With Hilary Rosen’s attack on Ann Romney, and the Romney campaign’s amazingly well coordinated response, the Obama campaign has been awakened quite rudely to the fact that the Romney campaign is not going to idly sit back and allow the president to continue to divide the country. 

I have not been a fan of Mitt Romney to say the least, but his campaign’s response to the attacks on his incredible wife, lead by Mrs Romney herself, has been fantastic and has made me way more optimistic about our chances in November.

While I am not a professional political professional by any stretch, my reccomendation to the Romney campaign would be this: with an improving economy, exploit your wealth. The message should be “I owe my wealth and prosperity to the American dream, I have been able to help people create wealth and prosperity with their families and I know what it takes to create an environment that can help you create wealth and prosperity for your families.” We may never be as wealthy as Mitt Romney, but I think every American would like to prosper whatever that looks like for them. 

Romney can point out he represents the ideal of what America is all about. President Obama on the other hand wants to punish success, punish prosperity, punish wealth. 

My hunch is, based on their response to Rosengate, some variation of what I have posted is what the Romney campaign will put out.

A couple of days ago I had the opportunity to screen “Bully” –  a new documentary that talks about bullying in schools. While I haven’t heard too much from conservatives regarding the film specifically, I have heard discussions about bullying in schools that amount to “it’s apart of life – get over it.” To the extent that I think cruelty is apart of human nature and there will always be kids who prey on other kids, I think that’s good advice. But the problem is that our culture has so instilled the “every kid gets a trophy mentality” that kids feel absolutely powerless when they fail at something or they’re criticized in any shape or form. And that’s what was absolutely fascinating to me, as a conservative, about the film. It’s absolutely brilliant, unintentionally perhaps, in that it highlights major problems in our culture that stem from the fact that the first generation of the great American “everyone wins” experiment now have children of their own and are having to deal with raising them in a culture that is increasingly ran by people with this mentality.

I sensed no political bend in this film. One of the kids highlighted is a lesbian, but all she was really pushing for in the film is to be respected as a human being and some of her experiences she describes would, I hope, make the most ardent social conservative cringe at the behavior of some of the people in her world. I don’t think anyone would approve of the way she was described being treated in the film. Overall the films message was to kids to take a stand for kids being bullied and I really hope the MPAA allow it to be PG-13 or the director edits some of the language out, because I think it’s very important for kids to see – because of the culture we live in, what we say to people can have a real serious effect on them. And it’s important to treat everyone with respect and stand up for people who are being cruelly teased. That is the only real “prescription” the film provides, but there are some real problems it revealed that will be of no surprise to conservatives:

1) Our highly federalized centralized education system instills the idea that parents subjects rather than partners in creating a safe environments for our kids. One of the essential reasons I support more local control over education is that it gets the parents more involved in the decision making for creating a safe and flourishing learning environment for our kids. There’s a scene in the film where parents of a child interviewed for the film are shown the footage the director has compiled of their son because the director feared for the child’s safety. The parents meet with the principle who informs them that he can change bus routes, but can’t guarantee the children on the bus will behave. The parent brings up the fact that when she was a kid there was little stopping the bus driver pulling over until kids behaved themselves and sat down. The principle then told the parents that she had taken a ride on the route their son was on and that the kids where behaved on it.

2) Administrative officials seem more interested in CYA on their own part, than taking responsibility for their kids. Between this film and “Waiting for Superman” I’m seeing that a lot of the problem in schools aren’t teachers – it’s the union bosses and the lazy administrations in schools. When the Principal asked a Vice Principal to investigate the situation above, the VP interviewed various students, including the student who’s parents complained. The bullied student mentioned that he did not let authority figures know because nothing was done previously when a bully lifted a seat cushion put the kid’s head underneath it and sat on the cushion. The VP proceeded to defend herself rather pathetically and asked the bullied kid if the bully ever did that exact thing ever to him again. The kid responded, “Yeah, but he did other stuff.” The parents of that school system should be able to work with the school system to make sure discipline policies are in place that protect their kids from behavior like that.But I can see how difficult that is with lazy self-serving administrative officials like that.

2) The “Self-Esteem” project of the last forty years has failed miserably. I’m 25, so I don’t know for sure, but something tells me kids were not killing themselves after being bullied 25, 30, 40 years ago. Every kid through the ages struggles at some point or another with insecurity. It’s apart of life, everyone goes through it. I remember insecure times in my life as a kid (and now as a young adult trying to find a way to make it, I’m having to work through some insecurity as well). Liberals believe the answer to insecurity is “feeling good” or “self-esteem” In the midst of failure tell your kid how great they are, the theory goes, and they’ll be awesome. The problem with this is that it ignores reality and truth because the truth is, being a last place baseball team is a failure on behalf of the the team of kids – but it should not and does not define their worth. Those kids may not be good at baseball, but they’re probably good at other things. “Self-esteem” sends kids running off focusing on things that just waste their time rather than helping kids find their life’s purpose and what they are good at. The anecdote to insecurity is security. It’s instilling real confidence in the kid in who they are. It’s really challenging to do as a parent, or pastor, or teacher, but it’s worth it. There are too many kids, and it’s not their fault by the way, it’s our culture’s, who welt away at any sort of criticism. It’s up to parents and the adults kids have in their lives to instill that security that prevents terrible things from happening.

