State Department’s Global Entry Program for trusted international visitors.   An astute observer would not that the Global Entry Program was touted to help Brazilians, Indians and the Chinese.  So much for “trusted” international visitors.  These moves are meant to ensure that foreign visitors continue to spend an average of $5,000 each per visit.



The line that “America is open for business” seems particularly precious considering the White House announcement yesterday that the Canadian Keystone XL Oil Pipeline permits were rejected at this time, killing 20,000 construction jobs.  In addition, the Obama Administration’s questionable unilateral moratorium on offshore drilling by Americans in Gulf of Mexico drove drilling derricks to Brazil while Cuban interests (on behalf of the Chinese) continue to drill in international waters in the Gulf.

The real but unstated reason why Obama staged this photo op in Central Florida is because it is a battleground in the Presidential election.  Mr. Obama had not visited this key state since two fund-raisers in October.  Currently, Obama is only polling in the mid 40s.  That is dangerous when plotting re-election strategies in the Electoral College.

It is a pity that President Obama only spent 13 minutes in the Magic Kingdom since that means that he is quickly returning to what he may consider Fantasyland on the Potomac. But the President can watch the Mouse House channel do his campaign’s bidding on late night television. It beats hearing Jay Leno wise-crack "Obama's approval ratings are so low now, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States” as he has done in the past.

ABC Divorces Ethics from Journalism with Eye of Newt Interview

Speaker Newt Gingrich with his then 2nd wife Marianne Gingrich

During his run for the Republican Presidential nomination, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) has tried to make  a virtue of his messy personal life by noting that he has done things which he is now proud of but that he is a repentant sinner.  That being said, the GOP establishment has worried that at some point the Gingrich campaign would implode (again) due to Newt’s undisciplined nature.

During much of 2011, Gingrich ran a shoe-string campaign which pinned most of its fate shining during the baker’s dozen of debates and being perceived by primary voters as a  charismatic alternative to former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA).  After surviving the snows of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, Gingrich was poised to do well on home ground in the South Carolina Primary.

Gingrich had a stand out performance during the Fox News/WSJ debate, where his rebuttal to a racially centered question from Juan Williams earned a standing ovation from the debate audience. Recent polls show Gingrich surging into second place, threatening Romney’s large lead.



On the cusp of the Saturday South Carolina primary, just after the final candidate debate, ABC News is poised to air a two hour interview with Gingrich’s second wife Marianne Gingrich.  This story raises some interesting journalistic questions.  The most poignant question is timing.

Is a news organization manipulating the election by strategically leaking damaging “news” (albeit decades old) on the eve on an election?   It would not be the first time in recent history that such a dirty trick has been employed in Presidential politics.   On the eve of the 2000 Presidential Election, when then Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX) had a five percent lead over Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat operative leaked a story about a Bush DWI charge from 1976 that caused the closest election in American history.

Where ABC News’ Gingrich hit piece differs is Newt’s messy life is well known.  As early as 1995, Marianne Gingrich threatened that she could end then husband Newt’s career with one interview.  If nothing new is revealed in Brian Ross’ sit down interview, then why air it now?

A second notorious example of newsies becoming part of the story in Presidential politics is Rather-Gate. In September 2004, CBS News Anchor (and Managing Editor) Dan Rather pushed an investigative story which he thought impeached  President George W. Bush claims about National Guard Service during the latter days of the Vietnam War in the early 1970s.   Rather’s supposed coup was an October Surprise  would make Bush look like a liar, a chicken hawk, a hypocrite and stood in stark contrast to the thrice Purple Hearted Veteran Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who incidentially served in Vietnam (sic).   Of course the pajamajadeen proved that Killian documents that were leaked by a Democrat political hack were forgeries yet Rather ran with them anyhow.

The Marianne Gingrich interview differs from Rather-Gate because there is no dispute that Newt Gingrich has been thrice married and has a messy prior personal life.  But championing the narrative from an estranged divorcee who never wanted her former husband to run for President, seems suspect for blockbuster news on the eve of an election.  Instead of vetting on his SuperPACs “Bigfoot” Bain Capital smear ads, or questioning how a conservative could demonize capitalism, tongues inside and outside of the Lamestream Media will be waging about salacious details from an embittered ex-wife. Quo vadis ABC?

On the one hand, there has been an occasion when the media sank a Presidential candidate on his peccadillos.  However  former Senator Gary Hart (D-CO) begged the media to follow him around during his 1988 Presidential run and they did report on his Monkey Business.

On the other hand, the Lamestream Media’s sins of omission on former Senator John Edwards (R-NC) must not be forgotten.  During the 2007, Edwards sought the Democrat nomination at the behest of his wife, who was dying of breast cancer.  During Edwards campaign, he had an affair with his videographer (who traveled with him on the campaign plane) but nary a word was spoken by the press corps.  The story of Rielle Hunter had to be broken by the National Enquirer and was poo-pooed as not being legitimate journalism.  This was not only a salacious story, showing Edwards as a sleezebag who cheated on his dying wife and then cowardly arranging for a staffer to pose for his bastard responsibilities.  Edwards may have also violated Campaign Finance laws by funneling over $100,000 to his mistress not only for her campaign work but to bankroll her pregnancy expenses.  But this was not a story in the Lamestream Media until Edwards was out of politics and putting off federal prosecutions with his heart condition.

Running for President as an incumbent offers tremendous advantages.  Such a candidate has the trappings of office to bolster his image.  A President running for re-election can stage photo ops allegedly about economic issues but really are a thin veneer for a taxpayer funded campaign appearance.  As President, it is easy to fund-raise as donors want to curry favor with a chosen one.  In addition, the Lamestream Media wants to retain access and curry favor with an incumbent President by doing his dirty work in the press, by accepting leaks from anonymous sources or running stories at strategic times.

Even though some late deciding Palmetto State voters might be influenced by stories of Newt’s cheating heart from long ago, Gingrich may have inoculated himself by posing as an open book about prior foibles.  What is more concerning is how the Lamestream Media is blatantly manipulating the news by strategically releasing salacious stories which may have been held until the right time, as voters are trying to decide about candidates and the issues.  In the future, may ABC not divorce its ethical duties of fair and unbiased reporting.  Otherwise just go on the public payroll as White House stenographers.