November 17, 2011


  4:16 pm

I said early on I didn’t want a safe choice for 2012. Well, now that unsafe choice has gotten to the point where I can no longer stand behind him. It’s not just the claims, it’s the fact that Cain has been unable to run a functional campaign. Cain’s draw was that he was an outsider who was going to surround himself with the right people. The way he’s run his campaign has shown that he’s unable or unwilling to surround himself with the right people. So, what of the other candidates? As the title of the post implies, I’m undecided and let me tell you why.

Bachmann – Michele is pretty good on fiscal issues, but comes across as a kook. Why? Well, when you imply 9-9-9 is the sign of the devil, you’ve pretty much made yourself written off.

Huntsman – Huntsman has a pretty solid platform. He has a solid tenure as Governor, but governed as far to the left as was possible in the state of Utah. Other problems? He keeps poking conservatives in the eye with specifically targeted comments (ex “I believe in science”) and the fact that he was running for President (or planning to) while serving as Ambassador to China is upsetting to me. I’ve discussed this at length before. This bugs me, seriously. I could vote for him in the general, but I won’t in the primary.

Johnson – Gary Johnson has an excellent record as governor. He founded a 1 man company that turned into the biggest construction firm in New Mexico, which is far more impressive than the experience of a lot of different candidates. That said, he’s pro-choice, he’s known as the “pot” candidate, and is unable to raise money. At all. Johnson can’t get the nomination because no one has given him the chance and he’s unable to raise any funds.

Mitt – Romney has an incredible ground game, is focused on Obama, a decent campaigner, and has the same type of business experience I loved in Herman Cain. The problem? Inconsistent on fiscal issues and Masscare. Both of which led me to not vote for him in 2008, and it’s part of the reason I’m still undecided on him now. Also, I frankly don’t know if I can trust him. He comes across as disingenuous to me and in the debates came across as condescending. Then again, Obama’s always condescending. So, I could still vote for him, but again – undecided.

Newt – Newt is a fascinating candidate. Great debater, former Speaker of the House who helped lead the country in the right direction (pun intended) on fiscal issues and led to serious national reform. But he’s on his third wife with a history of infidelity and he’s been inconsistent historically on fiscal issues. He’s a brain power is unmatched, but as I said – inconsistent on fiscal issues. So, I could vote for him – but still undecided.

Paul – I will not vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Ever. Even if he’s the only one left in the primary. In that case, I would write in George H.W. Bush.

Perry – Perry has some great experience. He was a pretty solid Governor of Texas. 40% of the jobs created in the US in the past 2 years were created in Texas – that’s hard to overlook. That said, Perry is a terrible debater which could be awful against Obama in the general election. Also, there’s the Texas DREAM Act, which as a strong opponent of it here in Maryland who supported the effort to put it on the ballot / overturn it – this is a problem. Deal breaker? No, but an issue for me. Again, I’m undecided on Perry in the primary – but of course would vote for him in the general election.

Santorum – I actually don’t mind Rick Santorum. But, he couldn’t win reelection in Pennsylvania. He comes across angry and agitated in every single debate. He is inconsistent on fiscal issues. And, frankly, his active campaigning for future turncoat Arlen Specter is disappointing. Honestly, Santorum has very little money and does not have a clear path to the nomination. Also, his name is a filthy expression online that will be tough to combat should he get the nomination.

So, I’m back to being undecided. If the primary were held today, I’m not sure who I’d vote for when I got into the voting booth. Maybe Newt. Maybe Rick Perry. Maybe Romney – I’m not sure. What I do know is that I’m waiting to be wowed by the candidates.


-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line ElephantPundit Leagueand Tweets far too often.




by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

At least you have a reason to watch the debates.


I made a movie to help push you over to Mitt:

Just for you!

I Cheated On My Wives For You America newt

Ann Coulter could help you out.


I'm with you. Those GOP members that I was ready to support in this race(Palin, Huckabee, Daniels, Christie, Barbour) chose not to run. Now, I'm left scrambling, watching, and waiting to see what happens. I'll support the nominee whoever it turns out to be, but, for now I will take a wait and see approach and observe this race froma distance and watch what occurs in the race.


To say Newt's brain power is "unmatched," is absurd. Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard wrote a piece for the New York Times about his reading of Newt's 21 books that is 'unmatched' for hilarity. Gingrich's intellect is HIGHLY overrated. His themes boil down to platitudes and absurdities.

America is always facing a "crossroads" and time is always "running out" and technology will always "save the day." Like the technology he offered in 1985 to construct huge mirrors all over the place to warm up the planet to extend the growing seasons for farmers. This was a few years before he campaigned with Nancy Pelosi to save the earth from global warming.....apparently he had lost interest in extending growing seasons to increase food production.

His books are FILLED with inconsistencies and STATIST solutions to largely nonexistent problems, like wanting the government to subsidize the food industry by paying it to give away 'healthy' food to people....or taxing alcoholic beverages at enormous rates to curtail alcoholism. He apparently failed to note, as the good historian he is, that America tried that last one before. It was called Prohibition. It didn't work.

Ferguson especially cited his lack of detail and his apparent unconcern about following through on any of his 'grand ideas'.....or just about anything else. And more than anything else, that's why his house colleagues couldn't wait to get rid of him....and fined him $300 K for good measure.


How is Mitt inconsistent on fiscal issues?


And how do you completely brush over all the myriad of flaws that Newt has?

Just read his response to the Freddie Mac job:

This isn't a hard decision.


I am completely baffled by posts like this. It is as if the author isn't even paying attention.


8. Just what is wrong with Newt's responses there?


How you could still be considering Perry (or Newt for that matter) has me completely stumped. I just don't get this party.


11 - If you don't know, then you really are missing something upstairs.


12. Yeah, I'm a blithering idiot, so please help me out.

To refuse to help someone asking for it is just cruel.

Just what is wrong with Newt’s responses in that article?


11 - Maybe you can ask your hero ... Sarah Palin.


This race has come down to two choices:

The Conservative Washington Outsider: Mitt Romney

The Moderate Establishment Career Politician: Newt Gingrich

Choose wisely.


Inconsistent on fiscal issues? Well, thats a new one.


can't ever vote for Paul but Newt is the fascinating candidate? wow...newt's brainpower? good grief....he constructs his silly giant circular arguments about topics, says it in a semi-intellectual way and people fall for it


14. jax

Please stop the insults and lets have a discussion. Please.

Point out what you find troubling in that article.

Maybe you can persuade me to see it your way. MAYBE I am missing something.

help me out here.



18 - Go ask Palin


2 That made me laugh. Since we're on the subject of mandates. I was looking at the bill Romney actually introduced yesterday and what it appears to say to me is that if you put aside $10K in an interest bearing account to cover emergency health care you can opt out.

Also, if you don't then the government will hold the amount you would have gotten from your personal exemption to pay for any medical fees you might accumulate. Those funds could only be used for YOUR health care, can't exceed 10K/person and would be returned eventually if you left the state, or got insured.

I think it illustrates how Romney's mind actually works. It's not far from the people who say, "can't you just pay your bills". Under Romney's plan you could if you put aside the money, plus you'd have the added benefit of not having to pay for other peoples medical bills.


18 - LOL ... you are whining about insults? Oh, the irony.


I'm sorry jax.

I didn't realize how unprepared you were to handle a simple conversation.

I hope jax isn't representative of the majority of Romney supporters...that would be very unfortunate.



What's wrong with it is that pressing the government for ever-increasing loan guaranties to people who couldn't afford houses nearly brought down the financial structure of the nation when the housing bubble, partially created by Newt, led to TARP and Stimulus, and the longest Recession since the Great Depression.

And you wonder what's wrong with it??


22 - LOL ... completely clueless


The truth comes out about the RomNots ... they have no idea what they stand for.


