In my opinion the VERY BEST article of the last 10 days, that best articulates why Newt Gingrich cannot be President of the United States, is by Dr. Jerry L. Walls. Rather than take up a lot of real estate here with his quotes, I highly recommend you set aside five minutes and click here [...]

Mitt Romney Campaign Rally at Eastern Ship Building, Panama City, Florida at 1:45PM EST

The feed buttons are under the photo below. If all goes well, at least one of them should take you to the events at the times of the event(s).

As with many live events, they may not start exactly on time. Also, once the pop-up window with the feed opens, you may need to scroll down and across and/or choose the "Romney" Channel to view the event depending on your computer.

View comments at the original post.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addressed the Hispanic Leadership Network's second annual "Inspiring Action" conference.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez serve as conference co-chairs for HLN's third conference since its inception last January.

HLN most recently co-hosted Thursday's Republican presidential debate in Jacksonville, FL with CNN and the Republican Party of Florida.

Former House speaker Gingrich claimed he had never favored a federal mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance — only a state requirement.

Gingrich: I didn't advocate federal mandates. I talked about it at a state level …

Not true. Gingrich said "Congress" must require high-income persons to have insurance, not state legislatures. He did so explicitly in a 2007 opinion piece:

Gingrich, June 25, 2007: In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to [among other things] require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.

His support for a federal mandate is of long standing. In 1993, on NBC's Meet the Press, he said:

Gingrich, 1993: I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

Gingrich was proposing an individual mandate as an alternative to the Clinton administration's ill-fated health care plan, which was centered on an employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide insurance for their workers. And he held to a similar position as recently as last May, also on Meet the Press:

Gingrich, May 15, 2011: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

NBC's David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

Gingrich: It's a variation on it.

If Gingrich was thinking about a state-only mandate, he never said so at the time. And he clearly said "all of us" would be subject to his "variant" of the mandate just last May. We judge that Gingrich is falsifying his own history on this matter.

PolitiFact verified several days ago that Santorum's claim that Gingrich has supported some version of the mandate for 20 years was "mostly true." But it didn't think to ask whether Santorum, too, has supported the individual mandate in the past. And as it happens, he has. He supported it in 1994, according to this April 7, 1994 article in the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call, and this May 2, 1994 article in the same newspaper. It's possible that the newspaper would have gotten this wrong once, but in the heat of a primary campaign it's highly unlikely Santorum's campaign would have allowed it to get this wrong twice. 

“I feel we need someone who is a strong, principled conservative who believes not in government mandates, not in government control of the health care system, but in a patient-centered approach to health care,” Santorum said.

Santorum added that both the state and federal laws "tend to drive employers out of the private sector plans because they’re expensive and more people end up on the government plan."

“Ultimately, it’s a failure," Santorum said.

With nothing better to do on a Friday night, I type…. Living in Orange County, CA (large Republican base), we have two major newspapers to choose from. The Orange County Register and The Los Angeles Times. The LA Times clearly has better overall journalism, though it definitely leans left. This article in today’s Times, by [...]

Ever wonder why Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levine are angry that staunch conservatives are out in force in support of the conservative principles espoused by Governor Romney while they are denouncing Gingrich? It is not just rhetoric that Gingrich is the ultimate Washington insider who is most likely to increase the size of government (his lunar [...]

With the I-4 Corridor being one of the must-win areas of the Sunshine State, all the three remaining candidates who are still competing in Florida are hitting the area hard. Both Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich have events here today and tomorrow. I was lucky in that tonight’s Romney event was at a time I could go to. So, with that in mind, here are a few observations.

First, there were around 500 people showed up to the factory which have proven the backdrop for many Romney events recently. What was important about this plant was that Lanco Paints are headquartered in Puerto Rico and one of the two surrogates with Romney was Governor Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico. This is especially critical in Orlando since Orange County has one of the highest percentages of Puerto Ricans in the whole state. Governor Fortuño gave a solid speech, and he certainly has charisma. At the very least the Puerto Rican Governor should be given a good speaking slot at the convention.

The other surrogate with Romney was Senator John McCain. All those Republicans who supposedly don’t like McCain were nowhere to be seen tonight. The Senator was given an enthusiastic reception by the crowd. Calling himself the warm-up act, McCain told jokes. For instance he said that after he lost the election he slept like a baby “I woke up every two hours and cried”. He also called for an end to debates, saying 19 was enough and that it was distracting the candidates from actually going out to meet voters.

Governor Romney himself gave a very good speech. He shot one zinger at Gingrich saying how the Speaker complained after Monday about the debate audience being too quiet, but after last night that the crowd was too loud. Other than that, the Governor focused on President Obama, calling him out of touch and full of broken promises; more specifically using the State of the Union as a cudgel to go after the President. Attacking the President on Solyndra, excessive regulations, taxation and particularly crony-capitalism Romney forcefully advocated for free-market capitalism without excessive government regulation. This was an economy-based speech and the crowd responded well.

As for the crowd itself, it was as diverse as everyone says Florida is. There were a lot of Hispanic voters, some Africa-America voters, seniors, young people, and families. The people I talked to before the event had sky-high optimism about the Governor’s chances. Everyone was pleased with his debate performance and everyone believes he is going to win the Florida primary. The crowd believed he’s a winner and they are happy to back the winner.

Tomorrow night, I’ll be at the Orange County Lincoln Day Dinner where the guest speaker is none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich. I’ll do a write up for you all about that too. It’s good to be in the center of the political universe for the next few days.

Mitt Romney delivered a new zinger against Newt Gingrich in an event in Orlando just now, mocking him over his complaints about this week’s debates. “I had fun last night, I gotta tell you,” Romney said. “Now Speaker Gingrich said after the debate before last night that the crowd wasnt allowed to cheer so he couldn’t do so well because the crowd was too quiet.

“Then last night he said the crowd was too loud, he couldn’t deal with it. It’s like Goldilocks, you know - the porridge is too hot, the porridge is too cold. Look, I’m looking forward to debating Barack Obama. I don’t worry too much about the crowd. I’ve got to make sure we tell the truth to Barack Obama and get him out of the White House.”

In two debates in South Carolina, Gingrich fed off the raucous crowds as he ripped into the moderators and was wildly cheered. After Monday’s debate in Tampa, when the audience was told to remain silent, he complained that this was an infringement of “free speech” and that he wouldn’t participate if audiences had to keep quiet.

Last night in Jacksonville the crowd was once again vocal but this time seemed partial to Romney, who performed strongly. Afterwards, senior Romney aide Kevin Kellems grumbled that the Romney campaign had “packed” the event with its own supporters.

Romney previously got under Gingrich’s skin when he compared him to Lucille Ball in the chocolate factory over his inability to collect enough signatures to get onto the pr imary ballot in Virginia.

Source: http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-is-like-goldilocks.html

. . .

I just can’t resist. Mitt’s performance in Jacksonville is being so widely hailed as a success I just had to update my prior post. CNN’s Bill Bennett: Mitt is “No Shrinking Violet” In an opinion piece, CNN’s William Bennett used as his title a line rumored to have been heard uttered by Mitt as he [...]

Here is a list the scandals that have involved Newt Gingrich in the last week. As you read this list, ask yourself if this man would be fitting representative for our country as president of the United States. 1) Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne Gingrich, reveals on ABC News that Newt asked her for an “open marriage” [...]

GOP Nomination: (Previous results from Jan 25)

Mitt Romney 38% (34%)
Newt Gingrich 29% (40%)
Ron Paul 14% (6%)
Rick Santorum 12% (11%)
Don’t know 6% (7%)

A survey of 580 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012. The MOE is +/-4.1%

The full story is HERE.

GOP Nomination: (Previous results from Jan 18) 

Mitt Romney 40% (46%)
Newt Gingrich 31% (20%)
Rick Santorum 12% (12%)
Ron Paul 9% (9%)
Other 1% (1%)
Undecided 6% (8%)

A survey of 865 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012. The MOE is +/- 3.33%.

The full story is HERE.
The crosstabs can be viewed HERE.

Molly Ball @ The Atlantic:

If you thought the confusion surrounding the Iowa caucuses was bad, wait until you see Nevada.

