Simply delightful: In July 2009, Mitt Romney pressed Obama to use the Individual Mandate to Nationalize Healthcare

Erick Erickson has all of the details.

Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.

In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to use an individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills... There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

...Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.

But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on.

Just a month after Romney penned his op-ed advocating the Individual Mandate, The Boston Globe ran a breathless report complaining about RomneyCare, headlined "Bay State health insurance premiums highest in country."

Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.

Oh, but that's right: Romney's the "only one who can win".

Of course, that's what they said about McCain and Dole.

To My Friends in Arizona and Michigan: It's Time to Take a Stand

Before I begin this rant, let me make my stance regarding Mitt Romney perfectly clear.

I will walk on broken glass to vote for Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or a radioactive goat over Barack Obama in the general election.

That said, did the Tea Party go away? Did it disappear into the ether after the GOP's crushing victories in the 2010 midterms? Did it shatter after a million internecine battles?

Or is it merely simmering at a low boil while grassroots groups canvas for its primary favorites?

To my friends in Arizona and Michigan

The time for action is now. The situation our country faces is too dire and the stakes too high to sit on the sidelines. You may, as I do, feel the fatigue of negative attacks, experience anger at the proctological scrutiny of your favorite candidates, or disgust at the blatant bias of the Democrat-media complex.

But you must, like an Olympic athlete, put all of that aside and vote on Tuesday.

If I could vote in one of your states, I would be casting my vote for Rick Santorum. Praised by no less a set of conservative luminaries like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sarah Palin, Santorum has been a consistent conservative throughout his career.

Architect of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a proponent of the original Balanced Budget Amendment and an expert at national defense issues, Santorum's appeal is far wider than legacy media would have you believe.

This election will be about the future of America

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

You can cherry-pick the man's record all you want, but Santorum's record is one of consistency.

Santorum has a legislative record...

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.

So, to my friends in Arizona and Michigan: I urge you to consider supporting Rick Santorum for president. Send a message to Washington: the era of big government is over. The time for action is now.

We have a country to save.

Grass roots: Romney gives economic speech in front of 65,000 empty seats

But, Melvin, he's the only one who can win!

Mitt Romney's economic speech falls flat at near-empty stadium

Romney fails to elaborate on his 20% tax cut in awkward speech setting where he let slip another gaffe about his wealth

Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney's much-heralded economic speech flopped Friday, overshadowed by a gaffe over luxury Cadillacs and his choice of an over-ambitious venue, the Detroit Lions' football field.

Romney opened himself up to derision for choosing a 70,000-seat stadium which attracted just over 1,000 people, many of them school children bussed in to help fill out the crowd, tucked into a corner of the astro-turf pitch.

The small crowd underlined again his inability to draw large numbers of supporters and to excite the conservative base.

The speech too turned out to be a flop. Having been hyped by his campaign staff all week, Romney had little new to say... ...Political opponents quickly waded in. Obama's campaign adviser, David Axelrod, in a tweet, wrote: "Judging from pictures, looks like Mitt pinned himself in inside the 20."

After delivering his speech, Romney made a throwaway remark about cars that will be replayed when the speech itself will have been long forgotten.

In an attempt to ingratiate himself in the motor capital of America and undo some of the damage caused by a call in 2008 to let the car industry go bankrupt rather than be bailed out by the federal government, he listed cars owned by himself and his wife Ann.

He would be a president who loves cars, he said. "I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles. I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. And I used to have a Dodge truck, so I used to have all three covered."

Look, I think it's great Romney's rich. I love the fact that he's successful. But, hell, don't give the opposition easy soundbites!

Speaking of which, Rick Santorum was interviewed by Mark Levin tonight; the Right Scoop has the audio of the complete interview.

Have I mentioned that I support Rick Santorum for President?

Now that the Ron Paul-Mitt Romney alliance is out in the open, the new Ron Paul banner ads are here!

Ron Paul's campaign has admitted that it is directly supporting Mitt Romney. The Paul campaign is spending its contributors' money, for instance, by running anti-Santorum attack ads in Michigan even though Paul himself isn't actively campaigning in the state!

With that in mind, I would like to present the latest Ron Paul banner ads:




Word has it that Paul's faux campaign is all about getting his son Rand on the ticket as a V.P.

News flash: Mitt Romney has a long tradition of, eh, changing his mind, so I would take that kind of promise with a huge grain of salt.