We should have more of these litmus tests: post a comment and then challenge the RomNots to explain whether it is a conservative or a non-conservative idea.


For my commentary on fiscal related issues, see the Club for Growth White Papers. This is where my comment of inconsistencies on fiscal issues come from (RE: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum).



Actually, Romney's plan went further than that. He has proposed that the only policy someone would have to purchase was a catastrophic plan and not a standard health insurance plan.

It was the Democratic legislature that overrode him and forced people to buy a complete health insurance plan. That rarely gets reported and its what really drove costs up.


So much for standing by your man. Fickle.


23. Does Newt advocate that in that article? I didn't see that.

I know what brought down the housing industry. I don't see Newt advocating that at all. Can YOU point it out for me?

I think you guys are reading more into it that is there. It sounds like Newt was a voice for fiscal responsibility, clashing with Barney Frank.


"What I do know is that I’m waiting to be wowed by the candidates."

Why exactly are you waiting to be WOWED? We have all the information and background we could possibly want on all the candidates. Why not use your own intellect and come to your own conclusions as to who would govern most closely to your views?

Obama WOWED a lot of people and look where we are now. It's really pathetic...


Being an advocate for responsible home ownership does not equate to making bad loans...

yes that's what happened, but I do not see a tie to Newt because of his work, just the opposite actually.

At least that's what I get from his responses in that article


30 - LOL


27 - Wouldn't that apply to everyone then? The Club For Growth doesn't think any of them are perfect.


33 - Totally clueless ... this is funny


#32 - loren - Why is it pathetic to want to be excited about our 2012 nominee? That's what I want - I'm waiting for that moment to happen.


#35 - jaxmer11 - Yes, yes it would. But I had other comments that I felt were more pressing / important to mention about the other candidates. So, there's that.



Matthew. Thanks for the link. I've read your piece before, I didn't realize you wrote that (or did I misunderstand you?).

In any case, I won't argue the piece point by point. The Jets game is coming up and politics goes on hold shortly. But I will say that I do have some issues with the piece. Frankly, I don't think anyone who doesn't live in MA understands how difficult it is to earn a record as a fiscal conservative in this state. It's not hard, it's impossible. I will never happen until this state casts off the corrupt and deeply entrenched liberal bureaucracy. A grade of "C" in MA should rate at a minimum a grade of "B" in even a moderate state let alone a conservative state.

At least the piece did note that Romney fought to cut the state income tax 3 times and the legislature, as is their want, completely ignored the will of the people. They do this quite a bit. I would also note that raising fees instead of broad based taxes is (or at least used to be, the word seems to be changing in meaning) a very conservative solution to raising revenue. People pay for the services they use. Personal responsibility. And the fee hikes were nominal, a small increase in marriage licenses, boat mooring fees at the state parks, gun licenses, etc. Most of these fees hadn't been raised in decades and weren't covering the costs of the services they offered.

If you want to feel a little better about Romney's fiscal conservatism, take a critical look at his enormous success in business and in the Olympics where he had a much more level playing field. You don't achieve that level of success without applying consistent conservative fiscal policies.


"the idea that you’re thinking about how can we help people learn how to budget, how can we help people learn how to save, how could you help them learn how to maintain a house on a low income would strike me, for more people, would be good things to do, not bad things to do"


There's actually a good interview of Obama on this issue out there somewhere that sounds a lot like Gingrich's stance on this issue. Of course nobody wants to support a financially unstable program, however they thought these loans wouldn't be a problem if they spread the risk around. So I want to hear how Gingrich will make his program stable.


38 - So your criticism of Mitt can be applied to everyone, and everyone else has other flaws (some big ones of which you didn't even bother to list ... Newt's lobbying, Perry's cronyism), and you are still undecided?

Forgive me for being a little baffled by that.


#39 - Boomer - I didn't write anything at CfG. Didn't mean to take credit in my comment, if I did.

Reginald from texas

Matthew, I respect your views, but you make no reference to Newt's lobbying for several large companies in the name of influencing conservative republicans to "open their eyes". The news of these past 2 days has to disgust you. Freddie Mac, big drug companies, etc.


40 - Why should the government be helping anyone learn to do any of that?


40 - And 45 is only a part of what is wrong with that interview.


28 Thanks for adding that, I just looked at that one section. Funny thing is Romney's proposal in Mass was much more conservative than almost any of the plans proposed by republican presidential candidates in 2008.


Can you find what else is wrong?


As for me, I'm done hating Romney. I'm with Ann Coulter.


#42 - jaxmer11 - No, part of my criticism of Mitt can be applied to other candidates. The fact that he's uninspiring, supported Masscare, was condescending in the debates, and that I find him disingenuous at times are not applicable to other candidates.


I keep seeing the whole argument about Newt's intellect over Mitt's. Mitt's supporters having a problem with Newt seen as the smartest guy. Newt supporters claiming he is. Let's just agree they are both smart. Unless someone here is gonna sit Mitt and Newt down, or any of the other candidates, and make them take an IQ test, there is no gaging at how smart a candidate is or isn't. I'd say they all have a fairly reasonable level of intelligence. Some are more articulate than others in their speech, proposals, answers to questions, and debates. And some are more experienced in politics. And some may be better in front of the camera or with the media than others. All possibilities. And all do have different ideas on how to run this nation, that's also given. But, that doesn't make any of them a dummy. I'd say our group of candidates are pretty smart & anyone of them could probably make us all look like dummies if we debated them.



Gingrich was paid $1.6 Million to $1.8 Million to protect FM and FM from Right-Wing opposition to housing loans that couldn't be paid back....ultimately leading to the collapse of the housing bubble. This was implicit to the point of being explicit in the NR article.

And Mitt's statement is tantamount to a full admission of it.


Nice piece, but I'm sure Newt has to fall by the wayside once he goes through the vetting process. My husband and I are dying over some of the stuff that is surfacing on Newt. He may be the nominee, but he won't make it to the Oval Office.

He's a great debater.....and he is smart......but neither of those is enough to overcome all his other baggage and quirks.


50 "condescending in the debates"?

You must not have heard about Newt Gingrich. He's on the rise - look him up.


Ha! Carl Cameron on Fox just now.

No candidate has been scrutinized more than Romney.


50 - Fair enough, though I find that a little silly. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though.


Matthew Newmann,

Cain today:

"Folks on the Cain Train don't get off. They don't listen to the main street media CRAP!"


51 - That is true, but there are different types of intelligence and I think it is important to think about what kind of intelligence we should be looking for in a President. Do we want a book worm? Do we want a problem solver? Do we want a creative thinker? Someone who is good with language or at building relationships of trust?

Just saying that someone is smart is kind of superficial. But then again, Presidential elections are almost always superficial.


Regarding Newt & Freddie Mac / Fannie Mae - Newt said that the Gingrich Group was paid to offer advice to them. What said advice was, I still don't know. Until we have evidence that he lobbied specifically, I'll take Newt's word on it. Regarding other issues of lobbying, I honestly don't know about them yet. Until I hear / learn more, I reserve judgement.

I don't hate Mitt. Never said I did. Also, did not know that regarding Masscare that Romney started it off one way & that it was expanded by the Dem legislature. Sounds about right for Massachusetts, but not something I was aware of. Good to know.




If we give Newt and Willatd IQ tests, let Cain participate to compare his.


56 - Yep, they just put their heads in their butts and and follow their dear leader. Who cares about the truth?


Gingrich Press Secretary RC Hammond says the campaign has now raised $4 million since Oct. 1


#56 - CR - Well, I got off and so did former Cainiac Jimmie Bise, so I'm not alone in that.

#51 - jaxmer11 - If we want a creative thinker, then Newt's the guy. His ideas are inconsistent at times in terms of being fiscally conservative, but there's no doubting his creativity in coming up with new ideas. If I want a problem solver, then there's Mitt who's got a vast history of doing just that. Is said history always fiscally conservative? Not always, but he gets things done, no denying that.