When the traveling Republican circus moves on after Tuesday’s Florida primary, it will head for the Silver State — giving Newt Gingrich’s most generous backer, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a chance to cast a vote for his candidate.

But with the caucuses scheduled for a Saturday morning, Adelson, an observant Jew, originally would not have been able to participate. So, largely at his urging, the state’s Republicans will hold a special extra caucus, hours after the rest of the state has finished voting and reporting its totals.

In case the symbolism wasn’t clear enough, the extra caucus, scheduled for 7 p.m. Pacific time, is being held at the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Educational Campus, an Adelson-funded private school in Las Vegas.

Party officials insist that’s just a coincidence, but insiders say without the influence of Adelson, a generous donor to local candidates and causes, the rogue caucus almost certainly would not exist.

Here’s how it is supposed to work, according to a conference call with Nevada GOP officials Friday afternoon. Nevada has 17 counties, but more than half the Republican voters are in Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas.

Each county was allowed to set its own caucus procedures this year, leading to a divergent array of start times and rules across the state. Some precincts will open their doors as early as 8 a.m.; others won’t get under way until noon. But all must wrap up the action by 3 p.m.

At 5 p.m., the party will publicly announce the results of the caucuses for the 16 smaller counties. (Since these results will have been announced at the precinct level, the campaigns and media likely will already have a sense by then.)

At 7 p.m., just as the special evening caucus is getting under way, the results for the rest of Clark County will be announced.

Now, dear friends, this blogger has not one lick of trouble holding a late caucus or two to accommodate our Jewish friends – BUT ANNOUNCING THE RESULTS OF THE OTHER CAUCUSES FIRST?!?!?!?!?! Please – particularly when the population figures stack up like they do.  Never in all my born days have I seen such a naked and public set-up to cheat an election.  If it is anywhere near close, all our colleagues at the Adelson  caucus have to do is go out and drum up some more Gingrich voters to show up at their caucus.

The RNC has no choice but to threaten Nevada with withholding credentials from all Nevada delegates to the convention unless the results of all caucus’ are withheld until all the caucus’ are complete.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

.

GOP Nomination:

Mitt Romney 31%
Newt Gingrich 26%
Ron Paul 14%
Rick Santorum 10%
Undecided 19%

A survey of 271 likely primary voters was conducted January 21-25, 2012. The MOE is +/-6%.

The full story is HERE.

 

Well, the whining from the Gingrich campaign is reaching “can’t look away” embarrassing .  We first heard today that Mr. Gingrich’s less than stellar performance at last night’s debate was due to the Romney campaign “stacking the deck” with their supporters.  Well, even if this were the case, if the Gingrich campaign couldn’t muster enough people to attend the debate then, whose fault is that?

Now we hear that Newt believes Mitt’s performance last night was “totally dishonest.”  He didn’t bring this “dishonesty” up last night because “he wanted to be sure” of Romney’s dishonesty.  Riiight.

Gingrich professes shock at Romney’s ‘dishonest’ debate performance

By Amy Gardner and Philip Rucker, Updated: Friday, January 27, 4:03 PM

MIAMI —Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that the reason he seemed less combative during Thursday’s televised debate was that he was shocked by what he described as rival Mitt Romney’s “totally dishonest” replies to several questions.

In a telephone interview, Gingrich cited Romney’s remarks on immigration, his vote for Democrat Paul Tsongas in 1992 and whether he knew about an ad his campaign is running against Gingrich.

“I think it’s the most blatantly dishonest performance by a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen,” Gingrich said. At several moments during the debate, Gingrich simply leaned away from his lectern and looked down at his feet because he was so stunned by some of Romney’s statements, he said. He didn’t engage Romney at the time, he said, because “I wanted to fact check. I wanted to make sure he was as totally dishonest as I thought he was…”

Washington Post

Mr. Gingrich is at his best when he is expounding on a subject he knows about.  He comes across as intelligent and highly informative.  However, when his ego takes over, he comes across as an arrogant, condescending, stuck up whiner who is going to take his ball and go home just because he didn’t get his way.  And, unfortunately, we have been seeing more and more of his ego since Iowa; it is not attractive and the polls are beginning to reflect this.

America needs someone who can separate his ego from the job at hand.  We need a candidate who is level headed enough to take criticism, fair or unfair, and yet still get the job done.  Mitt Romney has demonstrated that he has the experience and maturity to do this.  Newt Gingrich has yet to demonstrate this ability in his entire career let alone this campaign.

Mitt Romney continues his big swing of momentum in the Sunshine State with two more solid endorsements today. First, Clay Shaw, a well-respected 26-year US Representative from Florida, announced his support of the Governor:

“Mitt Romney has the experience and skills that are needed to create jobs and undo the damage caused by President Obama’s disastrous economic policies,” said Congressman Shaw. “As a successful businessman and fiscally conservative governor, Mitt knows how to balance a budget and how to put Floridians back to work. He is the only Republican capable of defeating President Obama and implementing the type of conservative policies that our country needs.”

And then the even bigger “get”, the rumors of which began last night during the debate and became official today — Governor Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico:

“Mitt Romney is the one candidate who has the record, leadership, experience, and pro-growth plan to continue the course of private-sector job creation we’ve begun in Puerto Rico and provide economic stability for generations. Mitt Romney has shown throughout his life that the principles learned in the private sector can be applied to all challenges, whether it was saving the 2002 Olympics or balancing the budget as Governor.”

Fortuño has been floated as a possible Veep choice for Romney by several politicos over the past year, and would make quite an interesting choice (in a very high risk/high reward sort of way). Short-term, this endorsement will pad Romney’s already solid inroads with the Florida Hispanic community.

It’s often revealing to turn conventional wisdom on its head and see what’s really hidden underneath.   You’ve all heard it, I’m sure, that RomneyCare is Mitt’s doom, an albatross around his neck, his biggest weakness as a potential candidate.  In Part 1 of this series I detailed not only how grave some people feel this issue is for Romney’s chances, but also pointed out that Obama and his team of key operatives (Axelrod, Gibbs, and Daley) are all praising RomneyCare as ObamaCare’s predecessor in an effort to hurt Mitt with the GOP’s conservative and libertarian bases.  However,  below I present what a great asset and strength Romney’s history and experience with health care will be to him as a general election candidate against Obama.

Yes . . . for the purposes of this post I am skipping the GOP primary altogether and how health care will effect that outcome.  Don’t worry, I will address those issues thoroughly in later installments of this series.  But sometimes it’s important to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the carrot at the end of the stick, to give a proper and more accurate assessment of the situation one is currently in.  Winning the GOP nomination and imagining how well Mitt could tackle Obama on health care is that light/pot/carrot.  Some Mitt fans or fence-sitters may be guilty of hand wringing and fretting over how RomneyCare might really be the big problem that so many are saying it will be.  This post is for you folks in particular.

First off, it’s always wise to take a step back and look at the big picture.  Health Care promises to be a big topic in the upcoming 2012 presidential election no doubt . . . but I can guarantee that it will not be the biggest. It never has been the number one issue on people’s minds and I see no reason for that to change (“It’s the Economy Stupid!“). The Exit polls from our most recent election cycle show “The Economy” dominating voter’s hearts and minds:

The economy isn’t just the most important issue to voters this year . . .  it’s roughly twice as important to them as the other top issues of concern combined . . .  Sixty-two percent of voters name the economy as their most important issue this year. Health care ranks a distant second, at 19 percent. Illegal immigration and Afghanistan follow at 8 and 7 percent.

The 2008 Presidential exit polls also showed that “The Economy” was far and away the biggest issue on people’s minds:

The economy dominated voters’ concerns at historical levels in the presidential election . . . Fully 62 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, six times more than cited the war in Iraq (10 percent), health care (9 percent) or terrorism (9 percent)

“The Economy” topped the 2004 presidental exit polls , and it was, again, more than triple the importance of “Health Care” in the 2000 exit polls (26% vs 8%).  And, lest you think I’m quoting outdated info, Gallup release poll results earlier this month confirming the currency of these sentiments.  “Unemployment” and ”The Economy in General” totaled 64% while “Health Care” was only 16%.  And in the crosstabs of all these polls, “Health Care” is consistently a top issue for more Democrats than either Independents or Republicans.  The Gallup poll showed it being the top issue of only 13% of Independents and 13% of Republicans, compared to 24% of Democrats.  That split along political affiliation is important as each nominee works to bring the Independent voters into the fold while keeping their base.