Curiously juxtaposed headlines o' the day

Spotted at BadBlue.com:

Ann Coulter asks, "What's their problem with Romney?" The word their means, oh, about 95% of the Tea Party and Constitutional Conservatives in the U.S.

Jimmie Bise, Jr. at Sundries Shack more than adequately answers Ann's question with "Romney’s Plan: No Spending Cuts. No Tax Reform. No Bueno.."

Eh, case closed, bailiff.

Let's Go Back to the Replay: How Bob Casey Beat Rick Santorum in 2006

What happened in Washington? Millions of jobs lost. The largest deficit ever. An arrogant government out of touch. "Pennsylvania deserves a senator in touch with Pennsylvania... we need someone fighting for fair-trade laws, that don't give away our jobs... someone who will stand up against the partisan politics in Washington... someone who's fiscally responsible... who balances a budget, just like you do, every day of your lives. We can do better in Washington, and we will. I'm Bob Casey, and I approve this message." --Transcript of Bob Casey, Democrat for Senate Ad, 2006

The midterm elections held on November 7, 2006 resulted in a massive victory for Democrats, allowing them to capture the House, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships from the GOP.

Senator Rick Santorum was one of the victims of the sweeping Republican loss, falling to Bob Casey by a double-digit margin.

Wikipedia describes some of the major reasons for the national power shift, which included "the decline of the public image of George W. Bush, the dissatisfaction of the handling of both Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq, Bush's legislative defeat regarding Social Security Reform, and the culture of corruption, which were the series of scandals in 2006 involving Republican politicians."

As for Santorum himself, The Washington Examiner notes that:

The biggest policy reason for Santorum's loss was his outspoken support for the war in Iraq. By November 2006, the war was going badly and threatened to turn into a full-scale catastrophe. President Bush resisted calls to change course and had not yet settled on the troop surge that would ultimately rescue the situation from disaster. While Santorum's Democratic opponent, Bob Casey, called for a different course, Santorum stuck with the president, and with the war.

"As other Republicans attempt to steer away from Iraq and terrorism, Sen. Rick Santorum argued yesterday that America must stop 'sleepwalking' while 'evil enemies' plot the nation's destruction, making foreign policy a focal point in the final days of his campaign," the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on October 27, 2006. Santorum made the finale of his campaign into a so-called "Gathering Storm" tour, in which he mixed support of the war with calls for continuing vigilance in the war on terror. In making the war such a central part of his campaign, Santorum stubbornly kept the focus on the weakest part of his candidacy.

The voters clobbered him for it. In Pennsylvania exit polls, 61 percent of voters said they disapproved of the war. Santorum lost among them, 15 percent to Casey's 85 percent. Among the largest sub-group of war opponents, the 42 percent of voters who said they strongly disapproved of the war, Santorum lost seven percent to 93 percent. That by itself was enough to doom any hopes for a third term.

That Mitt Romney criticizes Santorum for losing an election -- primarily for his support of the Iraq 'Surge' that the Massachusetts Governor also backed -- is disingeuous at best. Romney didn't run for reelection in 2006.

In this morning’s debate on NBC, Rick Santorum questioned Mitt Romney’s decision not to run for reelection when he was governor of Massachusetts... “Well, if his record was so great as governor of Massachusetts why didn't he run for reelection?” Santorum asked. “I mean if you didn't want to even stand before the people of Massachusetts and run on your record--if it was that great, why did you bail out?”

...Had Romney accomplished the majority of the “100 things [he] wanted to do” in office, or enough of them to be satisfied? Had he decided, at that point, to run for president in 2008 and that the best way to do that would be outside the governor’s mansion in Boston? Or had Romney looked at the poll numbers, which were declining throughout the second half of his term (he was spending a lot of time in Iowa and New Hampshire around then), and concluded that he couldn’t win reelection against a popular Democrat?

A review of Bob Casey's television ads paint a clear picture of his approach to defeating Santorum. In short, he ran to the right of Rick Santorum, promising:

• Fiscal responsibility

• A balanced federal budget

• Stronger border security

• Less centralized government in Washington

Bob Casey beat Rick Santorum in 2006 the way all Democrats win in the rational 46 states (California, Hawaii, Illinois and New York not included): He lied. He lied early, often and about everyone and everything.