My point here was to point out positives (which no one seems to comment on) and negatives of the current crop, ending with the fact that I'm undecided. Still am, but more information on any of the candidates that you, our readers, have is appreciated. I'm not perfect - don't pretend to be.


59 - Like I said ... not paying attention. Go read the column in the Washington Examiner about his lobbying.

I worked on Capital Hill in 2007. Gingrich was definitely lobbying while I was there. He hasn't denied any of it.

I find it funny that you give everyone the benefit of the doubt but don't like Romney because you think he seems "condescending". Is that really how you are going to decide who is going to be President?



That is what is sad with many of the people on this site. They beleive that Romney proposed what became the final product of MassCare. His veto was overridden at least 8 times, and his plan was a conservative solution to a major problem, that the Dems in Mass. were actively working to address with taxes on businesses!


CR - Still on the Willard kick I see. Just like you would expect from a third grader. I bet you laugh every time you write it.



I think the numbers will be pretty high of that IQ test for a former professor, a Harvard grad, and a former mathemetician.


I've been a bit indisposed the past few days for personal reasons, so I missed the Washington Examiner piece about Newt / lobbying.


64 - I actually don't want a creative thinker. I want a problem solver. Creative thinkers think of creative and intrusive programs. Such is the career of Newt Gingrich.



It's safe to say all our candidates(and those that chose not to run) are smarter than a third grader. :)


#66 - ilfigo - As Gov of a heavily Dem state, I doubted he proposed the final version of MassCare. But he has supported it and continues to defend it. So...he owns it, and is fine with that. And it's okay for me to not be fine with that as I wasn't fine with it in '08.


And Mitt's history mostly is fiscally conservative. The only heartburn people seem to have is with RomneyCare, and that is vastly misunderstood.

Sorry if it seem like I am pushing Romney so hard. You are entitled to your opinion. I am just surprised by some of the things you seem to be overlooking.



We actually do know more about Newt's interaction with Freddie Mac. Newt refuses to release any more information (although he did promise yesterday he would flip .....) but some of the executives at Freddie are talking.

First, we know that Newt reported directly to Freddie's chief lobbyist, not their chief historian, which by the way is a position that doesn't exist at Freddie.

Second, we know that part of Newt's job description was to "build bridges" with conservatives on the hill and sell them on the Freddie business model. Thats the job description for a lobbyist.

Third, we know that the same Freddie executives have said that Newt never presented any historical documents.

And fourth, we can use our common sense and figure out that a quasi-public company that has a who's who of ex-DC elected officials on their roster as paid lobbyists didn't pay a one time, untenured history professor who's area of expertise is the Belgian education model that was used in the Congo in the '40s and '50s, and also just happened to be the ex-Speaker of the House with an enormous rolodex,$1.6 million over the course of 8 years to give them a history lesson.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Newt was a lobbyist.



Cain now receiving Secret Service protection.


#73 - jaxmer11 - You are pushing Romney real hard 😛

#74 - Boomer - Thanks for the info. Again, I've been indisposed the past few days for personal reasons and did not get to see much in the way of recent news regarding that. Last I had seen was Newt's original statement on the matter. If it turns out he lied & was lobbying as pro-Freddie, that's a problem. I hope he releases his details / information.


It is possible that the story is bogus. The source is anonymous and didn’t think the behavior unwanted and aggressive enough to merit any sort of report. Really, whether the story or true or not isn’t important, politically. Thanks to the way the Cain campaign handled the story of the first two harassment allegations, this new accusation is plausible and that’s enough for me.

Good riddance then, Jimmie (et tu Brute) Bise (whoever you support deserves your type who believes CRAP)

So MN,

Million dollar question>>> Who did you support in '08 when it got down to Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Paul ????


#77 - CR - I voted Fred in '08.


And Newt was very much pro-RomneyCare when it was passed and up until at least May of this year. I haven’t heard him repudiate it yet, although Smack suggests that he has. In many ways, he invented it. So I have a real hard time with people that hate Romney for RomneyCare, but are supporting Newt.


75.teledude Says:

November 17th, 2011 at 5:37 pm


Cain now receiving Secret Service protection.


The death threats are coming fast and furious. Who knew that would happen at this point?


I'm not supporting Newt, currently undecided. Tho, he did recently say this on government mandates for health insurance.


76 - :) Of course I am. There is no other real choice.


78. Fred dropped out after SC. Who then did you support? $5 says it was Romney. 😉


Hey tele ... do you get it now? Or do you think expanding the role of Freddie Mac in teaching Americans how to budget is a good conservative idea?


81 - Which is clearly a walk back of what he said in May:

In fact, it is the same video he used to try to make up for what he said on Meet The Press.


#83 - CR - First, I was a NYS resident - voted in the CPNYS primary well before SC & voted Fred. Post SC, I had no dog in the fight and was waiting to see who won. I figured it was between Romney & McCain and that McCain had the edge for the nomination. Donated to McCain once he received the nomination.


This Jax character is like a bug.


#85 - jaxmer11 - The video was actually the day after his May Meet the Press interview.


86. Fair enough. I owe you five.


This is what conservative blogs were saying about Mitt’s walk back a few months ago:

It’s amazing how time heals all wounds (or causes people to be morons).


#37 - Matthew,

Wanting to be excited about a candidate is not pathetic. Getting excited solely by retoric and speech cadence is pathetic.

You are obviously highly intelligent. If you can't get excited about supporting someone today with all the information we have on their backgrounds and experiences, it's just not going to happen... and if it does solely based on some speech or rosy retoric, well I find that pathetic. I just find it incredulous that one of these candidates could possible do anything this late in the game to wow you that is not already available thru a study of their experiences and actions.


88 - Yep, and everyone was laughing at it back then. Now people think it is a statement of pure conviction.



Actually there's a choice of about 8 or 9 candidates. You just made your decision of who you support. Doesn't make you right or wrong. Nor does it make anyone who supports another candidate right or wrong for choosing someone else. We all have our preferences and ideas on who is best to lead the nation. That's why we have a primary. To see what our options are and decide.


84. that may be a valid point. I still don't see Newt advocating risky loans.

If that's the case it would be troubling.


93 - You must have missed the word "real". The other candidates are objectively clowns.


94 - I never said he did, though I wouldn't be surprised.

What did you think of his argument that this country needs a Washington insider to fix Obama's mistakes, and that his job with Freddie Mac proves that he is a Washington Insider?


Let's get real for a minute. If Gingrich (or the FOTM) does well up to Florida, then how's he going to do in the gauntlet leading up to Super Tuesday?

February 4, 2012 Nevada caucus

February 4–11, 2012 Maine caucus

February 7, 2012 Colorado caucus

February 7, 2012 Minnesota caucus

February 28, 2012 Arizona primary

February 28, 2012 Michigan primary

March 3, 2012 Washington caucus

Looks like a blood-bath to me. Even if Gingrich (or the FOTM) does unexpectedly well leading up to this point, the momentum Romney's going to gain before Super Tuesday will probably do him in.

I would like to see what the Gingrich supporters consider as Gingrich's most likely path to victory that accounts for this period.


#91 - loren - Honestly, there will be reasons to be excited about the eventual nominee. And I assure you, I will be. I was excited about McCain as the nominee - he was genuine, a military hero, who was active in fighting against earmarks. I'll find a reason to get excited about the eventual nominee. What I would like is to have a candidate now that I'm excited about, but at present - I'm not.


93 We all want a primary, however it's becoming questionable if it's wise to keep trashing the candidate who is being given a 70% chance of winning on Intrade. If we want to win, maybe we should stop trashing our candidate who's being given 7 times the chance of winning as anyone else.



If you're still here and want more information on what Romney was really trying to do with the MA health insurance mess, and it was a huge mess when he got there which also seems to get overlooked, this is a pretty good review.