I think it’s plain to see that the GOP needs a nominee with “street cred” on economic issues, and there is no one better than Mitt Romney in this regard.  Hypothetically, even if Romney were the worst candidate the GOP could put up against Obama on the issue of Health Care, his economic bona fides would “cover a multitude of [health care] sins.”   There are others who also take the perspective that Romney will likely get a “pass” on health care from much of the GOP base because of the other strengths he brings to the table (article titled “Don’t count on health care ruining Romney in ’12” and, yes, it’s from Salon and is written from a snarky liberal perspective, but it makes some good points none the less).  However, I’m sticking to my guns and, as I said before, I aim to prove that Romney is actually the best nominee to go toe-to-toe with Obama on the issue of Health Care.

I read with great joy the ruling out of Florida declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional on grounds of “Federalism;” the 10th Amendment  Constitutional guaranteed that states reserve all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government.  It is looking promising that the Supreme Court will uphold this ruling.  Assuming this happens, the GOP nominee will have to be someone who has not only supported the idea of federalism for Health Care, but has put it into practice. Mitt has consistently and forcefully denounced ObamaCare (while largely supporting RomneyCare) on grounds of Federalism.  He’s said from the beginning that RomneyCare was something crafted for Massachusetts and would not work for the whole country (nor should it be implemented federally even if it would work)

Why is this important?  Imagine if Mike Huckabee were the GOP nominee.  A DNC attack ad could run: “Mike Huckabee says that he supports the Supreme Court’s overturning of the health care law.  He agrees with the ruling that the federal government shouldn’t try to fix heath care because that’s the responsibilities of the states.  But Governor Huckabee did nothing to improve the health care coverage of his people in the state of Arkansas during over 10 years at the helm.  If he couldn’t improve health care in a state as small as Arkansas, why would the American people trust him to fix health care problems nationally?”   Obama could play the victim during a debate claiming that the States have been derelict in their duty to fix health care problems and could jibe ”Mike, you’re at fault for that!”  Obviously, the same could be said of most of the other serious potential candidates seeing that the were governors as well: Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Mitch Daniels, Gov. Christ Christie, Gov. Jeb Bush, etc . . .  but not of Gov. Mitt Romney.

In fact, whether or not ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional, Obama could argue that these governors were actually responsible for ObamaCare happening in the first place because they did nothing substantial to fix health care during their tenures in their own states; that therefore, the Federal government had to step in and act to avert crisis.  That’s a much more substantial and potentially damaging argument than “ObamaCare and RomneyCare are similar so Romney is a hypocrite to reject one and embrace the other,” wouldn’t you say?

Whether or not ObamaCare gets ruled unconstitutional, Romney stands on the best grounds to go toe to toe with Obama in a Presidential debate.  After Obama expresses disbelief that Romney could be against ObamaCare since it’s so similar to RomneyCare, Mitt could retort:

“You keep saying the law was crafted after ours in Massachusetts, but neither you, nor any Democratic leaders in congress (Pelosi/Reid) even so much as gave me a call or asked my opinion about what was working and what wasn’t. If you’re going to use something as a template, common sense says that you do your due diligence in assuring that the template is adequate and functional. If you were using my law as a template, why did you never contact me to discuss it?”

Romney has shared this idea before in an interview:

Q: There are obvious similarities between ObamaCare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?

A: I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at. He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.

Potentially the most powerful and effective tactic Romney could use is to turn the tables on Obama and point out how fiscally irresponsible it was to pass such large and sweeping legislation during a time of “double-digit unemployment, economic crisis, and record-setting federal deficits.”  That he was ramming through a partisan and liberal bill with no honest or realistic foresight to it’s long-term economic implications.  After sourcing warnings, statistics and estimates of ObamaCare’s ever-expanding cost projections (including the CBO’s projection that it will cost 800,000 jobs and the “fuzzy math” used to estimate the bill’s costs), Romney could say:

“Mr. President, where is the money coming to pay for ObamaCare? From your ”stash?” Your version of health care reform won’t balance the budget, it will break the bank and bankrupt businesses!  I would never sign a bill that was projected to put nearly one million Americans out of work and I’m disappointed that you did.”

Romney will be effective at turning “Health Care” into an economic issue and this will hit home with voters more than any perceived “inconsistency” between ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare.  Remember, “It’s the economy stupid!”

Romney could also effectively highlight his own differences in leadership and procedure in reforming Health Care between Massachusetts compared to what Obama did for his plan (this will be expounded upon and sourced in great more depth in a separate and forthcoming installment).  Mitt could draw a powerful contrast in a debate as such:

When we reformed Health Care in Massachusetts we spent two years working toward a consensus.  We had overwhelming public opinion support, input from the entire political spectrum (From The Heritage Foundation to Ted Kennedy), and finally passed a 72 page bill with a vote of 198-2 in the state legislature . . . getting whopping majorities from Republican, Democratic, and Independent lawmakers.

Contrast that to the bill you rammed through Congress in a matter of a few weeks and foisted upon the American people . . . a 2,700 page monstrosity that we were told would have to be passed before we could know what’s in it.  A bill that squeaked through Congress by the slimmest of margins (219-212; meaning that it would have failed if only four Representatives had voted differently) only after well-documented strong-arming and promised political favors . . . all this with not a single Republican voting in favor of it and 34 members of your own party voting against it.  A bill that is a ugly stain on the fabric of our nation both for the ends that it aims to achieve AND the means by which it became law.

Mr President, based on the current unpopularity of your bill, and, in light of the 2010 repudiation of your party at the ballot box, I think it’s clear which type of leadership the American people prefer.  Leadership that is deliberate and wise, that is not in a rush to score a political victory no matter the cost, that respects their voices and works for THEIR best interests.  Wouldn’t you agree?

One other advantage Romney has is that he would never be “out of his depth” while discussing matters of health care.  I can think of some potential nominees who might be.  Mitt is more versed on this issue in knowledge and in experience than anyone else the GOP has to offer.  To boot, Romney always comes off as competent and knowledgeable in interviews and debates . . . especially when he’s discussing core issues such as economics or health care.

You see, all the other potential GOP nominees may be able to cast stones at Obama’s attempt at health care reform from their seats on the sidelines.  They will be able to make some solid arguments for sure.  But, Romney has “skin in the game” on health care and won’t come off as simply a critic who has no better alternative to point towards.  He is someone who can and will personalize his objections to ObamaCare by drawing contrasts to his own plan and his own experience.  This will resonate with voters and it will make Romney, hands down, the best GOP nominee to debate Obama on health care.

Newt Gingrich is feeling sour today. After NBC’s presidential debate on Monday (Jan 23rd), when host Brian Williams asked the audience to withhold applause and verbal reactions to “ensure this is about the four candidates here tonight and what they have to say” Newt Gingrich didn’t fare so well. Mitt Romney was strong and steely. [...]

Mitt Romney today announced the support of Puerto Rico Governor Luis G. Fortuño.

Not Featured

read more

Mitt Romney today announced the support of Puerto Rico Governor Luis G. Fortuño.

Not Featured

read more

First Marco Rubio, now Jeg Bush is coming to Romney’s defense overf the “Ridiculous” accusation made by Gingrich that Romney is another Charlie Crist.  Of course everyone involved in politics should see this, among other things like building a Moon colony, as nothing but pure political pandering by Newt Gingrich to Floridians anxious about the future of NASA.  See Romney’s response to Gingrich’s promise to build a colony on the Moon by his 2nd term.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush dissed Republican candidate Newt Gingrich for invoking the name of former Republican-turned-independent Gov. Charlie Crist, whose former staffers work for Mitt Romney (some former Crist-ites also work for Gingrich’s camp)

“That’s not a serious accusation,” Bush told the National Review Online. “Candidates win elections. I’m not a big Charlie Crist fan, as you recall, but these guys shouldn’t have that moniker attached to them, as if Governor Romney is part of some evil plot. That’s ridiculous.”