Fiscal responsibility? While endorsing Barack Obama, voting for out-of-control federal spending, Obamacare, and supporting amnesty for illegal immigration?

How's that working out for you, Pennsylvania?

The Casey game-plan for victory over Santorum has about as much relevance for the Obama campaign as salads have for Michael Moore. Which is to say: none at all.

Pew: Santorum Passes Romney Nationally

It's Mitt Romney's worst nightmare: a true conservative that has energized the small-government wing of the Republican Party.

Rick Santorum’s support among Tea Party Republicans and white evangelicals is surging, and he now has pulled into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. In polling conducted Feb. 8-12, 30% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters favor Santorum while 28% favor Romney. As recently as a month ago, Romney held a 31% to 14% advantage over Santorum among all GOP voters.

Santorum is now the clear favorite of Republican and GOP-leaning voters who agree with the Tea Party, as well as white evangelical Republicans. Currently, 42% of Tea Party Republican voters favor Santorum, compared with just 23% who back Romney. Santorum holds an almost identical advantage among white evangelical Republican voters (41% to 23%)...

...Three months ago, a slim majority (53%) of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said Mitt Romney was a strong conservative. Today, 42% see him this way, while the number who say he is not a strong conservative has jumped from 33% to 50%.

This growing skepticism about Romney’s conservatism is most pronounced among Tea Party Republicans. Among Republican and Republican-leaning voters who agree with the Tea Party, just 29% say Romney is a strong conservative, down from 51% three months ago. Fully 68% of Tea Party Republicans say Romney is not a strong conservative...

Santorum is a Constitutional conservative praised by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin -- to name but a few -- and, most importantly, is a man who has stood by his principles through thick and thin.

He didn't cut and run when he backed the surge in Iraq. He didn't shrink from leading a successful entitlement reform (the 1996 Welfare Reform Act). He's voted the right way on almost every important issue for conservatives.

If you have an extra five-spot (or ten of 'em), Rick Santorum can use your support.


Hat tip: Memeorandum.

Unfortunate Romney Campaign Photo o' the Day

Via Dave Weigel:

I can't wait for Romney to roll up in his Bentley at CPAC. Because the Maybach is just a little too much.


Update: Commenter Sara informs us that Weigel and the rest of the crew fell for a photoshop (and a pretty darned good one, at that).

Ron "Mr. Small Government" Paul seems to have been double-billing travel at your expense #tlot

But, like his racist newsletters, I'm sure he knew nothing -- NOTHING -- about any of this.

Roll Call identified eight flights for which the Texas Republican, a GOP presidential candidate and leading champion of smaller government, was reimbursed twice for the same trip. Roll Call also found dozens more instances of duplicate payments for travel from 1999 to 2009, totaling thousands of dollars' worth of excess payments, but the evidence in those cases is not as complete.

...Roll Call obtained copies of credit card statements for a corporate American Express card assigned to Ron Paul & Associates Inc. on which many flights were purchased. The flight details on those statements matched payment records filed to the Federal Election Commission and office expenses itemized in quarterly Congressional disbursement statements published by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House... Public records show hundreds of flight payments between 1999 and 2009 in which both the House and Paul's campaign paid for plane tickets of the same price and about the same date.

Ron Paul is a fraud. And it's a shame that most of his believers are too deluded to recognize that he's a complete sellout.

Did you know, for instance, that Paul's campaign is collaborating directly with Mitt Romney's campaign to ensure -- no, not some grand position in an ostensible Romney administration -- a speaking part at the GOP convention?

The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other... they never do.

...Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign... The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things [because] Paul’s presence in the race helps keep the GOP electorate fractured...

...“Ron Paul wants a presence at the convention,” the adviser said — and Romney, if he is the nominee, would grant it.

In other words, Paul-bots, your mystical hero has been taking your money, your time, your support and blowing it all trying to get the most liberal candidate in the field nominated.

So he can get himself a speaking gig at the RNC.

You just got pwnt.


Related: 10 fun facts you may not have known about Ron Paul.

Newt Gingrich: How Romney won "should sober every Republican in the country"

PJMedia's Tatler characterized Newt Gingrich's concessionary press conference in Nevada last night as "odd". I just watched it and don't agree. In fact, I thought one particular interrogatory was especially insightful (hat tip to Biff Spackle for the transcript):

Question: Mr. Speaker, have you considered that voters just aren't buying what you're selling? You've been on the ballot now in five states and you've won one, but you've lost four. And you also talk about debates, but you've had 18 of them and generally you've been considered to have done well in them, but still that hasn't shown up in the polls?