Any thoughts on this subject? I highly recommend seeing the film, prepare to be heartbroken as you’ll hear testimonies from parents who’s children have committed suicide and see some really sweet kids being absolutely tortured at schools. They deserve a better culture and a better outlook on life  than the one we’ve allowed to be given to them.

I know this might shock some conservatives, but those of us supporting Newt Gingrich for President aren’t necessarily going to just jump right over to Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum is not a conservative.

He’s voted time and time again for stupid policies like No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Benefit (which, to my amazement, Newt continues to support.) His excuse of “getting behind the leader” doesn’t fly. A real true conservative leader would have stood up to dumb policies like that…. or Romney’s Health Care Bill.

Which is why it makes me absolutely sick that I might actually have to pull the trigger for Romney in June when California finally gets to vote. Why am I choosing Romney over Santorum?

Because while Romney is also quite liberal for a Republican, he’s not running around telling people he’s a conservative like Santorum is. When Bush, another liberal Republican, went around telling people he was a conservative it gave people the wrong impression about what conservatism is. Our conservative forefathers, Coolidge, Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan would barf if someone told them that the 2000′s administration and government was supposedly “conservative” with it’s record levels of spending, unbelievable new entitlements, unmanageable federal regulations and mandates, and the list goes on and on. Rick Santorum was a leader in the senate, he dutifully got in line, and like Bush, he’ll use his social stances, which are becoming less and less popular as the days go on, to claim he’s a conservative.

If Santorum wins the nomination and becomes president, the conservative movement is badly badly damaged. We need a true fiscal and defense conservative leader to represent conservative ideals and more importantly teach a generation that is increasingly anti-traditionalist about conservative values. The man to do that is not Rick Santorum. It’s not Mitt Romney either, but he’s not going to damage the conservative brand by trying to claim it as his own.

I know Gingrich isn’t going to win the nomination. I’m still voting for him out of principle, but if you want him to drop out, I’m going to vote for Romney and I’m sure I’m not alone.

There is no doubt in my mind that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin struggled when she was chosen to be Senator John McCain’s running mate. That is not to say that, as the new HBO film “Game Change” strongly implies, that Gov. Palin is dumb. But as her released emails show, she was so dedicated to being a good governor in a remote state  that being plucked from relative obscurity, she was not really properly prepared on the national scene. The sourced book “Sarah from Alaska” spells all of this out in detail. There were some scenes in the film “Game Change”, which was based on another book, that were familiar from “Sarah from Alaska,” like the dysfunctional campaign staff, which comes off as disorganized and haphazard. The authors Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe (both of whom frequently receive seemingly Palin approved leaks) deliver the good, bad, and the ugly of Palin. They report that she was woefully unprepared to be Vice President, but also point out that considering her circumstance, she was quick on her feet and smart in picking things up while it was really the McCain campaign that screwed things up. They also report on Palin’s magnificent career as Governor of Alaska, which I suppose you can’t expect HBO to include in a two hour narrative they’re trying to control. After all, the accounts of disgruntled screw-up staffers including Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace were far too juicy and more in line with the left’s view of Palin than the truth.

The real weakness of this film is the performance from Julianne Moore. While Ed Harris’ McCain rings true, as does Woody Harrelson’s Steve Schmidt, The same can’t be said of Julianne Moore’s portrayal of Palin. The film cuts to a Tina Fey parody and one can’t help but think that Moore is doing a parody of Fey doing a parody of Palin. It’s the left’s vision of Palin in full force: dim-witted and eeeevil. The problem with the Palin performance is that this is a film about her written from everyone else’s point of view. “The Iron Lady” which I saw late last year had a left-of-center bend in it’s story telling, the difference between that and this is that Meryl Streep and the film makers did their best to understand Thatcher, her motivations, and her core. Streep’s Oscar was, in my mind, well deserved as she elevated what would have otherwise been a left-wing hit job into a tour de force performance by literally inhabiting Thatcher. The writing, direction, and acting by Moore all sort of poke fun at Palin and never try to figure her out. Moore’s Palin is manipulative, spiteful, childish and nasty in this film. In “The Iron Lady” Steep’s Thatcher was portrayed as stern and harsh because she is a woman running what had been a man’s world. If Steep’s Thatcher is Shylock, a backhanded sympathetic portrayal of an enemy from the author’s point of view, Moore’s Palin is The Joker, an evil, pathetic sort of villain. The film depicts her being mentally unstable, bipolar and double minded. There are a few scenes showing Palin as a “loving mother” but it’s a bone thrown that has been overstated in reviews for the film. In one scene, Palin refuses to prep for her interview with Katie Couric, telling aide Nicolle Wallace she wanted to focus on Alaska. Then moments later she whisper’s in Schmidt’s ear “I so don’t want to go back to Alaska.”  While Palin was certainly under prepared, The film shows her to be ignorant of the fact that the Queen has no direct say in governing the United Kingdom, yet during the 2008 election Gov. Palin cited Margaret Thatcher as an influence for running for office. The film also shows McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann giving Palin a middle school history lesson on the World Wars, Palin scribbling the information down on note cards. Scheunemann discredits the scene saying that his conversations with Governor Palin where much deeper than that and were more about aligning her foreign policy views with those of McCain’s. Again, no one is denying that Palin needed more preparation but the film just takes it to a level that is not even recognizable, that is a sick parody of Palin rather than a balanced interpretation of events.