Bush’s comments are a harsher version of Sen. Marco Rubio’s statement on the matter Tuesday. Rubio followed up Wednesday with a forceful condemnation of Gingrich’s Spanish-language radio ad that called Romney ‘anti-immigrant.’

Not a good week for Gingrich heading into Tuesday’s vote.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/01/jeb-joins-the-dis-newt-gingrichs-message-club-over-ridiculous-crist-bashing.html#storylink=cpy

After last night's debate victory for Mitt Romney, he's not taking anything for granted. There is a 75% chance that there will be a live feed for these event(s). Check back at the appropriate time.

12:10 PM EST:

Mitt Romney delivers the lunch keynote address before the Hispanic Leadership Network Conference in Miami.

1:10 PM EST: NOTE: Romney just spoke at the HLN at 12:30. I don't know how he could get to this event at 1:10, so keep that in mind.

Sen. John McCain holds a town hall-style meeting for supporters of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in The Villages, Florida.

4:50 PM EST:

Mitt Romney holds a campaign event in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

7:25 PM EST:

Mitt Romney holds a grassroots rally for supporters in Orlando.

The feed buttons are under the photo below. If all goes well, at least one of them should take you to the events at the times of the event(s).

As with many live events, they may not start exactly on time. Also, once the pop-up window with the feed opens, you may need to scroll down and across and/or choose the "Romney" Channel to view the event depending on your computer.

View comments at the original post.

It has been argued that Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina was at least in part due to his “fiery” performance in the debate just prior to the primary.  I will grant that Mr. Gingrich can be quite passionate, at times, and this can be a good thing when he stands for correct principles.  However, it can also work against him and in the days following his win in SC, this “passion” has, to my mind, come off more and more like “how dare you question/challenge me?  DON’T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!”

Unfortunately, Newt has a history of such arrogant petulance.  We have seen in recent days a rather impressive list of Newt’s former colleagues relating stories of just how petty and egotistical Mr. Gingrich can be.  In reading the accounts from Elliott Abrams and Bob Dole, I was reminded of a story from 1995 where he and Bob Dole, after a long flight on Air Force One, were asked to exit the airplane from the rear ramp.  Outraged at the slight, Mr. Gingrich ran to the nearest microphone and spouted off about how disrespectful this was and complained about the lack of courtesy and manners.  He then suggested that the partial government shut down at that time was, in part, due to this snub.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — As the government budget standoff continued Thursday, House Speaker Newt Gingrich indicated the Republican hard line was due, in part, to a “snub” from President Clinton during their recent trip to Israel for the funeral of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta called the Gingrich comment “bizarre.”

The speaker said Wednesday that tough terms in the government spending bill President Clinton vetoed Monday night were included partly as the result of pique he and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole felt on Air Force One during flights with the president to and from Israel for the funeral.

Gingrich and Dole had complained earlier about their lack of discussions with Clinton during the 25 hours of flying time. But Gingrich went a step further Wednesday by saying the incident contributed to the government shutdown.

“This is petty,” said Gingrich, indicating his displeasure at the way the two were treated. “You’ve been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you and they ask you to get off the plane by the back ramp. … You just wonder, where is their sense of manners? Where is their sense of courtesy?”

That “snub,” the Georgia Republican said, was “part of why you ended up with us sending down a tougher continuing resolution” — the stopgap spending bill that Clinton vetoed Monday. That veto led to the partial shutdown of the federal government, now in its third day.

“Not once did either of them say, ‘Let’s go in the back and sit down and try to cut a deal,” Panetta said. “Frankly, it would have been inappropriate. Everybody knew this was about a funeral. … This is bizarre. And even if that were the case — which it isn’t — why would you want to shut down the government because you feel snubbed?”

 

Now, was this a snub?  Yes.  Was it intentional on the part of the Clinton administration?  I believe so.  But was it necessary to run to the microphones and whine about it?  No.  Did it help him or his colleagues in their attempts to get an intransigent President to negotiate?  No.  But, Mr. Gingrich’s ego just couldn’t let go of the slight and he had to vent to the media (as if they cared) and gave the Democrats further ammunition against him and Republicans in general.  Newt’s reaction was, at best, counter productive.  Is that the behavior of a leader and statesman or the act of an immature, volatile personality lashing out?

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has been described frequently as “steady” throughout this campaign.  Indeed, some have called him “too steady” and “passion-less.”  I agree that Mitt needs to show a little more aggression in his defense of Conservative principles and I believe he made a good start on that since the SC primary and particularly last night.  However, throughout the campaign, Mitt has surely shown that he can handle criticism, both fair and unfair, without flying off to the nearest camera to simper about how hurt he is that someone said something mean about him.  His demeanor, thus far, has been that of a consummate professional who can diagnose, work and fix problems without letting his ego get in the way of the performance of his job.  And is that not precisely what we need in the White House after four years of another egotist, Barak Obama?

Right after South Carolina – this showed up on Ace of Spades HQ (Please pardon the language):

Look; seeing Newt sock the MBM is always fun, but that’s not really what resonated the most with me, and I have to assume that at least some of the SC electorate think the way I do, since they are members of my very common demographic (female, white, 40+ y/o, some college, hunchbacked, three large teeth that don’t meet anywhere, likes pudding. Understandably. It’s frickin’ delicious! Also there’s the tooth situation).

For me, it was the part where he stood up for work. Where he discussed the essential virtues of work. Nobody does that anymore. It was refreshing. It was important to me to hear someone say it. To hear that someone has a f*cking clue what’s going on down here in Realityland. We are out of work and we want it.

This administration seems to think that Americans should view work as a vampire perceives holy water, and nearly every policy out of DC reflects that.

Well, we don’t think that way. We’re Americans. We want to work. Dammit, we’re ready to get back to it. Give us the reins to our own lives, stick your food stamps back in your ass where they came from, and get out of the way. You’re killing us.

This message resonates. That’s why Gingrich won. Not just the slap at ‘the elites,’ but the content of the slap. The part where all work is good work and no one should consider themselves demeaned by what is *good.* Yeah, that may have been pre-formulated, and Juan Williams walked right into it. So? It needed to be said. Most of us thoroughly enjoyed hearing it clearly and unambiguously elucidated.

Fair enough, but remember, Gingrich “stood up for work” in the context of Williams’ question about racism.  Gingrich was ringing the racism bell, without question when he “stood up for work.”  Not directly, of course, but in the context of that question in that environment – it was dog whistle time.

But that is not really the point I want to make in this post.  Rather I want to look at a couple of aspects that go to what this series has been all about – character.

For one thing, what is “work” and has Gingrich ever done it?  I am not saying Gingrich has not made an honest living, but has he worked?  Since leaving congress he has more-or-less been a professional fundraiser.  Oh, sure he “consulted” but have you seen the consulting contract?  He was paid to put his name on a letterhead.  Is that work?  He has established organizations that raise money to carry on for a cause, but what has he produced of value that other people are willing to pay a profitable price to obtain?  In all the stuff Newt Gingrich has done, what is his product?  Beyond Newt Gingrich being the product of Newt Gingrich, I’m not sure I can answer that question.  Is it work when your work consists of developing and promoting yourself?  That is a complex question to answer, more than we can deal with in a blog post like this, but this is worth thinking about:

Prov 21:23-26 – He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles.   “Proud,” “Haughty,” “Scoffer,” are his names, who acts with insolent pride.  The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, for his hands refuse to work; All day long he is craving, while the righteous gives and does not hold back. (NAS)

So, how to close these series of blog posts?  I think maybe with a short quotation of the Apostle John:

I Jn 3:18 – Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. (NAS)

Much has been said about how wonderful Newt Gingrich is at expressing the feelings and anger and desire for work that people feel.  Words are JUST words.  Feelings can change with the state of your digestion.  In the end it is not the words that matter.  Had Moses simply talked to Pharaoh, the Jews would still be in Egyptian captivity.   Had Jesus come and preached, but never been crucified nor resurrected,  we would not even know of Him, let alone call Him Lord.

Mitt Romney may not be seem to be as eloquent as Newt Gingrich.  Mitt Romney may not seem to connect with the emotions of the electorate as well as Newt Gingrich, but Mitt Romney’s actions in the campaign, as Governor of Massachusetts, as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as a private business man are what matter.