Gingrich: I'm not going to defend the outcome in a state where I was outspent five to one. And I'd suggest you're sophisticated enough to understand that the idea that taking a state where the other guy spent five times as much money, and many of his ads were false as by both the Wall Street Journal and National Review, that maybe that's not a very accurate measure.

When it was an entirely positive campaign, up through mid-December, I was ahead by 12 points in Gallup. And this may happen again. I was actually ahead in Gallup a week ago. So I think in a few more weeks, I'll be ahead in Gallup again.

Question: But is that just ignoring the reality of the campaign? He has gone negative, it's working...

Gingrich: So the "reality of the campaign", to use your words, is that he has gone negative and it is working. And what I am asserting to you is that, over time, I don't believe the American people will approve of a campaign which actually suppresses turnout.

I think it's amazing that if you look in Florida, every county that I carried in Florida had an increased turnout; every county that Romney carried in Florida had a decreased turnout. Now that should sober every Republican in the country.

If the only way Romney wins is suppressing turnout, how's he going to do that in the fall?

If the only way he wins is outspending someone five-to-one, how's that going to apply to a campaign against Obama, who's going to outspend him?

Those are damned good questions.

Newt Gingrich Fires Back Against GOP Old Guard, Ann Coulter Hardest Hit

Ann Coulter is one of America's most talented conservative columnists. Of late, she has been curiously dogged in attacking Newt Gingrich -- unquestionably a captain of the "Reagan Revolution" -- while backing a man whose conservative credentials are dicey at best. Today Gingrich fired back.

Fox News Latino’s Victor Garcia did a phone interview with Newt Gingrich. During which the Former Speaker was asked about the recent Ann Coulter and Tom Delay criticisms...

Victor Garcia: You have been taking a lot of hits from Tom Delay now, Ann Coulter some of these people that some would consider on the far right of the conservative spectrum. What is your response to the criticism of those ones? Why do you think they are attacking you?

Newt Gingrich: Look I think there are a whole bunch of folks who represent the old order; they attacked Ronald Reagan in 1980 exactly the same way. They are looking at a national poll that shows me ahead of Romney 52-39 in a two way race and they are recognizing that if I come back as president, that I will be for very dramatic, very bold change and they are terrified. I have no interest in what Tom Delay did that got him in trouble. I thought it was wrong and a mistake, I have a very different approach to that and I have no Idea what motivates Ann Coulter but I find that she is all over the map. Basically she is for Romney and therefore anything she says about me is a reflection of the fact that she is for Romney. I expect people who are for Romney to attack me because they are terrified because he is losing.

I have no problem whatsoever with Coulter voicing her opinion, but she should -- like Karl Rove -- disclose whether any financial interests are playing a part in her support for Romney.


Hat tip: BadBlue.

Florida Tea Party Leaders Endorse Newt Gingrich

Floridians: I urge you not to allow the Beltway establishment to bully, threaten or scare you. Mitt Romney is the weakest GOP candidate of the bunch and Florida's Tea Party leaders see that threat clear as day.

"The Florida Tea Party Coalition With Newt" endorsed the former House speaker on Thursday, saying they would "help defeat Massachusetts Moderate Mitt Romney and then President Barack Obama."

“It is clear to me and many others in the tea party movement that Newt is the Reagan conservative that America needs,” said Peter Lee, founder and director of the East Side Tea Party of Orlando.

Lee was joined by statewide tea leader Patricia Sullivan, who said, “I stand with Newt because I know he will stand up to the establishment and insist on fiscal reforms."

In all, more than 30 Florida-based tea activists signed on to the coalition. The geographically diverse representatives ranged from the Panhandle to Broward County.

Separately, the TEA Party of Florida, the only political tea party registered with the state Division of Elections, endorsed Gingrich.

The GOP establishment's -- and, specifically, Mitt Romney's operatives' -- unconscionable attacks on Gingrich should motivate every undecided primary voter to support Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

And I'm glad Florida's Tea Party leaders are playing hardball with the RINO mushes who won't fight Obama as hard as they fight conservatives.