This is a film made by people who view the heartland and conservative territory as alien. As we’re frequently reminded through the film. A chief example of this is the Charlie Gibson-Katie Couric interview debacles. Nicolle Wallace made a huge strategic blunder by putting an unprepared VP candidate in front of two journalists who, especially in the case of Couric, lean left. There was so much interest in Palin that had she been interviewed by anyone, people would have watched. Why not put her in front of Sean Hannity to start with?  But Wallace comes off as the level headed principled one telling an irritated Palin who says she knows what Hillary was going through that “yeah, you’re just like Hillary.” All of the scenes depicting crowds at McCain-Palin events bring out the conservative stereotypes. I remember going to a Palin event during the election and seeing some of those people – trucker hats and plaid shirts. But there were also Latinos, Asians at my event in Southern California, I was standing next to a African American family holding a Palin sign. They continue the “kill him” lie. Again conservatives are portrayed as “the others.” McCain’s campaign staff can’t believe all of the yahoos, while Palin blends in with them just fine.

The film’s moments are few and far between. Again, Palin is showed as a loving mother but very briefly. The media is also skewered. Schmidt is shown answering some of the more ridiculous questions from the press corp.

It doesn’t surprise me that “Game Change” is getting rave reviews because it’s nothing but two hours of leftist political porn. It does not challenge their point of view or make them think in any meaningful way, it is a two hour film designed to be a punching bag for frustrated leftists who hate Sarah Palin. If you’re looking for substantive film about Sarah Palin, you won’t get it here. The film makers could have adapted “Sarah from Alaska” and they would have gotten the “moments” they were looking for, but from a well sourced, truthful book. Instead they chose to adapt 40 pages from an unsourced book. What a shame, the real story behind Governor Palin is quite a remarkable one.

Needless to say, the new HBO film “Game Change” is a load of crap. Based on accounts from disgruntled campaign staffers with a vendetta to take down on Gov. Palin (yes, we’re looking at your Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace.) Further the book “Game Change” was really primarily about Sen. Hillary Clinton and now President Barack Obama duking it out for the Democratic nomination which is where the interest of the authors was really during this whole process. Only 10% of the book was about Palin and it’s based on the account of a McCain adviser who traveled with Palin a grand total of four times.

That being said, there is a tendency for those close to Palin to try and shield her. Look, I love Governor Palin, had she run for president I would have been behind her, but she didn’t have the best VP run, she was plucked from obscurity and was clearly learning national politics on the spot.

If you want a fair picture of Sarah Palin written with accounts from people who were with her and were willing to go on the record, read “Sarah from Alaska” by Scott Conroy and Shushanah Walshe. Like any great bio, it doesn’t always paint the subject in the most favorable light (read “Steve Jobs” by Walter Isaacson and see what you think about the late Apple founder personally afterwards), but it is fair and it does leave you with the impression that while she may have been unprepared Palin is a very smart person and an incredibly savvy politician. It’s a fair take and I think it’s the reason the Palin camp leaks info to Walshe and Conroy.

Read that book rather than waste your time with that movie.

Previously, I had written a blog post “Three Reasons Santorum Will Lose Against Obama.” One of the interesting things about the comments in that post were the comments that seemed to suggest that I was supporting Mitt Romney by writing that post.

That could not be further from the truth. Believe me, nothing makes me happier than watch a man who has rejected conservatives in making his pitch to the American people, who then tried to appeal to conservatives using outdated stereotypes of us (severely conservative) and failed miserably, who grandfathered ObamaCare in the form of his own health care plan, sweat for a Republican nomination he felt so entitled to (after all, it’s his turn.) Even if the man who’s doing it is someone who has no chance of winning in November.