Listen to Newt Gingrich – enjoy his words, revel in them.  But remember this is about who we want to govern the nation.  If words made a good president, then the president we have right now would be the best we have ever had.  Examine the records and lives of these two men.  On the one hand we have the twice-divorce, thrice-married, philandering, deeply prevaricating life-long politician of great words.  On the other hand we have a man married to one woman for decades, of immense character, who only after a remarkable career in business came to politics as a matter of service.  Not much a decision in my book.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

.

Last night’s debate highlighted Mitt’s debate strengths and Newt’s weakness. Mitt’s Strengths Preparation: No one on the stage is ever more prepared than Mitt for a debate. In 19 debates, topics have covered issues as varied as contraception to moon colonies. Last night Mitt was fully prepared not only to make his points, but to [...]

If you were Gingrich you might be looking for every excuse in the book after the pounding you took from Romney last night.  I sort of felt sorry for Newt, but he had it coming.  The man owns every positive in the world, but can’t even own a simple apology when he allows his campaign to run ads in Florida lying about Romney’s immigration stance, calling him “anti-immigration”!  Now he’s blaming his bad performance, and Romney outstanding performance, on the crowd being “stacked for Romney”?

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich rode a strong performance and crowd enthusiasm at a debate in South Carolina to victory in that state’s primary, but the crowds at two debates in Florida this week haven’t been as wild for Gingrich. Now his campaign is claiming that rival Mitt Romney’s campaign stacked the audience at Thursday’s debate with its supporters to shift the energy toward Romney, the Huffington Postreported.

“They definitely packed the room,” Kevin Kellems, a Gingrich adviser, told the Post.

But that’s not the case, according to both the Florida Republican Party and the Romney campaign. The party, which doled out 900 of the 1,200 tickets, says most of them went to “rank and file” Republicans.

“We did a very thorough job of getting them to the rank and file, vetting them to make sure they went to registered Republicans and then making sure they went out to people that were not knowingly affiliated” with the campaigns, Party spokesman Brian Hughes told the website.

A Romney spokesman said the campaign was given a number of tickets that he assumed was the same number as the other campaigns received.

Source: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gingrich-campaign-debate-audience-stacked-for-romney-20120127

These two polls are a confirmation that the polls released yesterday (here and here) on correct showing Romney leading Gingrich by 8 percentage points.  Today he has climb up another percent, however these polls were taking before the debate, which Mitt won, so it will be interesting to see how much he climbs in the polls out tomorrow and the next few days.  Click here to watch highlights from the debate.

Quinnipiac Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 38% (34%) [37%] {36%} (22%) [21%] {22%} (24%)    
  
• Newt Gingrich 29% (40%) [26%] {24%} (35%) [17%] {8%} (5%)
• Ron Paul 14% (6%) [15%] {10%} (8%) [3%] {6%} (10%)
• Rick Santorum 12% (11%) [15%] {16%} (2%) [1%] {2%} (1%)
• Don’t know 6% (7%) [7%] {7%} (12%) [16%] {13%} (19%)

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?

• Mind made up 67%
• Might change 32%

Among Voters Whose Minds Are Made Up

• Mitt Romney 25.46%
• Newt Gingrich 20.30%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Santorum 53% (60%) [56%] {59%} / 19% (13%) [12%] {8%} {+34%}
• Mitt Romney 61% (70%) [72%] {73%} / 28% (21%) [16%] {14%} {+33%}
• Newt Gingrich 50% (66%) [54%] {59%} / 38% (23%) [31%] {29%} {+12%}
• Ron Paul 35% (33%) [41%] {34%} / 42% (42%) [38%] {47%} {-7%}

Survey of 580 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 22-23, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 19-21, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 4-8, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 28 – December 5, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conductedOctober 31 – November 7, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 27 – August 2, 2011 are in parentheses.

-–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journa

________________________________________________________________________________

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac Florida 2012 Republican Primary Survey

Quinnipiac Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 38% (34%) [37%] {36%} (22%) [21%] {22%} (24%)    
  
• Newt Gingrich 29% (40%) [26%] {24%} (35%) [17%] {8%} (5%)
• Ron Paul 14% (6%) [15%] {10%} (8%) [3%] {6%} (10%)
• Rick Santorum 12% (11%) [15%] {16%} (2%) [1%] {2%} (1%)
• Don’t know 6% (7%) [7%] {7%} (12%) [16%] {13%} (19%)

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?

• Mind made up 67%
• Might change 32%

Among Voters Whose Minds Are Made Up

• Mitt Romney 25.46%
• Newt Gingrich 20.30%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Santorum 53% (60%) [56%] {59%} / 19% (13%) [12%] {8%} {+34%}
• Mitt Romney 61% (70%) [72%] {73%} / 28% (21%) [16%] {14%} {+33%}
• Newt Gingrich 50% (66%) [54%] {59%} / 38% (23%) [31%] {29%} {+12%}
• Ron Paul 35% (33%) [41%] {34%} / 42% (42%) [38%] {47%} {-7%}

Survey of 580 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 22-23, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 19-21, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 4-8, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 28 – December 5, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conductedOctober 31 – November 7, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 27 – August 2, 2011 are in parentheses.

l

The Huffington Post reports (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — Members of Newt Gingrich’s campaign accused Mitt Romney’s campaign of packing the audience for the Republican presidential candidate debate on Thursday night in Jacksonville, Fla., with its own supporters to ensure that the dynamics would be favorable to Romney.

“They definitely packed the room,” Kevin Kellems, one of Gingrich’s senior advisers, told The Huffington Post early Friday morning. “The problem for them is their candidate, at several junctures, couldn’t remember what he had said before on an issue or what the fundamental truth is on a given topic. TV viewers tend to notice and remember things like that.”

A more junior member of the Gingrich campaign said in an email that it was “obvious” that the Romney campaign had worked to make sure the audience was overly favorable toward the former Massachusetts governor.

…

Raucous debate crowds in South Carolina, who roared their approval for Gingrich last week on two separate evenings, helped the former House speaker score a huge win in the Palmetto State on Saturday. Gingrich stormed into Florida with momentum on his side.

…

On Thursday night in Jacksonville, Romney again went on offense against Gingrich from the very beginning of the two-hour debate and was buoyed by a supportive audience.

It was a crucial debate for both Gingrich and Romney. Gingrich’s lead in the polls has disappeared quickly over the past day or two, and it was widely thought that he needed another breakout performance to regain an edge. Most of the commentary after the debate, even from supporters, judged Gingrich’s performance as flat, finding that he did not have a strong night.

“Live by the debate, die by the debate,” Erick Erickson, founder of conservative blog RedState.com, wrote on Twitter. “Romney got the better of Gingrich and Gingrich is probably locked out of a FL win. Will be tough.”

…

Several things occur to me:

• Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall the Romney Campaign whining about Newt packing the halls in South Carolina where Gingrich had such strong audience support.
• We already have a whiner in the Oval Office who refuses to accept responsibility for his setbacks. It’s always someone else’s fault.
• Even if the Romney camp did manage to pack the hall (which I doubt), what does that say about their competence versus Newt’s?

That’s two — count them — two debates in a row where Romney got the better of Gingrich.  And Newt is supposedly the one who will win the Presidency on the strength of his debates with Obama. The man can’t even win a debate against a supposedly weak-debater like Mitt Romney when the chips are down in Florida. That’s twice Mitt has cleaned Newt’s debate clock in the vital swing state of Florida.

What we are seeing here is the difference between Mitt Romney and nearly every other candidate this year. Mitt had a couple of lackluster debate performances that cost him South Carolina. Problem-solver Mitt and his team went to work analyzing what went wrong and corrected it. The result: two solid debate performances that have knocked the oh-so-superior-debater Gingrich back on his heels.

—

It has been good that Newt has been such a nasty advisory to Mitt. Mitt is a far better campaigner today than he was even a couple of weeks ago. In my morning browse around the web,  I have noted several prominent anti-Mitts remarking that his strong performances in the last couple of debates against Gingrich whom they have always considered to be the better debater, have helped them to feel more comfortable about a possible Mitt nomination. And let’s face it. Republicans coming together and accepting the party’s eventual nominee is what this primary process is all about.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has filed paperwork and petitions signed by more than 1,000 Montana voters in order for him to appear on Montana’s primary ballot. He is the first candidate from either party to qualify for the ballot.