In my opinion, Romney does a horrible job explaining this and it hurts him. But he is not backing down from the bill he ultimately signed and I give him credit for not doing what many accuse him of doing all the time, flip flopping.


91 Loren,

In Matt's defense, I can understand his train of thought. I'm still not only undecided, but, I am taking a wait and see attitude. None of the candidates I would've supported, like Palin, Huckabee, Barbour, Christie, all chose not to run, so I'm left without a candidate to support. Plus, there is too much unpreditability in this race with candidates rising and falling and not heavily favored. Since this race is anyone's game & any candidate could end up being our nominee, some of us have chosen to just observe on the sidelines and wait until the nominee is chosen. We'll heavily support our nominee over Obama, but, for now, let the best candidate win, whomever that could be.



It does look like a bloodbath. Well, not really:


49. Metro - we are now down to 4.9999999999% haters. One at a time. 😉



Since the debates and this race has been turned into a media circus, maybe all the candidates qualify to be clowns. :)


99 - There is some logic to that. But there is also logic to the idea that Mitt's opponents are just motivated to be even more vocal and more caustic because they have a bigger hill to climb.

If Mitt wins IA (still a big if), then all the hate will largely fade away. Until the nail is in the coffin though, I only expect it to get worse.


Metro, at least you are rational.


96. I don't see Newt's experience in D.C. as a negative.

If you do I wish you could have just said that a long time ago, without the repeated unnecessary insults.


100 - He doesn't explain it well at all ... but that is because he doesn't want people to talk about it. Republicans are irrational when it comes to RomneyCare, and regardless of what he says they will hate him for it. Better to let it be brushed over.


104 - LOL


107 - How do you reconcile that with Palin's constant railing against Washington insiders, and your past constant reposting of her constant railing against Washington insiders?

And don't even lecture me on insults. You are the king of insults.



Ann Coulter was Romney's biggest supporter last cycle. You didn't know that when she pimped Romney yesterday to finally sway you over to the dark side?


Ok I'm out, kids ... it's NFL time! Tebow versus Sanchez 8)


#111 - CR - DeMint, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Coulter, NRO, Rush - were ALL Romney supporters in 2008.


Great Opinion piece in the WSJ:

has some relevance on what we've been discussing vis-a-vis Newt.

The author is outstanding and makes a strong case.



OH SNAP! way to be timely with that info Matthew. 😀

Don't forget Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Levin, and on and on.......

He had 'em all snookered back then - it's just taking a while to get them brainwashed again I guess. 😛


It's funny that despite me talking about all the candidates - the comment section only discussed Newt / Romney so far. Where are the Perry or Paul fans?



When Romney slashes spending down to 20% of GDP, Caps it at that level, then gets a BBA passed, we will have America back, and you can feel proud to have contributed to our resuscitation. No one else in the field can get the budget balanced within one term.

He hasn't announced his agenda for his 2nd term....but he has hinted he wants to tackle comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. After 8 years of Mitt, we can work together on getting a Libertarian elected. By that time, the country might be adequately prepped for that.


103 Is that a serious response? Are you banking on Cain?


In early 2007 I supported Mitt.

I then moved to Fred when he entered the race.

I was played.

Yes I am still a little bitter about it.

You'll never convince me Fred wasn't a stalking horse for McCain. That's how the game is played.

It's naive not to see it.

I still believe Cain and Bachmann are stalking horses for Mitt. He learned a lot in the last campaign. I think no one was more surprised by his rise in the polls than Cain. I still do not think he is a serious candidate.

I see conspiracy everywhere.

Fool me once...


118. aspire, yes CR is Craig for Huck, er, Bachmann, um Perry - no Cain...wait... who's on first?


Why should people care about your opinion when you made an asinine choice the first time. You don't seem to have much common sense which negates almost anything you say.


116. Matthew -

If he can get back to the top 3 again you might be able to get Craig for Rejects to jump back on his bandwagon. Nancy is the other Perry supporter - but she is rarely around.


>>Where are the Perry or Paul fans?

I would imagine the Perry fans are trying to sell their Perry bling on ebay before the market completely craters.

The Paul fans are getting high.


100 Thanks Boomer, I'll read that. I've read a lot of stuff by Edmund F. Haislmaier. I think he really knows his stuff.


123 Getting?



If Mitt was your guy in '08- when he was even more transparently a charlatan in a much stronger field- what's your problem this year?

I don't get it. He was around #9 on my depth chart in '08, but due to the total insanity/stupidity/incompetence of the current field, he's moved up to #4.

And the first three are no-hopers.


#126 - Matt "MWS" - Mitt wasn't my guy in '08, Fred Thompson was. Not sure where you got that I was a Romney guy in '08.



Having just reread your snippet on Mitt, I see I misread it the first time. My bad.



Why don't you join me in endlessly griping about the decadence of democracy and the inevitable collapse of American civilization, and start promoting a Catholic monarchy?

The Habsburgs are tanned, rested, and ready.


OK Matt. I find you most pleasant.

I'm just hoping that amidst the chaos of recently declared candidates trying to find themselves, America does the right thing and votes for competence and consistency. I personally Believe in America.


MWS Occupier, you are calling Mitt a charlatan? That's wild. He's likely so authentic that you believe how he presents himself is too good to be true, and he must be faking. That's kind of flattering to him in a way, but you come across as somewhat superficial. Did you find Obama authentic? I don't expect you to admit to that.


Of the current field, we can eliminate Bachmann and Cain, because they aren't remotely qualified based on knowledge and experience. In fact, they are an insult to the process.

We can eliminate Gingrich as a moral degenerate with no executive experience who was mostly a failure as Speaker.

We can eliminate Perry as a jackass who would sell his mother for campaign cash. Plus, he's a moron.

That leaves us with Paul, who also has no executive experience, few allies on Capital Hill, and a complete inability to prioritize his causes; Romney, who is a charlatan of unknown conviction; Santorum, who freaks people out, has no executive experience, and is a proven bust at the box office; and Huntsman who has run a completely incompetent campaign and will never poll north of 3%.



"OK Matt. I find you most pleasant."

Thank you.

"He’s likely so authentic that you believe how he presents himself is too good to be true, and he must be faking. That’s kind of flattering to him in a way, but you come across as somewhat superficial."

At least I'm pleasantly superficial. But I always have to roll my eyes when Rombots explain people's distrust of Romney with some variation of the "he's so god-like perfect in every conceivable way, people don't know how to react" theory of projection.

"Did you find Obama authentic?"

No. There are very few politicians I find authentic. Politics is my first love, and my obsession since in was in 3rd grade in 1984. But virtually all politicians are whores, and there are fewer righteous men in Washington than there was in Sodom.


Matthew Newman: I'm in much the same boat. I look at this field and wonder how we could be stuck with a group that is notable only for the wide-ranging assortment of ways in which they are second-rate. It's a cliche to label a group as '________ and the Seven Dwarfs', but that would be a big improvement. Here we have The Eight Dwarfs.


114 - Exactly my point ... How do you reconcile Newt with that?



Ok, Matt S...

I know you love CAREER politicians but since we don't have a decent one per your argument (not mine), I submit the following candidate's qualifications since we have to run someone against the "experienced" Obama: (And remember, our founders were not politicians and tens of millions of voters BLAME politicians for America's dire straits. AND THEY'RE 100% RIGHT.

Let's try a businessman once, so here is Herman Cain’s impressive resume…

* Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.

* Master’s degree in Computer Science.

* Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).

* Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.

* VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).

All achieved before reaching the age of 35.

Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!

* Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.

* Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.

* In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from

Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.

* He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.

Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!

* Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.

* Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.

After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!

* Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.

* Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he

started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).

AND Herman did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—

STACK THAT UP AGAINST THE ‘COMMUNITY ORGANIZER’….Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.