I am currently supporting Newt Gingrich for the presidency, because while Newt has strayed from the reservation, I believe he 1) is proud of America, believes in America and has faith in the American people. And he doesn’t have to say it all the time to show that. 2) I believe he’s a conservative by instinct who has occasionally strayed from the reservation. Santorum is concerned about America, like Barack Obama, but for different reasons, he looks down on America, similar to the way Obama does it, but for different reasons. He may be right in some instances, but that is not a way to appeal to people. I also do not believe Santorum is a conservative in the way that you and I define conservatism. Santorum believes conservatism is all about traditionalism, it’s a similar conservatism that Bill O’Reilly promotes. Big Government is OK, as long as you’re upholding classic American institutions. Traditionalism is certainly a string of conservatism but it does not define conservatism, especially conservatism in 2012. Based on his campaign, I have no reason to believe Santorum has abandoned that view. He’s consistent, I’ll give him that.

So we’ve already seen why Santorum would lose against Obama, but what affect would it have on the country and perhaps more importantly the Republican Party?

Obviously, four more years of President Obama would be a disaster. And would be devastating for our country.

The reason I say more importantly is because the Republican Party has been the vehicle for conservatives to come into power to help enact our agenda to make America great. For the greater part of the last 50 years, there’s been a struggle between conservatives and moderates/liberals in our party. Santorum, in my view, belongs with the latter group, but he’s aggressively promoting himself as the former propped up by people I greatly admire like Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin. And if he goes down in flames, like I think he will, it will give moderates and liberals in the Republican Party all the ammunition to say, “see when we nominate conservatives, we lose.”

This is probably the worst thing about a Santorum general election loss, it would essentially hand victory to moderates in our party for another few election cycles.

Before we take this leap, we’ve got to consider what this means:

The country is changing. Even younger conservatives are changing. Are we really going to nominate a man who makes issues like this and takes it even further than a lot of us currently do and support him winning election to the presidency and become the de facto leader of the conservative movement for potentially 8 years?

We’ve made so much progress over the last four years in mainstreaming conservatism through the tea party movement (I don’t care what the media says about it) by focusing on fiscal issues that a great majority of people are with us on. Are we really going to support a man who has said he has reservations about the movement? 

Don’t you remember the damage Bush-style big government nanny-state Republicanism masquerading as conservatism did to our party for 8 years? Don’t you remember that it’s this style of Republicanism that lead to the election of Barack Obama and the passage of legislation we all hate? Don’t you know Santorum supports this style of Republicanism to this day? 

Please don’t tell me we’re seriously considering this guy.

Google him. (Don’t click on the first or second link) Spend five minutes looking at his record. And you’ll come to to the conclusion I have:

Newt > Romney > Santorum

Newt is a true conservative who’s stupidly strayed from the reservation from time to time.

Romney is a moderate who’ll be too scared not to enact some conservative reforms because he wants to win re-election and he’ll be easy to primary in 2016.

Santorum believes what he says and he’ll do what he believes is right: expand the federal government Republican style and there are a lot of politically uneducated evangelicals who think of themselves as conservatives who will think Santorum’s great because he talks tough on social issues so he’ll be hard in a primary.

Again.

Newt > Romney > Santorum

I wanted to turn this comment in RealQuiet’s diary about the underestimation of Rick Santorum into it’s own diary and expand on it because it’s very important GOP primary voters see this, because Newt and Mitt won’t attack Santorum from this end because they have their own problems with questions about their conservatism. The fact of the matter is, on many issues Rick Santorum is “far right” in a way that will legitimately scare some moderate and more importantly libertarian voters and on many issues, he’s moderate or even liberal, which conservatives will regret later.

I am sorry as much as it pains me to say this, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are wrong, Rick Santorum is not a desirable candidate in anyway shape or form. Here’s three reasons he will lose against President Obama.

First, His views on libertarians: Rick Santorum has said he hates the “radical individualism” of libertarianism and will do anything to keep it out of the conservative movement. Ron Paul voters and some tea party folks are going to be hard pressed to hear that. They’ll probably support likely libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a popular two term former New Mexico governor over a one term senator who lost his re-election bid by 18 points. Libertarians have to become part of our coalition or we start losing elections. We don’t have to embrace everything they stand for, just like the mainstream conservative movement doesn’t accept all of neoconservatism or any other strain of conservatism, but we’ve got to recognize, in some ways, they’re right and we’ve got enough commonalities that building a coalition at this point is actually an incredibly positive thing, especially as more younger voters with right-leaning views will probably subscribe to aspects of libertarianism, as it allows for more liberal social views even though younger voters tend to be more pro-life. 

Next is his “big government conservatism”. It’s not just his past views, Santorum thinks the progressive income tax system is “just fine” and said he is “proud” of his earmarks. No bueno. I also haven’t heard any compelling reforms from him regarding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I don’t think Santorum has a good grasp of how dire our fiscal situation is. If he did, he would want to save wherever he could. Saying “earmarks are just fine” and the “real problem is entitlements” without offering any meaningful entitlement reform proposals is like an irresponsible family in the midst of a fiscal crisis coming together and saying “spending money on fast food isn’t the problem, it’s that we buy a flat screen TV every month that’s the problem.” Santorum is clearly out of his depth here, people like him because of his social views.