“My team is working hard in Montana to ensure that we are able to defeat President Obama and turn around our country,” said Mitt Romney. “President Obama has plainly failed to get this economy back on track. As president, I will work to tap Montana’s unique energy resources, which will create jobs and help us achieve energy independence.”

Not Featured

read more

Mitt Romney’s campaign has filed paperwork and petitions signed by more than 1,000 Montana voters in order for him to appear on Montana’s primary ballot. He is the first candidate from either party to qualify for the ballot.

“My team is working hard in Montana to ensure that we are able to defeat President Obama and turn around our country,” said Mitt Romney. “President Obama has plainly failed to get this economy back on track. As president, I will work to tap Montana’s unique energy resources, which will create jobs and help us achieve energy independence.”

Not Featured

read more

What relevance does this photograph have to what I have written below? Nothing. I include it here because 1) I love photography, 2) Every photograph tells a story and I like this story, and 3) This photograph from last year, around Christmas, is the best one I have ever found depicting the next President of [...]

“Whether it was an unprecedented ethics reprimand, his erratic leadership style, or his resignation in disgrace at the hands of his own party, it is understandable why Speaker Gingrich would want to re-write history. As an historian, however, he should know that such efforts usually fail.” –Ryan Williams, Romney Campaign Spokesman

Not Featured

read more

“Whether it was an unprecedented ethics reprimand, his erratic leadership style, or his resignation in disgrace at the hands of his own party, it is understandable why Speaker Gingrich would want to re-write history. As an historian, however, he should know that such efforts usually fail.” –Ryan Williams, Romney Campaign Spokesman

Not Featured

read more

Featured

read more

Featured

read more

Members of Newt Gingrich's campaign accused Mitt Romney's campaign of packing the audience for the Republican presidential candidate debate on Thursday night in Jacksonville, Fla., with its own supporters to ensure that the dynamics would be favorable to Romney.

"They definitely packed the room," Kevin Kellems, one of Gingrich's senior advisers, told The Huffington Post early Friday morning. "The problem for them is their candidate, at several junctures, couldn't remember what he had said before on an issue or what the fundamental truth is on a given topic. TV viewers tend to notice and remember things like that."

[...].

Not so fast:

...Florida Republican Party spokesman Brian Hughes told HuffPost in a phone interview late Thursday that the state party controlled who got roughly 900 of the 1,200 tickets issued to the debate. But he took issue with charges that the crowd was tilted toward any one candidate..

"The vast majority of [the tickets] went to rank and file. We did a very thorough job of getting them to the rank and file, vetting them to make sure they went to registered Republicans and then making sure they went out to people that were not knowingly affiliated" with any of the candidates, Hughes said.

"We worked very hard to ensure that the room was rank-and-file folks who represent the electorate that these guys are trying to speak to," Hughes said.

Read the full story HERE.

While Newt Gingrich continues to play "the victim"...of the media, of "stacked audiences", of "unfair" commercials; Mitt Romney just keeps on leading the polls as the American citizens get to know him and his strengths and abilities to turn our country around.  One of his many great strengths, is his wife Ann. She will be an amazing First Lady!




Ann Romney Wows Hispanic Crowd in Florida

Not Featured

read more

Not Featured

read more

That title does not really ring, but out of deference to my Mormon friends it is what it is.

The consensus seems to be that Romney did not hurt himself in last night’s debate, Gingrich did and Santorum won.  If you’re a Romney supporter, that’s an A-/ B+.

The most interesting reaction was from Kimberly Strassel at the WSJ:

It won’t be because Mr. Romney has become a better or more effective candidate. Primaries exist to help with that process, to let contenders read signals from the political landscape, to adapt, become stronger. Successful politicians absorb the signals and change up. Not Mr. Romney. If politics were evolution, the governor would still be swimming in the primordial soup.

That much was clear this week. The first signal was Mr. Gingrich’s resounding victory in South Carolina. If Mr. Romney were listening, he’d have understood that vote was as much against him as it was for Mr. Gingrich. It took but one punchy Gingrich debate performance to have voters abandoning the front-runner in droves.

South Carolina voters also clearly explained why. Exit polls showed that Mr. Romney’s two (and only) messages—that he is the best suited to turn around the economy and to defeat Barack Obama—aren’t working for the majority of voters. Mr. Gingrich beat Mr. Romney on both issues. The electorate explained that they first and foremost want a candidate willing to passionately promote conservative ideals.

Even I will confess to sometimes wanting to hear Romney want to “passionately promote conservative ideals.”  However, I also know why he doesn’t.  For one, George W. Bush’s “No New Taxes” pledge.  Any president is going to have to make some decisions that are unpopular with the base – nature of the job.  But I don’t think Romney is so concerned about angering the base.  A man of his character would be more concerned about breaking his word.   If he made such broad sweeping statements, he would feel honor bound to abide by them.  The people of very high integrity that I know operate on the principle of “under-promise and over-perform.”  That’s pretty rare in this world, but a treasure when found.

But there is another aspect to Ms. Strassel’s criticism that I find interesting.  From Dan Gilgoff @ CNN:

In a recent conference call with conservatives across the country, Mitt Romney expounded upon subjects he usually doesn’t talk much about: Jesus and eternity.

Asked on the call how his faith had shaped his success as a businessman and his political career, the presidential candidate spoke about “a conviction that life is eternal, that your family is your greatest prize, that ultimately what we accomplish in life is of little significance compared to the interests of the savior Jesus Christ and his purposes.”

“It puts everything into perspective and the perspective is that there are things more important than the here and now,” Romney continued on the Wednesday call, which was organized by the Faith and Freedom Coalition and included thousands of participants.

His answer may sound to some like boilerplate Christian thinking, but Romney was expressing core Mormon beliefs in a way he almost never does on the campaign trail.

When Romney does go “big idea,” it triggers a whole raft of Mormon talk.  “Does he really believe that or is that one of those things Mormons try and make you think they believe?”  “Do Mormons really have big ideas?”  “Are there verses in the Book of Mormon about that?”  It goes on and on and on.  In chat rooms, in local papers, in conversations across the nation these question and much worse go on throughout the nation.

USAToday put it quite well in this headline:

Many Americans uninformed, but still wary of Mormon beliefs

Suspicion of Mormonism is different than bigotry or opposition.  Suspicion of Mormonism means that everything Romney does has to be checked, rechecked, doubled checked – then checked again, because well…. No candidate, no person, can stand up to that kind of scrutiny unscathed.  Not because they are bad or mistaken, but simply because they are human.

But people need to remember it will be a different world come the general election.  The stark contracts between parties, and their respective candidates, will give Romney much more room to state broad principles.  In a primary, the debate is over shades of grey – you are looking for the candidate with just the right amount of “greyness.”  In the general election things will be quite black-and-white.

In the primary as it now stands, we have a black-and-white choice as well.  As we have chronicled here all week, we have a choice between a man of immense character and one who struggles mightily (and often loses the struggle) to maintain his character.  But even that immense gulf is a shade of grey in comparison to what comes in the general election.

There is a time and a place to speak broadly.  It is not yet that time.  It is yet another measure of character to know that time and to stay within its boundaries.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

.

Charles sent me this today, which I tracked back to the Washington Post.  If you’re not still smiling over last night’s debate, this will definitely amuse you:

0 AD: Birth of Jesus. A pretty good guy, but no Newt Gingrich.

476 AD: Rome falls. Newt Gingrich could have averted this.

1215: The English wisely take Newt Gingrich’s suggestion to write the Magna Carta.

1492: Newt suggests, winking, that Columbus sail the wrong way to India, “where I think you’ll find something very interesting.”

1533: Henry VIII decides to take the same number of wives as Newt Gingrich.

1602: Gingrich writes “Hamlet.”

1776: Inspired by “A Nation Like No Other” by Newt Gingrich, available now in hardcover on Amazon.com for just $11.25, the Founding Fathers write the Declaration of Independence.

1789: Newt’s suggestion that Marie Antoinette offer people cake does not go over with the French people as planned. Newt is bewildered (”“I’m always delighted to be offered cake.”)