123. I am a Ron Paul fan. I've never done any drugs and don't plan on it. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that dumb statement. It just tells me that you are uninformed when it comes to Ron Paul. And race42012 seems to be a place for the Romney and Newt fans only. I stumbled across this website and the news is so biased its disgusting (Just like this article). Educate yourself. Please.


I really don't care about any candidate unless I think they can beat Barack Obama, so that's the first question I ask myself. The only Republican in this race that can beat Obama is Mitt Romney, and even Mitt-haters are starting to realize that after seeing these ridiculous candidates immolate before our eyes.

I would have preferred a Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc. to be our nominee, but we have to play the cards we're dealt.

If there's only one candidate that can win, it really doesn't matter how much better of a conservative the others are if only means a second term for Obama.

I honestly think though that on issues that matter, Romney will be more conservative than his detractors would have you believe.


I do find most Ron Paul supporters are very educated and informed way more beyond others. They read many books, research many sources, and do not just believe what the Mainstream media machine puts out as do most of the general population who spend their time watching Jersey Shore. I have spent many hours looking at what others post on their candidates fan pages, Cain fans (I am praying for you, how can they speak bad about you) they seem to be very unempowered and uniformed and Cain only appeals to them because they can understand 999. That is about the level they understand, Romney supporters are Mormon, or sellouts because they think he is the only chance to beat Obama but they don't realize, he is a copy of Obama, so they will get the same thing. Newt are the NEO Cons who actually believe into the military propaganda and that Iran really is a threat and we have to go to war to solve things when the real way for peace is Trade because any country who has money invested will not risk it. I have a Masters degree, I have lived in 5 countries, I am a Veteran, a mother, wife, I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East, and it is beyond me how people cannot see what is staring right in front of their face. We all know that Bush and Obama were and are not effective and the only candidate who is different than all of them is Ron Paul.


139. Thank you for speaking the truth.


I just love how us Paul supporters are questioned and demonized about if we would vote for another candidate. Yet here, blatantly, is a circle jerk of neo conservatives saying that they would never vote for Ron Paul even if he did win the nomination. You guys wouldn't be demonized, instead the so called "conservative" loudmouths like Levin and Limbaugh would be applauding your arrogant decision. Amazing. Idiots.


"Also, did not know that regarding Masscare that Romney started it off one way & that it was expanded by the Dem legislature. Sounds about right for Massachusetts, but not something I was aware of. Good to know."

Really???? How can anyone who is a FPP not be informed enough to know something that has been brought up by Romney supporters for, oh, six years or so? Sad.



Any Paul supporter unwilling to be a tiny bit pragmatic in the general and vote for the superior of two candidates (GOP v. Obama) to help our country is an idiot. Any person voting libertarian/constitution/green/etc. is a moron. Similarly, should Paul win the nomination, any current supporter of Romney/Newt/Cain/etc. that does not back Paul is an idiot.

Fiscally, we aren't far from the point of no return. This election is critical. Anyone splitting away votes for "cause" candidates rather than going w/an electable candidate that will at least stem the tide of Obama's damage (in the general) is pathetic.


139. "Romney supporters are Mormon, or sellouts because they think he is the only chance to beat Obama but they don’t realize, he is a copy of Obama, so they will get the same thing."

This statement epitomizes why some people have come to dislike Dr. Paul. It's inflammatory. It tells me that if I'm not Mormon and I like Mitt, I'm both a sell out and a moron because I'm not going for your particular version of a "principled" candidate and I'm not smart enough to recognize Mitt = Obama.

I'm not a sell out. I'm not a moron. After studying all of the candidates--including Dr. Paul--I believe Mitt is the best candidate in the game. I believe he's a great candidate and a great man. I'm impressed by his production in life and his incredible family balance over decades. His position shifts seem reasonable to me. He's a tremendously accomplished man who's life does not resemble Obama's at all. And neither do his views. The only broadly true statement about Romney is that he's the only one that can beat Obama. That's reality in my opinion.

I'm an officer in the US Army. I have a JD (Law) & a BS (Economics)--I graduated both programs with substantial honors. I've studied all of the great philosophers and economists. I read history and policy books regularly. I've led missions for the Army on two continents--will be three in 2012. I'm a devoted husband and father of three. I'm a patriot.

You and I have many similar experiences and we've both spent substantial time in school. We both enjoy personal education and we both love our country. Yet we've come to very different conclusions about who the best candidate for president is. I believe you are deeply wrong in your conclusion (about Romney) and I think it's a shame. I believe you've lost sight of the forest for the trees. I agree with most of what you said. Paul supporters, on average, are more read than supporters of any other candidate. However, they're frequently not as well read as they think they are. Most can speak economics as far as anti-Fed talking points take them and no further. And others are much smarter and more informed than me.

Good luck in your support of Paul. If he wins the nomination, I'll zealously support him--out of uniform, of course. :) Please try to broaden your view of those supporting other candidates. Some of us might not be the stupid, unprincipled, ignoramuses you seem to think we are.


I am a Mormon from Utah and I can tell you that a large number of Romney's supporters are Mormon. That doesn't mean there are non Mormons that don't support him but there are plenty that support him only because he is Mormon. I worked in the Olympics and I saw Romney directing traffic because it was blocked and I don't think others would have done that. I respect him and he is a great business man but I do not agree with his politics and I don't see him making changes nor his policies being different from Obama. Him flip flopping doesn't help to convince me he won't flip flop when he is president. Aside from the Mormons, I see many people voting for him because they dislike Obama so much and they think he will win it they are voting for him. Many conservatives hate Obama so much they are not even looking what politicians have to offer but only who they think can take out Obama.

The only GOP who is different than the others is Ron Paul, even if it is not Mitt, I don't think the others will do anything different than what Bush or Obama did. Everybody is saying the same stuff that has not made any changes.

What Ron Paul has more than others is that many Dems are changing to Republican just to vote for Ron Paul because of his foreign policy. There is not one single Republican, that can take the Democratic votes away from Obama except Paul which is already happening now.

I believe that Ron Paul has a better chance to win then does any other candidate for that reason. I am not choosing to vote for RP just because he can win but because I believe that following the constitution, being consistent and not flip flopping, not providing bailouts, trading with people rather than going to war is the only way this country can change.

Please explain to me why you clearly refuse to vote for Ron Paul?


If the issue is trust... which you indicate it is with Mitt... you lose me. You could trust Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry but not Mitt Romney? Why? Neither Newt or Rick have been as consistent and scandal free as Mitt.

And in fact trusting Newt Gingrich is.... absolutely unbelievable. I would not trust Newt Gingrich to take care of my dog for a weekend. There is nothing about his life that has been consistent or straightforward or trust worth. His financial life is a mess, his private life is a mess, his religious life is full of this whim or another...

He makes millions of dollars selling his influence. That is the only thing Newt Gingrich has... his ideas suck. And as soon as that is discovered he claims he never meant it that way... and blames it on someone else. He never owns up to anything. He is a slippery as an eel.

Gingrich has influence and he sells it to the highest bidder regardless of principles. Wow.

And if you have enough money, Rick Perry's your guy! What do you need an executive order to do and what will it cost him? You could trust that?

On the other hand you have Mitt. He has been slandered in the most vicious ways. Yet he has a solid, loyal, base of support, who did the research and found out the lies... and we are here.

We are vouching for him. Trust him. Who in his life has he ever let down? His parents? His church? His wife? His children? His business associates? His constituents? Other than becoming more conservative on abortion, he followed through on all his promised obligations to his constituents.

What person has ever said Mitt left someone in a lurch? Mitt Romney sold his good name for a product or service he did not believe in. Who has ever been given a kick back to help him? Has anyone said he backed out of a promise?

He has changed his mind. He has left open his mind to new information. What is untrustworthy about that? If you find out something you knew is wrong shouldn't you be open enough to change? How is that untrustworthy.