Finally, speaking of His social views, they are extreme and way out of the mainstream. I say that as a pretty socially conservative person myself. People thought Stephanopolus was nuts for asking about contraception, but if you look at what Santorum said as late as last year, you will see why. He believes states should be able to ban contraception and that he thinks contraception is bad because it leads to people doing “immoral” things sexually. See this is where I think Santorum takes it too far: unless a person is being harmed or an animal is being treated inhumanely (you’ll see why I had to say that in a second), it’s none of the government’s business what one does in the privacy of their own bedroom. Santorum’s rhetoric on gays is also way over the top. Comparing gays to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals is WAY out of line, and it will turn off a lot of people. Look, it’s not bad to have a moral objection to homosexual behavior. For some it is a matter of deep faith. But last I checked, Jesus didn’t attach any conditions to “love thy neighbor”. I am not saying that we should condone anything, but it’s not our place to condemn anything either. Santorum seems to believe it’s his job to “pastor” the nation. That is not his job, his job should he be elected is to be the president of everyone.

But it’s not only what Santorum says, it’s how he says it. When discussing social issues it’s good for those of us who are socially conservative to speak with an ounce or two of humility. A perfect example of this in my mind is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Palin doesn’t have to go around touting her social conservatism, she lives it. But she is absolutely graceful when discussing theses very sensitive issues. She’s also willing to meet in the middle. When the Alaska state legislature tried to ban partners of gay employees receiving benefits, she vetoed the bill saying it went against Alaska’s constitution. She also back handily came out in favor of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, retweeting openly gay conservative talk radio host Tammy Bruce’s tweet in support of the repeal. But Palin is in support of traditional marriage. Santorum’s posture when talking about social issues is the complete opposite, everything about him screams, “Are you STUPID!? How could you NOT think the way I think!?” He is completely sanctimonious when talking about these things and let me tell you, it’s a huge turn off for people who disagree with him. Especially as Santorum has made this a cornerstone of his campaign.

President Obama will hit Santorum hard for all of the above. He’ll invite libertarians to come and vote for him again (which is crazy to me, but whatever) He’ll ask voters why they should trust him if the people of PA obviously did not? He’ll run the 2006 campaign against Santorum all over again, telling people how we wouldn’t have gotten into this mess if it wasn’t for Bush and people like Santorum and the exorbitant amounts of spending that occurred during the Bush years (even though Obama would be a HUGE hypocrite for that seeing how his spending is even more out of control.) As a member of the senate, Obama will play every clip of Santorum supporting unpopular Bush-era spending policy calling Santorum “Bush’s right hand man in the senate” He would also hit Santorum hard for his extreme social views, calling him way out of the mainstream. Santorum will be blasted as “anti-gay” and “homophobic” and just like that Salon article I linked to above, the left will accuse him of wanting to “take away your birth control.” In debates, President Obama will press Santorum on social issues. The main stream media will be all but happy to oblige keeping the debate away from ObamaCare, away from run away spending and making it all about Santorum’s extreme social views. They will do whatever they can to scare voters away from him. Meanwhile Tea Party and libertarian support will crumble once they find out about Santorum’s record and what he actually stands for fiscally.

Is all of that true? No. But it doesn’t matter, President Obama will have close to a billion dollars and the mainstream media at his side. Santorum has all the right weaknesses for an Obama victory in 2012. Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and other bloggers, commentators, and radio hosts I admire greatly can support Santorum all they want, but I am afraid they’ll be in for a big surprise come November. Santorum will lose if he is the nominee in 2012.

Last night was a huge night for Rick Santorum.

He has now won 4 primaries/caucuses (3 non binding) winning the most states out of any of the candidates.

Santorum has also not experienced the intense scrutiny of being a front runner that is not named Mitt Romney. He’s going to have a lot of the establishment on his tail, plus he’ll have the GOP Death Star aka Romney setting his sights on him.

Truth be told, Romney can’t afford to go as negative on Santorum as he did Gingrich. Should Romney do that he will look truly entitled to the nomination. Expect him to be more subtle with his attacks on Santorum.

Meanwhile Santorum doesn’t take well to criticism. He gets irritated rather easily and doesn’t like it when he’s challenged on things he believes in. Plus, expect Newt to point out, respectfully, Santorum’s support of the Progressive Income Tax, his support of earmarks (going as far as saying he’s proud of his earmarks), and his statist-ish views on manufacturing. Newt can also point out that while he took steps to reduce the federal budget in the 90s, Santorum voted for debt ceiling increases throughout the Bush administration.

Look for Newt to try and make a comeback while pointing all of this out and while Santorum dukes it out with Romney.

I think we can expect Newt to pick up a few states on Super Tuesday and if he gets to the magic number 5, he’ll keep his campaign alive, money or no money all the way to the convention. He wants Romney challenged.