1858: Newt Gingrich suggests a neat idea for debate formats to Lincoln and Douglas.

April 14, 1865: Abraham Lincoln ignores Newt’s advice to “stay home from the theater tonight, Abe, and read one of my books for self-improvement.”

1876: General Custer also ignores Newt’s advice.

1876: Alexander Graham Bell invents a great device that, later, will enable you to receive a robocall complaining about something Mitt Romney did.

1903: Wilbur and Orville Wright put one of Newt’s best ideas into practice, although they have to remove Newt from the plane to achieve liftoff.

1944: Eisenhower takes Newt’s suggestion to land troops at Normandy. Newt cannot accompany them as he is too busy killing Hitler.

1969: Neil Armstrong slowly begins putting Newt’s plans for a moon colony into practice.

1989: Newt knocks down the Berlin Wall.

1990: Newt tells Al Gore how to invent the Internet.

1995: The Best Speaker of the House of All Time takes office.

2013: President Newt Gingrich issues in a new era of peace, prosperity and moon colonies.

2045: Newt Gingrich is canonized, in what he describes as a “uniquely humbling experience for a great man of intellect and letters who has done what no other man in human history could have done because of his rare gifts.”

2060: Newt Gingrich defeats the Antichrist in a series of eight-hour marathon debates, issues in a new millennium of prosperity and revives entire economy on the strength of sales of his 19,568,020,836th book.

2100: Newt Gingrich ascends to heaven. Jesus respectfully gets up so that Newt can be seated.

By    Alexandra Petri  |  05:00 PM ET, 01/25/2012

Mitt Romney today announced the support of former Florida Congressman Clay Shaw and Emilie Shaw.

“I am honored to have Congressman and Mrs. Shaw support my campaign for president,” said Mitt Romney. “Clay is a true statesman and an extraordinary public servant. Through his good work, he has helped make Florida a better place to live, work and raise a family. I am proud to have the Shaws join our team.” 

Not Featured

read more

Mitt Romney today announced the support of former Florida Congressman Clay Shaw and Emilie Shaw.

“I am honored to have Congressman and Mrs. Shaw support my campaign for president,” said Mitt Romney. “Clay is a true statesman and an extraordinary public servant. Through his good work, he has helped make Florida a better place to live, work and raise a family. I am proud to have the Shaws join our team.” 

Not Featured

read more

Mitt Romney made the following statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day:

“On this day, we pause to remember the millions of Jews murdered in Europe.  But it is not enough merely to reflect on those horrors and the evil that brought it about. We must also reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that there will never be a recurrence of such terrible events. At a moment when the state of Israel is under threat from violent terrorists, from tyrants seeking nuclear weapons, and from a campaign to deny the legitimacy of a Jewish state, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally in its quest for peace and security.”

Normally I do a report card for the candidate’s debate performances, but as this race has progressed I think we’re to the point that we can begin looking at the thesis statements of these candidates and ask them to defend it, rather than looking for how skillfully they regurgitate talking points. If I had to [...]

Here is the debate in segments:

I came across this article on CNN and I thought to myself “I wonder why this hasn’t been talked about in the news media”.  This is the deepest Romney has gone into expressing his faith and some of the doctrine pertaining to it.  Mitt and Ann Romney are people of great faith and it will be a great blessing to America to have them in the White House.

(CNN) – In a recent conference call with conservatives across the country, Mitt Romney expounded upon subjects he usually doesn’t talk much about: Jesus and eternity.

Asked on the call how his faith had shaped his success as a businessman and his political career, the presidential candidate spoke about “a conviction that life is eternal, that your family is your greatest prize, that ultimately what we accomplish in life is of little significance compared to the interests of the savior Jesus Christ and his purposes.”

“It puts everything into perspective and the perspective is that there are things more important than the here and now,” Romney continued on the Wednesday call, which was organized by the Faith and Freedom Coalition and included thousands of participants.

His answer may sound to some like boilerplate Christian thinking, but Romney was expressing core Mormon beliefs in a way he almost never does on the campaign trail.

“I had not heard him speak that openly about his faith in a public setting prior to last night,” said Gary Marx, a former Romney aide who is executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, in an interview on Thursday.

Romney almost always deflects questions about his Mormon beliefs. He answered a question about how his religion would affect his presidency at Thursday’s CNN debate by talking about the Founding Fathers’ belief that rights came from God, as opposed to talking about his Mormonism.

In speaking about his views of eternity on Wednesday, however, answering a question from a caller based in Atlanta, Romney was echoing Mormon beliefs about the eternal nature of human existence.

“Earth life, as Mormons would put it, is just a tiny moment in eternity because Mormons believe that the spirit exists before there is life and that life is just one short episode in the total journey to becoming more like God,” said Richard Bushman, a Mormon scholar at Columbia University.

“It’s a Mormon way of coping with suffering in this life,” said Bushman, who is Mormon. “You don’t get upset about failures.”

Romney reinforced that sentiment repeatedly in the Wednesday conference call, hosted by conservative activist Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

“What we’re experiencing here is just a moment in time which will soon be replaced by an eternity with our father in heaven,” Romney said.

“Sometimes in daily activities you think about all the implications of what’s happening, based upon how people think of you or what’s going to happen to your financial success,” he continued. “And you stop and think a second, what is the eternal implication of what’s going on here?”

Romney’s remarks about his faith also echoed Mormon teaching on the importance of family, which Mormons believe remains intact after death.

“At the end of the day, when Ann and I are getting ready for bed, we’re talking about the day’s events, we remind ourselves about what matters most to us,” Romney said. “Our family and our relationship with each other and our absolute conviction that Jesus Christ is our savior.”

The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

Source here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/26/on-call-with-conservatives-romney-speaks-to-mormon-beliefs/?hpt=hp_t2

Mike Sage, Editor in Chief Here is a collection of some of the funniest, insightful, and/or telling tweets of the evening.  I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.  By the way, you might let the “tweeps” quoted here know that they were immortalized at America Needs Mitt Blog for being great commentators! [...]

Well if this isn’t an indication that Mitt Romney had a great debate performance, I don’t know what is!

ABC News’ Amy Walter & Michael Falcone

Romney on Gingrich’s immigration ad:

Romney Defends His Wealth:

Romney on Gingrich promise to build Moon colony by 2nd term:



While you are watching these videos,  please vote in the following polls for who won tonight’s CNN debate:

Drudge Report

My Fox Philly

The Swash

News Press

World Magazine

Orlando Sentinel

In the Florida debate tonight Mitt Romney owned Newt Gingrich over the ad his campaign ran dishonestly accusing Governor Romney of being “Anti-Immigration”.  Mitt called on him during the debate to apologize for the lie.

Head-To-Head:

Mitt Romney 45% (tied)
Barack Obama 45%

Barack Obama 47%
Ron Paul 39% (-8) 

Barack Obama 49%
Rick Santorum 40% (-9)

Barack Obama 50%
Newt Gingrich 39% (-11)

It appears this poll was conducted on Thursday. Quinnipiac refers to them as "Today's results" (Jan 26)

The full story is HERE.

GOP Nomination:

Mitt Romney 39%
Newt Gingrich 32%
Rick Santorum 11%
Ron Paul 8%
Undecided 7%

A survey of 540 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-25, 2012. The MOE is +/-4.2%.

The crosstabs can be viewed HERE.

UPDATE!

If you missed our live feed of the debate, I have the video for you HERE. Enjoy!

******************************************
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas accepted their invitations to participate in the CNN/Republican Party of Florida/Hispanic Leadership Network debate moderated by CNN's lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer.

The candidates will meet on stage at 8 p.m. EST in Jacksonville, Florida.

OPTION 1: LIVE FEED

I'm hoping to have an embedded live feed here by the start of the forum. What's been happening lately is that many of those supplying the feeds, are changing the codes at the last minute, making it more difficult to have the feed embedded in time. If the feed is not up by 7:55 PM EST, choose a feed from OPTION 2. THEN check back 5-10 minutes into the debate to see there is a live feed here.