Related: Debunking the Beltway Hacks' Latest Spin: Gingrich Will Harm Down-Ticket Republicans

Awesome: Senior Romney Adviser Says a Republican President Could Never Repeal Obamacare

Yet another reason to support one of the two non-Romneys in the race:

Mitt Romney adviser Norm Coleman, a former senator from Minnesota, predicted the GOP won't repeal the Democrats' healthcare reform law even if a Republican candidate defeats President Obama this November.

"You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president," Coleman told BioCentury This Week television in an interview that aired on Sunday. "You can't whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what's been done."

...Coleman's remarks are remarkable because every Republican candidate — including Romney — has vowed to make repealing the law a priority. Coleman is also the chairman of the American Action Network, which has urged the courts to strike down the law's individual mandate and its Medicaid expansion.

Squishes like Norm Coleman, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are cowards who are either too scared or too invested in the status quo to try to save this country.

Folks, I don't mean to be a polyanna, but every expert from Obama adviser Peter Orszag to the CBO says that America is headed into a fiscal abyss. And these clowns are waving the white flag before the fight has even started?

So what do we do? We need to demand -- demand, not ask! -- that these establishment RINOs are replaced as Congressional leaders in 2012 by Tea Party conservatives like Michele Bachmann, Allen West, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, etc. If it takes a march on Washington, so be it. We're tired of being ignored by these numbskulls. Enough is enough.


Hat tip: Mark Levin.

Egotistical, bombastic embarrassment claims Newt Gingrich is... an embarrassment

For a guy who has never done anything at the national level; who has a personal cameraman following him around to capture those special "YouTube moments" where he confronts public sector union members; and who has taken troubling positions on gun control, illegal immigration, judges, global warming, and Obamacare (to name but a few), it takes real hubris to pillory Newt Gingrich.

I speak, of course, of Chris "Krispy Kreme" Christie, one of the darlings of the RINO establishment, who is doing his level best to sandbag conservatives.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Sunday dubbed Mitt Romney’s showing in South Carolina “clearly disappointing,” but quickly turned his focus to Newt Gingrich, saying he has been “an embarrassment to the party.”

Christie, a key Romney surrogate in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, blasted Gingrich on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his ethics violation fine and losing the speakership in the House, saying that “sometimes past is prologue... Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time. Whether he'll do it again in the future I don't know, but Gov. Romney never has,” Christie said on NBC's “Meet the Press.”

"I mean he was run out of the speakership by his own party, he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy that has had a very difficult political career at times, and has been an embarrassment to the party," Christie added.

...While Christie has pointed to Romney’s difficulties in connecting with people before, he said Sunday it’s due to Romney being a “reserved guy.” He then turned to what he deemed Gingrich’s liabilities... “Strategic adviser? That is the oldest Washington dodge in the book. That's because he didn't want to register as a lobbyist,” Christie said.

...Christie also addressed the vice presidency question once again, saying, “If I'm approached I will listen, but my inclination, I want to make it very clear, is that I want to stay governor of New Jersey."

News flash, Krispy: you ain't gonna be the VP. And, by the way, Newt Gingrich has accomplished 20 times more for the conservative movement and the Republican Party than you have.

The results of Gingrich's ethics probe are publicly available; they involve a course that Gingrich taught at Kennesaw State College while serving in Congress. The trouble revolved around the fact that the course was backed by a tax-exempt group. Gingrich taught Constitutional, conservative values, which the IRS found were “consistent with its stated exempt purposes.”

The whole thing was a political setup. And doesn't Newt's "ethics violations" seem quaint given the likes of Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and the rest of the modern miscreants of Congress who have mysteriously made millions in office?

So, Krispy, I'd advise you to keep your pie-hole shut. You're the embarrassment -- and we're not going to let you try to tear down conservatives in pursuit of a VP slot that you'll never get.

Romney loses South Carolina by 31 points, Karl Rove hardest hit

Yes, Mitt Romney lost by 31 points.

       40% Gingrich
       27% Romney
       18% Santorum

The anti-establishment candidates -- Gingrich and Santorum -- literally crushed Mitt Romney 58 percent to 27 percent, a margin of 31 points.

Erick Erickson describes these results as evidence that the GOP conservative base far outnumbers establishment RINOs -- and that the conservatives are pissed.

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since...