Though the establishment will want to make sure no one else puts their name forward at the convention, expect some GOP outsiders to put their names forward. Expect Ann Coulter to write columns about how it’s Chris Christie’s duty to put his name in.

I still think Romney’s the likely nominee, but SMOD just got a little boost last night didn’t it?

When one looks at the current field of presidential candidates, one can’t help but wonder if former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is regretting her decision to not throw her hat into this nominating cycle. But chances are, Palin thought long and hard about a potential campaign, looked at all of the data and decided that it was not her time herself to be a candidate for president. Despite Palin’s views on polling (which I agree with by the way), her polling, no matter what way you slice it, was terrible. And I think the stat that probably really sat Palin down to think about it was the over 50% of people who said they would definitely never even consider voting for her for president. As great a potential candidate she was and is (and make no mistake about it, she would be incredible), when you’re running for president, you come under EXTRA scrutiny, sometimes that can make someone appear resilient and help them gain popularity as it did with Hillary Clinton, other times though it undo them as it has with Newt Gingrich, who will have to repair his great legacy in the conservative movement if he has to drop out of the presidential race.

While you would think that would have given Palin a lease on life to venture and try other things, it hasn’t really. She’s tried pitching other TV Series about her family, including one that would have followed her husband Todd during the Iron Dog Snow Machine race, only to get rejected. Her 2012 endorsement has been all but squandered as she’s offered three non-endorsement endorsements to Newt Gingrich to little fan-fare (I’m sure Newt is really happy about that). Palin was the hottest property for people to get their hands on prior to this year, her books sold like hot cakes and her endorsement gold to any candidate lucky to receive it.

So what happened? I think the breakdown in Palin’s career can be tied back to one word: abstinence. No, not THAT abstinence, but abstaining from leadership. When Palin spoke about the Tea Party, she would constantly note that the “tea party didn’t have a leader” and that she “didn’t need a title to make a difference.” But I would say to Palin that the success of any movement goes back to its leadership and if there is no leadership, what happens to the movement? The fact of the matter is this: the tea party is not the force it was in 2010, and part of that is because no one was willing to step up and lead it on a national level. Palin would have been the most natural fit. Even if she had not decided to run for president, had she decided to take leadership of a movement that was happy to give it to her, I guarantee you, tea party leaders would not be going around saying, “the tea party as we knew it is dead.” Secondly, on the business of “I don’t need a title to make a difference.” It’s true, she doesn’t, but I would point out that someone will get said title and WILL make a difference for better or for worse.

If the tea party has come to an end (and I have a hard time believing that), there is an opportunity for Palin to fulfill. You see whoever gets the nomination at this point, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, may be conservative in some ways and most may be sufficiently conservative, but none of them is a conservative in the spirit of Ronald Reagan. As people supporting the least conservative of the candidates love to point out, Reagan was not a purist in the sense that he always made conservative decisions. Reagan lived his life as a conservative.

Many have pointed out that Palin is similar to Reagan in this way. She doesn’t always choose “conservative” policies, but she lives her life as a conservative, her instincts and her guts are conservative. The conservative movement is looking for a leader, someone who, like Reagan exudes conservatism. Regardless of what happens in this election, should Palin look for a place to get her groove back, why not take to YouTube and explain conservatism, explain the importance of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution. Explain the importance of American exceptionalism and what it means to be an American. We have a serious education problem in the conservative movement if this is all we’re left with.

Regardless of whether or not she ever becomes President, Palin can made a difference by taking leadership of a movement in desperate search of a leader.

I want you to know, as I did in my post when I asked when it’s time for a third party, that under normal circumstances my response is “get in line” but I have been rethinking this lately. Let’s look at the post-WWII GOP nomination list and their affiliation on the political spectrum.

1952 – Eisenhower – moderate

1956 – Eisenhower – moderate

1960 – Nixon – liberal

1964 – Goldwater – conservative

1968 – Nixon – liberal

1972 – Nixon – liberal

1976 – Ford – moderate

1980 – Reagan – conservative

1984 – Reagan – conservative

1988 – Bush – moderate

1992 – Bush – moderate

1996 – Dole – moderate

2000 – Bush – moderate

2004 – Bush – moderate

2008 – McCain – moderate

2012 – probably Romney – moderate

Out of 15 times, we’ve put forth a conservative candidate three times. We’re supposed to be the conservative party and yet the GOP never seems to want to nominate conservatives. Now, if we vote for Romney the best thing that could happen is that the conservative movement works to challenge him, a sitting president, for the nomination in 4 years time. A worse thing would be President Obama wins another four years because of a dispirited conservative base, but the absolute worst thing that could happen? The conservative movement lines up behind President Romney, just like conservatives did through the ’00′s with President Bush.

I’m ok with voting against President Obama by voting for Romney in the general election, but us conservatives have to make a commitment that we are not going to stand for this in the Republican party any more. We can not make excuses for him. If he says dumb things, we have to acknowledge it, and if he does things that are anti-conservative, we’ve got to fight him tooth and nail to defeat him, just like we did President Obama.