NOTE: This feed may be choppy, depending on your internet connection and/or computer. The audio will be fine, but the video may seem slow. If this is a problem, there are plenty of viewing options in OPTION 2:


OPTION 2:

Press one of the feed buttons under the photo below. Hopefully one or more will work and stream the debate. A pop-up should open with the feed(s). You may need to choose the debate channel if it does not appear automatically, scroll down and/or across to view the debate in the pop-up window.PLEASE NOTE: If prompted to ad software on any of these feeds, DO NOT!! These are just advertisements and will disappear in 30 seconds. Also, try a few different feeds, because the quality may vary from one feed to the next. ENJOY!

View comments at the original post.

PLEASE RT http://twitter.com/#!/C0MM1TT3D/status/162709630437441536 ASAP! Then, VOTE for Mitt in the following polls: My Fox Philly The Swash News Press World Magazine Tea Party Brief Amherst Patch International Business Times Your Political News Group Right Turn ABC News Big John and Amy Orlando Sentinel Exeter Patch What a day it has been! Mitt’s momentum is very [...]

We’d like to thank our guest for kindly sharing his words with us.

Jerry L. Walls teaches philosophy at Houston Baptist University.  His PhD is from Notre Dame.  The author of several books and many articles, his most recent book is Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation (Oxford University Press, 2011).  His co-authored book with David Baggett, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford University Press, 2011), was recently chosen as one of the outstanding books of 2011 by Christianity Today in their annual book awards.

JOHN NEWTON, NEWT GINGRICH AND THE REAL ISSUE FOR HIS CANDIDACY

Many conservative Christians are enthusiastically supporting Newt Gingrich for President, despite the fact that his personal lifestyle for most of his life has been sharply and starkly at odds with the values they profess to cherish.  As one who cannot share this enthusiasm I want to articulate what I believe the issue is here, and what it is not. First, it is emphatically not a matter of whether God, or we, have forgiven Newt. I am in no position to judge his heart or the sincerity of his repentance or the status of his relationship with God, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his repentance is sincere and that God has forgiven him. The issue is not forgiveness, but rather character, and forgiveness is not the same as proven character. I believe rapists, murderers, child molesters, persons who fail to report suspected molesters, slave traders, and so on can all be forgiven. I believe in John Newton’s “Amazing Grace” and I well know we all need it. But I doubt anyone would argue that a rapist, a murderer, or a child molester should be running for President.

Not all sins are the same, despite the pious insistence that they are. Yes, “sins are sins,” and all separate us from God but some cut deeper and  do far more extensive damage to persons (starting with the persons who commit them), do far more to destroy relationships and undermine trust, and consequently require much more time and serious effort to repair.

Nor is the issue an unrealistic demand for perfection. No one has a perfect past, and few, if any have a perfect present. But it is a stunning impoverishment of standards to dismiss multiple lies, adulteries, and hypocrisies as mere foibles that fall just somewhere shy of perfection. While Newt was going hard after Clinton for his moral failures and campaigning on family values, he was engaged in an ongoing adulterous affair.

So again, am I suggesting we demand perfection of our candidates? Should we make an issue of every high school and college prank, indiscretion, drunken weekend, wild party, and so on?  Of course not. But we are not talking here about adolescent behavior, nor even about isolated failures. Rather, we are talking about his long term behavior as a mature adult, while holding elected office.

The fact that Newt thinks his history of moral and ethical infidelity is for all practical purposes irrelevant to his qualifications to be President, the fact that he can wax passionate with moral indignation against those who raise these issues, represents a wildly distorted sense of moral judgment and moral proportion.  When John King raised the issue, Newt responded that giving attention to his ex-wife’s comments two days before the primary, and opening the debate with that question was “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”  The fact that he could use such extreme language shows he is either utterly lacking in moral imagination (I would guess any decent person, off the top of their head could come up with half a dozen things more despicable), or his reaction was a carefully calculated, and altogether successful, ploy to divert this issue by taking the role of a victim of the “liberal media.”  Ironically, in this exchange, he showed himself to be the mirror image of the postmodern who rejects traditional morality, but knows exactly how to draw a huge ovation from an audience by attacking intolerance with a sense of aggrieved outrage.

King David fell into adultery and he repented and was forgiven. Notably, when confronted with his adultery, he did not turn on Nathan, and say, “Seriously, I am appalled you can be making an issue of the fact that I banged Bathsheba, given the enormous political and economic issues facing this country.” David was forgiven. But he never regained the moral credibility he previously had, and after this incident, his Kingdom began to unravel in various ways, as Nathan predicted.  Indeed, it is surely no coincidence that we see this beginning to happen one chapter after Nathan’s confrontation with David, precisely in the form of his sons mimicking his worst behavior (2 Samuel 13).  Amnon rapes his half sister Tamar, and when David ignores the matter and does nothing about it, Tamar’s brother Absalom plots Amnon’s murder and successfully carries it out.  Given David’s adultery and devious murder of Bathsheba’s husband Uriah, he was poorly situated to confront his sons with any sort of moral credibility or hold them accountable for doing the very same sort of things he had done. The King inevitably set a moral tone for the nation, whether for good or for ill.  David eventually lost so much of his previous authority that his own son Absalom could successfully garner enough support to lead a rebellion and temporarily usurp the throne.

Again, I am not saying we should demand perfection of our leaders. If we insist on perfection or nothing, we will invariably get nothing. That is not my point. But we do need a President who can lead with moral authority and address moral issues with the sort of credibility that comes from a history of integrity. Newt has forfeited the ability to do that by his multiple betrayals and deceptions, and therefore the right to ask us to support him with election to our highest public office.

I believe Evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics are making a huge long term error in supporting Newt despite these obvious liabilities. For many, the bottom line is that Obama must be defeated. They relish the image of Newt waxing him in a debate. Well, their error is the mirror image of those who elected Obama in the first place. A man who had very thin credentials and experience was elected four years ago, largely on the strength of soaring rhetoric and wildly unrealistic promises. Now those who want to see him defeated are willing to support a guy who is lacking in moral substance but who is a great debater as well as a savvy politician.  The question is whether Christians should be willing to accept such a tradeoff.  Too many times Christians have been far too uncritical in supporting candidates who are willing to mouth support for their views or do an interview with Dobson or talk about God in a Baptist church, regardless of whether these candidates have shown by their actions any deep commitment to their values and convictions.

Many observers already believe conservative Christians are opportunistic hypocrites. Their support of Newt only confirms this impression and deprives them of any credibility if they ever want to make an issue of “traditional moral values” again.  As an obvious example, opponents of gay marriage, a flashpoint conservative issue, will find themselves in a very awkward position if they expect Newt to address this issue with credibility.   Indeed, supporters of gay marriage will understandably, and perhaps rightly, scorn conservative Christians who support Newt, and then turn around and try to make the case that homosexuality is a threat to the sanctity of marriage and traditional “family values.”  Let me be clear.  I believe homosexual behavior is condemned as sinful by scripture, and is morally wrong.  But the Bible has far more to say about adultery than it does about homosexuality.  Moreover, adultery is often used in the Bible as an illustration of idolatry, for it is a profound form of betrayal that deeply images our infidelity to God.   For adultery is by definition a lie as well as a treacherous form of personal betrayal.

Christians who can wink at Newt’s multiple adulteries, exacerbated by the specter of his hypocritical attack on Clinton while doing so, should not be surprised when supporters of gay marriage see them as mimicking the same sort of laughable hypocrisy if they try to make a moral issue of gay marriage.   They will understandably appear utterly arbitrary and unprincipled to their critics.

I am aware that for many conservative Christians, the foremost issue in this election is the economy, and the staggering national debt, an issue of great moral significance in its own right.  I could not agree more that the national debt is an issue of urgent importance and that the economy desperately needs better management.  But as urgent as these issues are, I do not believe they warrant the sort of compromise I believe conservative Christians are making in their support of Gingrich.

The bottom line for me: if Newt is the nominee, I will not be voting in November.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

.

If you’ve been over to Drudge Report or listened to Rush Limbaugh (today’s transcript) in the last 24 hours you’ve seen/heard a few clips of Gingrich bashing or distancing himself from Reagan/Reaganism. If Newt hadn’t been wrapping himself in the robes of “The True Reagan Conservative” and taking co-credit for all of Reagan’s accomplishments in [...]