I do not know what Mitt Romney could do that would prove he is trustworthy. He just is trustworthy. But the misinformation seems to matter more than the truth of his life.

It is such a puzzle. If it is the misinformation that makes you doubt him, go to read through the explanations of the misinformation.

You were comfortable listening and trusting his enemies... now why not give his friends a chance to tell you how they see things.

Go to look up the specific question you have. If it still bothers you ask the site to answer the question.

There is no way people of honest intentions should not trust Mitt Romney. I do.

I trust Mitt.

Maybe you don't trust him to do everything the way you would do it. Maybe not. But I trust he has a basic conservative way of thinking. And will do better than any of the others at governing in a conservative way.

I trust Mitt. You can too.


First off I consider myself an independent. An as I see it Matt this is what you have

1 Romney a politician who has been running for president for 7yrs like Obama an who will tell you what you want to here to get your vote. An his supporters know it. So if you want, drink the kool-aid.

2 Gingrich I could be here forever talking about all the things he has done wrong, but lets just say a politician who has been so much of the problem that is Washington politics. An not much integrity left if he had any to begin with, so if you believe in third chances have at it.

3 Perry Career Politician, enough said. So if you like been there done that he's yours!

4 Paul Definitely different, has some good ideas, BUT anyones foreign policy that is will make friends with them like Iran MUST BE A HIPPIE. We will always need to be strong militarily so for me thats a deal breaker. So if you like take a toke an cast your vote.

5 Cain Interesting, an educated businessman whose never been a politician, but not much of a political record, not sure what your going to get, but is that bad or good. Making lots of mistakes but is that to be expected. Allegations being made, who do you believe, is it political, do you care.

6 The rest. SERIOUSLY

The one thing we don't know is which one is truly a conservative to the core but we do know the one who is not the politician. So for every one here who is a political science major or who thinks what goes on in Washington is fine vote for politics as usual! If anybody here really wants change then you have to vote for the unknown. Those in the tea party keep calling for change an a true conservative but they want that from career politicians. Ain't gonna happen. What's the purpose of the tea party if there all going to fall in line an vote for Romney. NONE! An regardless of the Presidential outcome if Romney wins the nomination they lose all there clout. Who knows what we would get with Cain, but it would be a fun ride an definitely a start in the change department. An who here would not love to see all the liberals freaking out over say a Cain - Rubio ticket. So if you want change you have to vote for the unknown. If your going to vote for the candidate who you think can beat Obama that's fine, but do me a favor an shut up about change!



So after all that's happened, you're "waiting to be wowed." Well, I hate to say this, but if you haven't been wowed by Mitt up to this point, I don't think it's going to happen in the next couple months. With the number of serious policy proposals he's outlined, his fierce conservative agenda that he's laid out in detail, and his stellar debate performances... my only comfort is knowing that nobody else can possibly live up to your expectations either.

This is going to become known as the campaign of attrition. Mitt is the only one who has been vetted, and hasn't crumbled. Most will lean his way when voting actually happens, because he's the only one who's not going to be laying on the floor bleeding.


When folks consistently bring up the "Romney will say anything to get elected" meme, it absolutely amazes me. If you look to the one time he was elected, of the 23 specific campaign promises he made, he kept 22. Not a bad record of keeping your word in this political world, wouldn't you say?



That's a pretty specific number, Irish. Do you have a list or a link to those promises?


Even though I'd vote for him in the general election, a few of the reasons I wouldn't support Ron Paul in the primaries are that

a) He has no real executive experience--he's never run any significant organization, he's only been in the house all these years, which means he's all talk and has just voted. I think we need someone competent with executive experience at this time in the WH who is absolutely committed to reducing spending, etc.

b) Many of Ron Paul's ideas are just that--ideas. I have seen no path to actually getting them through Congress--no clear organized plan to getting there. As someone who knows the constitution, Paul is under no illusions about what his power would and would not be. He himself admitted--I think it was in a post-debate interview--that he'd never be able to get most of his ideas passed due to resistance from Congress. So most of what would get done in a Paul Presidency would be speeches on his ideas and lamenting that they're not getting done. We don't need a pontificator-in-chief at this time.

c) I think Mitt is more solid in the executive area and in actually getting ideas accomplished. I actually think that Mitt would get more of Ron Paul's ideas implemented that Ron Paul himself could. In fact, he'd certainly get more of the conservative agenda moved forward than any of the other candidates, even those who may be a bit more to the right ideologically, but are far less competent and capable of getting things done--Mitt has demonstrated the ability in both business and in governing and is clearly showing, for those who are paying attention, that he's been preparing to hit the ground running if elected.


So basically Mr. Newman is like every other non romney supporter: confused and unable to find a person that meets his ideological needs that is still a legitimate candidate.

My guess is he like most others will end up voting for Romney realizing he is the only legitimate person to put up against obama.


Considering Mitt is up against a media machine that has been planning how to defeat him for the last 8 years... and have put a great deal of money and energy into it as pointed out in this:

How has anyone ever overcome this kind of bigotry?

I weep for this country. We never learn. I also don't get what is so threatening about people who's religious views are not exactly like yours. I don't know what is so threatening to inspire such hatred.


John an Petunia

Not confused here at all. The problem with all the Romney supporters is the fact they enjoy politics as usual. Political science majors an those who love everything about politics. Good Luck with that. Keep sipping that kool-aid. My business an this country doesn't need more of that. True tea party people want real change or there is no purpose for the movement. NO LEMMING HERE. An please don't bring religion into this because Bachman could argue sexism an Cain race. PLEASE.


Mark in Pa

Romney may not crumble before the nomination but he will during the election over OBAMACARE.

Do you like cherry or vanilla flavored kool-aid?


Ron Paul is the only true conservative in this race - the likes of which this country hasn't seen in a long time. Ron Paul's philosophy of 'Mutually Assured Respect' provides a road map not only on Foreign Policy; but on Domestic Policy as well.......


I am a Mormon from Utah and I can tell you that a large number of Romney’s supporters are Mormon. That doesn’t mean there are non Mormons that don’t support him but there are plenty that support him only because he is Mormon. I worked in the Olympics and I saw Romney directing traffic because it was blocked and I don’t think others would have done that. I respect him and he is a great business man but I do not agree with his politics and I don’t see him making changes nor his policies being different from Obama. Him flip flopping doesn’t help to convince me he won’t flip flop when he is president. Aside from the Mormons, I see many people voting for him because they dislike Obama so much and they think he will win it they are voting for him. Many conservatives hate Obama so much they are not even looking what politicians have to offer but only who they think can take out Obama.

The only GOP who is different than the others is Ron Paul, even if it is not Mitt, I don’t think the others will do anything different than what Bush or Obama did. Everybody is saying the same stuff that has not made any changes.

What Ron Paul has more than others is that many Dems are changing to Republican just to vote for Ron Paul because of his foreign policy. There is not one single Republican, that can take the Democratic votes away from Obama except Paul which is already happening now.

I believe that Ron Paul has a better chance to win then does any other candidate for that reason. I am not choosing to vote for RP just because he can win but because I believe that following the constitution, being consistent and not flip flopping, not providing bailouts, trading with people rather than going to war is the only way this country can change.

Please explain to me why you clearly refuse to vote for Ron Paul?

Another Mormon for Ron Paul :)

On the foreign policy, Ron Paul gets hit a lot from conservatives but I think you folks underestimate how unpopular intervention in the Middle East has become. Do any of you really think Americans are going to look favorably on an attack on Iran to ostensibly stop them from getting a nuke? Even most of the passive Romney supporters I find around here in the most pro-Romney state in America are easily swayed that attacking Iran would be counterproductive and a total waste of money and all agree that we should sell weapons to nearby states or even talk with Iran rather than attack them. Putting them incidentally in Ron Paul's camp on foreign policy. I find a lot of respect and admiration for Romney among Mormons, but disassociated with Romney, his foreign policy is not at all popular. Ron Paul's is.