No more Presidents hiding behind the (R) that follows their name.

I’m thinking about going with Paul.

I live in California. And I’ll tell you why – as much as I don’t like Paul’s foreign policy, and I really don’t, I think it’s absolutely naive and reckless, he’s right on the money on a lot of his domestic policies. He understands liberty (I don’t know about conservatism) and I think that’s a hell of lot better than Mitt “I’m not very concerned about the very poor or very rich” Romney.

I also want to do everything we can from making Mitt the nominee, and if that means a brokered convention, then so be it.

I don’t know for sure, I may write someone in, but what do you guys think?

Generally, I believe that third parties ensure the re-election of Democrats. This was true in the 1990s when Ross Perot ran against George Bush and Bill Clinton, winning 20% of the votes and getting no electoral college votes.

And while I am still strongly opposed to a third party this round, I can’t help but think of a scenario where we might be able to get a more conservative independent to face off with Mitt Romney should he win the GOP nomination.

Let’s say a well known conservative, with adequate experience who could hold their own against Obama without Romney in the race were to jump in. How much support would they have to gain before you would support them?

Again, I’m completely against it, but it’s kind of a fantasy of mine to hold the GOP establishment accountable.

Talk about Astroturf.

According to this video, the Romney campaign may (and I stress MAY as this has not been independently verified) be paying fake supporters.

The video shows a Gingrich supporter and a Paul supporter admitting they are being paid by the Romney campaign to hold up campaign signs on a street corner.

The man guesses the campaign found them through unemployment records.

I don’t know if this is real, but it should be investigated and while there’s technically nothing illegal about it, it lends credence to the phoniness of the Romney campaign.

I am so SICK and TIRED of so-called “conservative” blogs and news sites pulling left-wing media tactics against a candidate whom they have an obvious PERSONAL dislike.

Is Newt Gingrich perfect? No. But for all intents and purposes where it counted, Newt Gingrich is a solid conservative. Mitt Romney is not.

Mitt Romney has spent all of the last 6 years trying to run away from his liberal record in Massachusettes!

Mitt Romney called himself a “progressive Republican”

Mitt Romney championed “fees” as a means of raising taxes without calling them “taxes”

Mitt Romney GRANDFATHERED ObamaCare with RomneyCare in Massachusetts!

Even with ALL of that, it’s not what bothers me most about Romney. What really ticks me off about him is entitlement to this nomination. When he’s been challenged, he’s lashed out putting out pathetic attack ads, using information that was widely debunked from conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, establishment Washington fixture Byron York and even Nancy Pelosi’s OFFICE!

Meanwhile Drudge, Coulter, and the like go on attacking Newt Gingrich.

The man who did what even the greatest President in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, never did: balanced the federal budget for four straight years!

Newt lead the first Republican take over of the House of Representatives in 40 years.

Newt took a projected $2 Trillion deficit over 10 years and turned it into a projected $2 Trillion surplus over  10 years. And the yearly surpluses EXCEEDED CBO estimates, meaning there is a possibility we could have had a more than $2 Trillion surplus over 10 years.

Newt didn’t just talk about reforming entitlements, he actually did it! When President Clinton vetoed the legislation, he didn’t give up, he kept sending the legislation until he signed it.

Newt took on H.W. when he tried raising taxes.

Newt shut down the federal government when the Clinton administration was not being cooperative.

Newt is a conservative fighter.

Polls are meaningless, polls at this time showed John McCain beating Barack Obama. Look at how well that turned out. What voters need is a sharp contrast! They need to know the kind of America conservatives are for versus the kind of America Obama is for.

And I am so OVER all of these “conservatives” engaging in Saul Alinsky, left wing tactics to try and get their guy elected.

These “conservative” media outlets need to GROW UP.

I think he’s completely sincere and I would understand why, in Florida, he would want to highlight his plans on this, but in my opinion Newt shouldn’t make this a corner stone of his agenda or his platform.

The fact of the matter is the Chinese and the Russians are trying to figure out ways to weaponize space and it’s the core reason for much of their investment into space exploration.

There is a practical reason for us to go back into space with gusto, but in the midst of an economic crisis it sounds like a B-movie.

Stick to the economy Newt.

Newt Gingrich needs to go sing this from the roof tops.

Norm Coleman, a former Minnesota Senator and adviser to Mitt Romney, has declared that a Republican President will probably not completely repeal ObamaCare:

“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.”

The article does go on to say that Romney is distancing himself from Coleman:

“With all due respect to Sen. Coleman, he’s wrong,” campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said via e-mail. “Gov. Romney can and will repeal Obamacare and is committed to doing so.”