...Newt has taken the worst the media, Romney and the left can dish out, and he’s still standing and fighting with passion and eloquence. Sure, he’d probably be an erratic President, but right now Republican voters don’t care about his Presidency. They care about the fight with the left both Mitt Romney, and the Washington Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell don’t seem inclined to engage in.

I support Rick Santorum over Newt and Mitt. I support Newt over Mitt. And I support anyone over Barack Obama.

But Doug, you might ask, what about Ron Paul? What about him? Ron Paul is a kook, an anachronism, a Kucinich Libertarian wearing GOP clothes, whose views on foreign policy are so outside the mainstream that they can and must be dismissed.

Congratulations to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Oh, and here's a private word for Karl Rove: pfffffffffffffffffffffffffttttt.

Photo of Mitt Romney Tomorrow Morning [Wanda]

Wanda:

"But...... But....... But. I'M Electable. No...... I AM. REALLY!!!

The 2012 Campaign: 'It's Going to Get Really Ugly'

Jeffrey Carter at Points and Figures asserts that Bill Daley's retreat from the White House can mean only one thing: "It's going to get really ugly"

Bill Daley leaving the Obama administration was big news for ten minutes. But as my friend Streetwise Professor and I discussed on Twitter after the news broke, this really signals a big change in direction on how Obama will campaign.

It’s going to get really ugly. How ugly? Think of the election cycle from 1796-1804. It will be that ugly. The culmination of those election cycles was a duel by Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, with Hamilton losing his life after the gun battle.

Both Hamilton and Jefferson manipulated the press of that time to scandalize the other side. Character assassination is a mild phrase to use when describing the vitriol that went back and forth. Look for more in the coming months.

A parallel development, according to Ace, appears to be laying the groundwork for attacks on Mitt Romney's religion by President Subprime McDowngrade.

Turns out that Obama's Svengali -- David Axelrod -- says that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's speeches were, eh, "selectively edited":

Nonsense, of course.

Here's where my ears prick up: I have said before that Obama could not possibly make Romney's Mormonism a campaign issue because of Obama's membership in an actual cult of hatred.

Right? One would imagine.

But is Axelrod's out-of-the-blue attempt to relitigate Jeremiah Wright, and claim he was quoted out of context by opposition researchers, an attempt to begin insulating Obama against charges about Wright, and thus freeing Obama and the Democrats attack Romney's Mormonism?

Ace, Ace, Ace... for a man who has compiled this list of historic firsts, you think that attacking his opponent's religion would be taboo?

As for sanitizing Jeremiah Wright's remarks, well, that might prove a tad difficult, Axelputz:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, G*d d**n America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people... G*d d**n America for treating our citizens as less than human. G*d d**n America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

On 9/16/01, blaming the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost!"

"The government invented HIV to kill the man of color!"

In 2007, awarding the Church's Trumpeter award to racist Louis ("The Jews helped Hitler get the Third Reich on the road") Farrakhan: "Farrakhan epitomizes greatness."

"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people."

"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty!"

"We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. ... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. ... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means... And ... And ... And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this s**t!"

I don't know about you, but my preacher talks like this all the time.

Rick Santorum: How are those Romney-style "moderate" candidates like McCain and Dole working out for ya?

Mitt Romney, contrary to popular belief, would be the easiest of the Republican candidates for Barack Obama to defeat. Not to say I wouldn't support Romney if he were the nominee (after all, he's not a radical Alinsky-ite bent on destroying "transforming" the country). Hell, I'd vote for a Golden Retriever over Barack Obama... it would certainly do less damage.

But Romney's so-called "electability" is an ill-disguised myth. He can't attack Obama on the Democrats' biggest Achilles' Heel: Obamacare. His Wall Street background, as we have seen in recent days, is ripe for an attack from the populist angle, whether it's warranted or not. And, as Rick Santorum pointed out this evening, "moderate" GOP establishment candidates have a horrible track record in presidential elections.

Drawing an implicit contrast with Mitt Romney on the eve of the first-in-the-nation primary, Rick Santorum [reminded the crowd of] a centrist, establishment candidate... the 2008 Republican nominee, [and] the people of this small New Hampshire town bordering Maine wanted none of it.

“Let’s put up Bob Dole, because it’s his turn,” Santorum said ironically of the 1996 GOP nominee. “Let’s put up John McCain, because it’s his turn.”

Some in the crowd started booing, while others cried out “No!”