The war argument is a weak one and doubly so when there's no money for it. Does anyone want to stand on a belief that we should keep pushing ourselves in foreign nations at great expense to the nation? That's not going to run well and you know it.

Hawks should consider the attitudes of the American people, which are much closer to Ron Paul than to other candidates on a war


I have no issues with Romney as a person. I think you could trust Romney to follow his agenda and any politician. It comes down to do you support their agenda and how do you know they will follow it. I also don't think Romney's or the others beside RP will work. I can say though Huntsman hasn't been very clear so I am not 100% on his stance other than people that worked for him think he is When it comes to trust, I don't trust people because of their religion or values, I have met many liars and scammers of all races, faiths, and religions. I trust somebody's voting record to show me what is their agenda and do they follow it which RP does for 30 years. It is certain what you will get and not to mention I agree with him.

Honestly I am suprised at Romney's foreign policy stance, considering he is a supposed conservative, the country cannot afford to go to war not to mention Iran being a forget that most of 911 were Saudies and most of the fighters in Iraq our Saudis and Libyian Rebels who we support.., and the US continous biased support of Isreal is not Pro American and I care about America and think we and others should mind their own business. I know if my neighbor was trying to tell me what to do and the same for all of us, we would be one ticked of bunch of people. I really thought Romney was smarter than that to buy into the propaganda and really know how things work in the Middle East and with the world. Not to mention him supporting the bail outs loses my vote right away.

Anyway, I will be campaigning with the other ladies in my neighborhood...Mormon wives and mothers for Ron Paul :)


Just as I was saying. It seems others are clueing IN :)

There is a man who's working on Obama's campaign right now -- just as he did in 2007 and '08 -- who will be voting for Ron Paul in the general election if he's on the ballot. I know because we have a mutual friend who told me about a conversation she had with him.

That's one hell of a political cross-over.

And there's plenty more where that came from.

This week, pundits have been abuzz with the fact that the latest poll in Iowa puts Paul, Romney, Cain and Gingrich in a statistical dead heat to win the GOP primary in a couple of months.

Now, I'm like most of Ron Paul's supporters in supporting him for mostly philosophical reasons to do with liberty, the Constitution, and peace. My articles have reflected that, but now that our candidate is tying for first place in one of the most important primaries in the country, political arithmetic becomes as important as principles. Partisan Republicans -- who care a lot about a Republican victory but don't much care for Ron Paul -- tend to be moved more by political arithmetic and strategy than, say, peace and liberty, but since these partisans have significant power to affect electoral outcomes, the arithmetic that is important to them must be important to us.

Therefore, I've taken off my historical and philosophical hat, and donned a strategic one, and I find myself as optimistic as ever as I ponder the following.

First, the old (non-Blue) Republican base is shrinking: the number of registered Republicans has been decreasing. The one candidate who is reversing this trend and has shown himself to be able to open the door to the hearts and minds of a significant chunk of the majority of the country that comprises Independents plus Democrats -- is Ron Paul. Indeed, the fact that no other Republican candidate has such cross-over appeal -- let alone an entire movement (so significant that it has a name that is being used in the mainstream media) of people who are burying the political habits of a lifetime to vote for him -- indicates that the overwhelming majority of newly registering Republicans are for Ron Paul.

If I were a partisan hack, why would I want to fight an election with a shrinking minority of the nation when I could be doing it with a man who can appeal to the majority?

Second, the fastest growing self-identified group of voters in the USA is Independents -- a group which prefers Ron Paul over all other candidates. Paul currently leads Obama by 9% among Independents. Since Independents are more than a third of the nation, that's a 3% margin in the presidential election.

Third, partisan Republicans should also be aware of a poll by Rasmussen, conducted a few months ago, in which likely Republican voters were asked whether they would vote for the Republican nominee for president if that nominee were not their preferred nominee (whom they'd vote for in the primaries/caucuses). About 90% of Republicans who supported candidates other than Ron Paul said they would support the Republican nominee, whoever he was, whereas only about half of Ron Paul's supporters said they would do so. And that half is going to decline as more Republicans register specifically for Ron Paul with no love for the Republican party.

Even if Ron Paul were to get only 6% of the electorate as die-hard supporters, and assuming Rasmussen's figures are right, then if the Republicans select anyone other than Paul to run against Obama, they lose 3% of the vote (half of 6%) right off the bat.

On top of all that, I'm hearing more of Democrats who will not become Blue Republicans to help Paul win the GOP nomination and will vote for Obama if he runs against anyone except for Ron Paul; if Dr. Paul runs, however, they have already decided to vote for him instead. Let's just posit a tiny 1% swing right there -- that's a 2% change in the margin of votes.

Taking a bit of a mathematical liberty (since these numbers are not strictly additive), adding the 3% to the 3% to the 2% gets us to an 8% preference for Ron Paul over other GOP candidates against Obama before we even start. This percentage not only exceeds the margin by which Obama won in '08, but would have been enough to change the outcome of every presidential election since Reagan.

In other words, ceteris paribus, a Ron Paul candidacy overwhelmingly brings in the Independents, brings over a significant percentage of Democrats who would otherwise be voting Obama (rather than staying home) and still appeals to clear Constitutional conservatives in the Republican base. The Republicans simply have no other viable candidate who satisfies one of those conditions -- let alone all three.

It's also worth mentioning that Ron Paul's poll numbers are like a ratchet. They only go one way: converts to Paul's Constitutional classical liberalism (look it up) almost never change their minds. Dr. No is sticky. No other candidate has that going for him, either.

The only reasonable counter-argument seems to be that the neo-con Republican base has a problem with Paul's foreign policy. Frankly, that would be easy to take care of in the presidential campaign. Paul gets more support from veterans and active military personnel than does either Obama or all the other Republican candidates put together. The GOP needs only explain to the nation why, remind us all that Paul is himself a veteran, remind themselves that Paul's Constitutional foreign policy is more in line with Republican tradition (and more conservative) than anything we've seen for a few decades, and let Paul's predictions about expanded government and the economic crash play on continuous loop to cover everything else.

But why even bother with these mental games, since if Ron Paul does not to win the GOP nomination, none of it matters?

They are worth playing because the Ron Paul campaign is currently gaining ground in spite of the party and in spite of the media. If I can do this math, then so can the party chairman, party operatives, other Republican candidates who'd like to be in the winning party in 2012, and the campaign consultants who will help them achieve that. None of those people even have to be excited about the philosophy of Ron Paul to pick a winner when they think they've seen one.

The partisan operatives might not much like the implications of the Obama campaigner who will vote for Ron Paul, the rise of the Blue Republican movement, or even the latest Iowa polls, but at the end of the day, for no other reason than winning is better than losing, they might well accept them. When they do, and the establishment resistance begins to melt, we will have reached our tipping point.

At this rate, that point may not too far away.

But here is the critical strategic lesson for the "Ron Paul nation." If they want to make things tip in their favor sooner rather than later, they need to decide now -- and let it be widely known -- that they will vote for Ron Paul whether or not he is on the ballot (by writing him in if necessary), and not for the Republican, whoever else he may be.

If they do that, they will make the math work for them, and multiply the impact of their efforts to date in a way that will guarantee that the political landscape becomes changed for good -- in both senses of that phrase.


So 159

What your saying is sham everyone into believing his foreign policy is different. You rule from a position of strength period. An he doesn't believe in that, an has he even said it. That's why he won't win the nomination, might be sad but true. Wow Paul supporters out in full force tonight.


I don't see that, David.

I read this instead: remind themselves that Paul’s Constitutional foreign policy is more in line with Republican tradition (and more conservative) than anything we’ve seen for a few decades

David, to talk about the "position of strength", do you think China is in a position of strength? I think you'd agree as most would that they are. Can you likewise remember when was the last time China used its military abroad? Or name a base that the Chinese military maintains in a foreign nation for the protection of its interests?