Good. But this is just another example of an adviser and surrogate Mitt Romney choosing to surround himself with making wimpy arguments. Let’s not forget that former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu blasted Gingrich for attempting to block former President George H. W. Bush’s tax increase. Sununu said Gingrich’s stand may have been a contribution to President Bush’s loss. (Memo to Sununu and other establishment GOP: your actions are the reason for your losses)

A Romney operative has said that if Romney looses Florida, the establishment will look for an alternative. Why don’t we speed that process up?

While Santorum’s commitment to conservatism and putting a conservative in the White House remain suspect at best in my opinion. I am going to go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he would rather Newt Gingrich be the nominee than Mitt Romney. While a close Romney victory could be laid at the feet of Santorum, there are reasons for him to stay in the race and drop out closer to the election or stay in the race if Newt is way out ahead:

1. If Newt implodes, Santorum remains a Romney alternative. I’m not sure who I would support in a Romney/Santorum match up to be honest with you. Santorum’s obsessive focus on social issues is not the future of the Republican Party. A Santorum nomination and subsequent victory could be terrible for the GOP in the long term. But Romney remains an absolute disaster. His “concession speech” in SC was an utter disgrace and his negative attempts to derail Gingrich has revealed his glass jaw and unlikable personality. Romney comes off like a misbehaved child who didn’t get his candy at the grocery store. As Newt hones his message and gets more on point, I think this becomes less likely, although you never know with Newt.

2. If Newt is way out ahead, Santorum keeps pressure on GOP to acknowledge social issues. Social issues should not be our focus and comparing gays to pedophiles and polygamists is disgusting at best, but still, social issues are important to GOP voters. I don’t think these issues are of particular importance to Newt (though I think he holds conservative positions on the issues) and especially Romney (who has changed his position on Pro-Life issues at least a few times) but Santorum being in the race keeps the pressure on both candidates to engage the voters on the subject.

3. If Santorum drops out too early, there’s a chance his voters could be dishonestly swayed to Romney. Look, Romney cheerleader Ann Coulter was the one who said Romney “tricked” liberals into voting for him. What’s to stop Romney from “tricking” conservatives into voting for him too? The fact of the matter is if Santorum drops out too early, Romney will go into overdrive to make sure he gets at least a portion of those votes and if his and his supporters past is any indication, they’ll go to dishonest lengths to do so. If Santorum were to drop out say, a day or two before the vote and endorse Gingrich it keeps his voters in the conservative camp and gives Romney less time to eat away.

It’s not a matter of if Santorum drops out, it’s a matter of when. Only time will tell. But the fact of the matter is, there are good reasons for him to stay in this race at least until we see things pan 0ut in the next few days.

Following Romney’s proverbial “hiding” (as the Brits would say) by Newt Gingrich, It’s curious to me that we’ve been getting a slew of columns about how unelectable Newt supposedly is.

But this is always the argument of the moderate wing of the party: conservatism is too extreme to win, they say.

But let’s look at years where we won big:

1980 – Reagan 50.7% to 40.9% – 44 states

1984 – Reagan 58.8% to 40.6% – 49 states.

1994 (House)  - GOP (Gingrich) – 51.5% to 44.7% – + 54 seats (first time in 40 years GOP took the House)

Let’s look at years where we nominated moderate candidates:

1976 – Carter 50.1% to 48.1%

1988 – Bush 53.4% to 45.7%

1992 – Clinton 43% to 37.5%

1996 – Clinton 49.2% to 40.7%

2000 – Gore 48.4% to 47.9%

2004 – Bush 50.7% to 48.3%

2008 – Obama 52.9% to 45.7%

President Geroge H.W. Bush was riding the coat tails of President Reagan. Presidnet George W. Bush ran as a conservative and won his first term on a technicality. He won his second term because he united conservatives around the war on terror.

So where do moderates get the idea that conservatives lose races?

Following Romney’s proverbial “hiding” (as the Brits would say) by Newt Gingrich, It’s curious to me that we’ve been getting a slew of columns about how unelectable Newt supposedly is.

But this is always the argument of the moderate wing of the party: conservatism is too extreme to win, they say.

But let’s look at years where we won big:

1980 – Reagan 50.7% to 40.9% – 44 states

1984 – Reagan 58.8% to 40.6% – 49 states.

1994 (House)  - GOP (Gingrich) – 51.5% to 44.7% – + 54 seats (first time in 40 years GOP took the House)

Let’s look at years where we nominated moderate candidates:

1976 – Carter 50.1% to 48.1%

1988 – Bush 53.4% to 45.7%

1992 – Clinton 43% to 37.5%

1996 – Clinton 49.2% to 40.7%

2000 – Gore 48.4% to 47.9%

2004 – Bush 50.7% to 48.3%

2008 – Obama 52.9% to 45.7%

President Geroge H.W. Bush was riding the coat tails of President Reagan. Presidnet George W. Bush ran as a conservative and won his first term on a technicality. He won his second term because he united conservatives around the war on terror.

So where do moderates get the idea that conservatives lose races?