...“Give us an opportunity to be that conservative alternative, not just in this primary, but the conservative alternative that will draw clear contrast,” he said, “and be able to attract the votes and voters we need to win this election.”

I urge you to support a true Constitutional conservative for President.

I urge you to support Rick Santorum.

ACTION ALERT: Virginia GOP Changed Ballot Access Rules Last Month; Here's How to Contact Them and Demand Changes

Based upon several reliable reports at RedState, it would appear that Virginia's GOP establishment changed the rules of ballot access just last month. Front-runner Newt Gingrich, for one, saw his campaign hurt badly by reports that it bungled the Virginia ballot process. He and Rick Perry were excluded despite each turning in over 10,000 signatures. But if the new reports are true, the state GOP has a hell of a lot to account for.

Moe Lane provides the introduction:

...the very short version is that the VA GOP only certified Mitt Romney and Ron Paul for its primary ballot. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich both had too many signatures tossed; Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann didn’t even try. Of the seven candidates, one (Romney) had more than enough signatures (15K) to bypass the verification process entirely. All of this has caused a lot of agitation among Republicans following the primary process, of course; and not just from people who disapprove of what the VA GOP has done...

...There has been a good deal of defending of the outcome; and one argument heavily used in this defense has been that the campaigns all knew the rules and that previous Republican campaigns were able to get on the ballot, so clearly a competent current Republican campaign should have done so.

One small problem with that: as Winger argues, the rules were allegedly drastically changed. In November of this year.

So what changed?

...prior to the 2012 elections it was Republican party policy in Virginia to simply deem any candidate that brought in ten thousand raw signatures as having met the primary ballot requirements under Virginian state election law.

Under these rules, of course, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would have qualified easily.

And why did the rules change?

...On October 24th independent state delegate candidate Michael Osborne filed suit against the Republican party of Virginia [challenging the signature review process and who performs it] ... according to Winger the VA GOP decided in response to bump up from 10K to 15K the threshold for simply deeming the requirements as being met.

...I think that John Fund’s general comment is correct: this is going to go to the courts. John was not discussing this specific wrinkle, but his larger point that Virginia’s ballot access policies have systemic problems gets a big boost when it turns out that the state party can effectively increase by fifty percent the practical threshold for ballot access – in a day, and in the middle of an existing campaign.

...If it is true that the Republican party of Virginia decided in November of 2011 to increase the threshold for automatic certification from 10K to 15K, then it is reasonable to suggest that this was a change that unfairly rewarded candidates who had previously run for President in Virginia.

Lane asserts that the state GOP has ultimate control of the ballot and could, if pressed, decide to certify Gingrich and Perry.

Either way, the issue is going to the courts.

And, either way, the Virginia GOP looks incompetent... or ill-intentioned against conservative candidates.

Action Alert: I urge you to contact the Virginia GOP and demand that they include Gingrich and Perry on the ballot. Be polite, but firm. There's no excuse for issuing new rules at the last minute that just happen to exclude the leading candidates. In fact, it's an outrage.

• Email: Contact Form
• Phone: 804-780-0111
• Fax: 804-343-1060
• Facebook: www.facebook.com/VirginiaGOP
• Twitter: @va_gop

Make contact now. Time is growing short.

Oh, the Irony, It Burns: Obama Campaign Rips Romney For Failure to Release Records

The official public relations journal of the Democrat National Committee (sometimes referred to as The New York Times) offers this hilarious insight into Leftist logic:

A spokesman for President Obama‘s re-election campaign blasted Mr. Romney and questioned whether he had something to hide in his finances.

“Why does Governor Romney feel like he can play by a different set of rules?” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign. “What is it that he doesn’t want the American people to see? Governor Romney, who has favored secrecy over openness time after time, should live up to the same standard of disclosure his father and others set.”

Meanwhile, seven years after Barack Obama burst onto the national political scene, we still await the disclosure of his background records.

1. Occidental College records and transcripts -- Not released
2. Columbia University records and transcripts -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard University records and transcripts -- Not released
5. Medical records -- Not released
6. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
7. Illinois State Senate records -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate -- Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
12. Record of Baptism -- Not released or 'not available'

Of course, there are different standards for legacy media's preferred candidates. Remember how the media unearthed Rick Perry's college transcripts within 48 hours of the announcement of his candidacy?


Related: The secret scrapbook of Barry Soetoro Barack Obama


Hat tip: Brad.