America is in a position of strength by virtue of its size alone. Couple with that its large amount of natural resources, capital, technology, and flexible military, and it's no wonder that America dominates. Ron Paul's point is that America is not an empire. America will never be Britain, or France, or Russia. And the more we attempt to impose ourselves to dominate other nations of the world, the weaker we will become in the long run. American imperialism inspires only hostility and strife, and that's not a game America has the will to win. It's not our national character.


A position of strength because of size that's laughable look at occupy wal street if we were not a military might an had to organize that's what we would get. China became a player the minute they got nukes. We did have that will an that's what this country needs back!


It's been fun, I am out, and not interested in this blog. The Republicans will not win until they can unite, and if Obama wins then it serves everybody right. America eventually will wake up one day and I hope it is not so bad. If it is, I will just laugh and say I TOLD You so!


foramericagirl has taken her ball an went home.


I'll take my ball and go home too, if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination. I'm voting for him in the general election, regardless of if I have to write him in. I will not toe the party line. I encourage my friends and family to do the same, and they're coming around.


Voting for the non-politician isn't exactly following the party line.


Wow, this list is fun. May I do mine, in short snippets???

Bachmann: Excellent mathemetician, Out of touch with real life.

Huntsmann: Kinda strange, really.

Cain: Great Actor, great charmer, Reagan qualities...won't work in 2012

Gingrich: better start WORKING OUT if he wants to win.

Romney: Smart Businessman, confused values

Perry: Will stand up for AMERICA!!! (isn't that what we need right now?)

Santorum: Nasty, Ignorant Right-Winger

Paul: Too Negative, No Personality

Johnson: Know absolutely NOTHING about him.


Why wouldn't you choose Paul? Because he's not a neocon war mongerer? I mean seriously...he's the most conservative candidate in the race, and is a traditional conservative. He supported Reagan taking on the russians. But besides that, this race is going to be between romney and paul. And either would be great in my opinion. Romney has come a long way since 08', and has convinced me he would be a pro-life president.



Are you saying you support Perry? Still? That's just idiocy here. I'm sorry, but i warned people of that guy before he got into the race. His record isn't conservative, and he uses his religion for politics. Unlike the CHRISTIAN Ron Paul, who believes in the Christian doctrine of war....and doesn't use his faith to hook voters.



With all due respect, if Ron Paul was so great he would be doing better than he is. The man has been running for president for 6 years just like Romney and he STILL has not gotten a clear, concise message out. Even Perry, who you seem to hate, is doing a better job at that and he's been running for only 3 months.


P.S. I never said I was not supporting Perry anymore, so don't put words in my mouth. What I said was... I am now open to supporting Romney if Perry fails. I guess I have two candidates. But I still think Romney is not the most authentic candidate, Perry is.


Cain foreign policy

A few days ago, after coming under criticism for my answer to a question about Libya in an interview, I made a lighthearted comment that reflected all this – that I’m not supposed to know everything (most of the media quoted me as saying “anything”) about foreign policy.

Bizarre things happen when you run for president, one of which is that statements like this go viral, with people claiming I had somehow made the case that no knowledge of world affairs is required for the job.

I obviously don’t think that, but I’m also quite willing be honest about my strengths. My background is in the business world, and my greatest strength concerns the economy. My motivation in running for president is to apply my leadership skills to all issues – foreign and domestic. But clearly, as I have met with foreign policy luminaries like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger, I have done a lot more listening than talking – because they know a lot more about it than I do, and it would be absurd for me to claim otherwise.

That said, a man taking the oath of office for the presidency must have a sense of America’s place in the world, and must have a clear idea of the challenges, threats and opportunities that present themselves. Otherwise, success on the economic front likely goes for naught, as mistakes in the international arena tend to be costly both in the short term and in the long term.

My approach to foreign policy is to apply a general set of principles to each situation we face, and I have summarized these principles as peace through strength and clarity. This is a modernized version of the Reagan philosophy that helped bring down the Soviet Union and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, and also won a series of victories – though not a complete and lasting victory – in South and Central America.

What does this mean?

In a broad sense, it means that I would not retreat on initiatives that strengthen America’s strategic standing in order to buy some sort of accommodation with those who do not have an interest in our security. For example, I would not have welched on America’s commitment to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe because the Russians didn’t like it. The security of the U.S. and our allies would take precedence over the concerns of a nation whose strategic interests are often contrary to ours.

That is one of the reasons I would not have signed the New START treaty, as President Obama did in 2010. Not only did that treaty commit America to arms reductions that the Russians would not necessarily have to match, but it permitted them to maintain a sizable advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, while ignoring programs and ambitions of other nations like Iran, North Korea, China and Pakistan. But more to the point, we simply don’t need to be signing treaties like this with unfriendly countries. The United States can make its own decisions about the nature and the volume of strategic assets we want to deploy. We don’t need to ask anyone’s permission.

As president, I intend to be a strong supporter of America’s strongest allies, and that absolutely includes Israel. I agree with the statement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if Israel’s enemies were to lay down their weapons today, there would be peace, whereas if Israel were to lay down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Supporting Israel is crucial not only because it is an important strategic ally, but also because it is the most free and democratic nation in the region, and a threat to Israel’s security is a threat to freedom everywhere.

Peace through strength and clarity means there is no doubt about where we stand, for what we stand and with whom we stand. We stand in support of free nations who respect the rights of their people and do not threaten their neighbors. And we treat our allies like allies. President Obama’s lukewarm treatment of Great Britain has served to create tension within the most important strategic relationship we have ever had. Likewise, his friendly embrace of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez during a meeting of regional leaders sent exactly the wrong signal, as did his naïve statement during the 2008 campaign that he would sit down and talk to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without conditions.

Peace through strength means recognizing that we are the United States, and we are the ones who approach these things from a position of strategic superiority. Clarity means we treat our allies like allies, and others have to earn the right to stand with us (and that especially applies to those who hope to receive aid from us – that isn’t happening if you are hostile to us or to our allies).

I agree with former President George W. Bush that the United States should promote free democratic movements throughout the world, and that it is in our strategic interests to do so. That does not mean we try to “impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” as some of Bush’s rather disingenuous critics claimed he was doing. It means we support these movements where the opportunity presents itself (as President Obama should have in Iran and Syria) or when strategic necessity compels us (as I believe President Bush correctly did in Iraq in 2003). And you don’t always have to use force.

Peace through strength and clarity also recognizes the danger posed by nuclear proliferation, particularly when it involves regimes like Iran or North Korea, which give every reason to believe they may initiate the use of nuclear weapons against other nations. The U.S. must be willing to use its power to stop nuclear proliferation. If we regard such action as beyond the pale, then we essentially concede that all non-proliferation agreements are meaningless.

The most effective application of strength is that which is rarely used. Our troops are already overstretched and our financial resources are limited. An America that is capable and ready, and backs up what it says, won’t have to take action all that often. The world’s bad actors will know we are serious.

I think it’s clear by now that I am not going to score the best of all the candidates on media pop quizzes about the details of current international events. Some have claimed that I take some sort of perverse satisfaction in not knowing all these details. That is not true. I want to know as much as I can. But a leader leads by gathering all the information available in a given situation, and making the best decision at the time based on that information, and in accordance with sound principles. As president, I would not be required to make decisions on the spur of the moment based on a question from a reporter. I would make them the way I made them as a CEO – based on careful consideration of all the facts and the best advice of the best people.

But it is crucial to understand that my foreign policy decisions will always be based on the principles I have laid out here. That will not change, because these are the principles that best represent America’s heritage, and best advance our interests, as well as the interests of all freedom-loving nations and peoples.

Comments are closed.

Search R4'16