Lies and Political Ads

It bothers me when blatant lies are sold as the truth. Newt Gingrich has been hit very hard the past few days, not only by the liberal left, but by Establishment Republicans and people in his own party. One thing I've learned about politics: you may not like the man (it helps to like him to support him), but look at his achievements, then determine whether he failed or got the job done.

Anyone in leadership who is trying to change the status quo is going to make enemies.

Newt made his share of enemies. Elliott Abrams, who served under President Reagan, is obviously one of them. He attributed a quote to Newt this week, saying that Gingrich admitted that President Reagan's Soviet Union policy was failing. He supposedly said, "President Reagan is clearly failing." But the facts tell a different story. Here is exactly what Newt said about Reagan's policy on the Soviet Union:

“The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.”

Note the words, "Enormous gap between...Reagan..and his administration's weak policies." The administration's weak policies is the focal point of this quote, not Reagan. The people in his administration did not agree with Reagan's strong words against the Soviet Union. Newt was FOR Reagan's strong approach; the people in his administration were not.

Such a simple thing, the truth. Remember Nancy Reagan passing the conservative mantle to Newt Gingrich in 1995? No way would she have done that, if her husband was against Newt.

Vote for AnyoneButObama

You've heard it said many times: "This is the most important election in our country's history." If you're pleased with the socialist agenda of the Obama administration, then don't read any further. But if you're not happy with the direction this country has been taking since January 09, you must prepare to work hard for AnyoneButObama and vote. Any Republican is better than Obama. Even a Massachusetts Moderate, or a baggage-ladened establishment guy, or a Texas Congressman intent on isolationism, or a Senator from Pennsylvania who isn't very exciting. But nothing will change unless you decide a difference is worth making by working hard for AnyoneButObama, and vote.

Consider these questions: 1) Do you want ObamaCare to go into permanent effect? 2) Do you want to continue the "spend everything we have and more" philosophy of Obama? 3) Do you want to cripple this country so badly that it will take 100+ years of concerted conservative-controlled Congressional power to undo the damage? 4) Do you want more government power over your life? 5) Are you better off today than you were three years ago?

If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then forget who the candidate is running against Obama. Just get out and vote for him. AnyoneButObama needs to win for all of us to win.

Newt, Redemption, and Leadership

Cal Thomas' article today reiterates the Newt momentum being based in “redemption’ and “forgiveness” of a person's character IF he can get the job done. We have many examples of “fallen” presidents that achieved much (like it or not). One of my least admired presidents was FDR, who cheated on his wife Eleanor with Lucy Rutherfurd. Just saying the words “cheating on his wife” brings JFK to mind. Of course, in our lifetime, Clinton. George W. Bush, the “redeemed” drinker. Obama, the smoker and cocaine user (at this point, however, Obama is not “forgiven” anything because he’s made such a mess of things). But the point is this: despite Newt’s baggage, he is electable because he enunciates the conservatives’ positions with passion and clarity. We’re willing to forgive his personal failings IF he can get us out of this mess.

I had to take a second look at Newt Gingrich when Gov. Perry stumbled and never regained his political footing. Thank God for men of courage like Gov. Rick Perry. He reminds me of Reagan, and we desperately need another Reagan. But even Reagan was flawed at the time with divorce. Right now, however, we have Newt, who may end up as another Reagan. At least, he pays homage to Reagan. That will have to do for now.

Romney's Tax Returns

The liberal media marches on this morning. My local newspaper reported Romney's release of his tax returns like this: "His returns...represent an extraordinary financial accounting of one of the wealthiest U.S. presidential candidates in history, with his annual income topping $20 million."

Wow. $20 whopping millions. Is that it? I actually expected more.

The newspaper article continues: "It remains unclear how the details of Romney's fortune will play among American workers, who on average earn less in a lifetime than Romney paid in taxes in 2010 alone."

Class warfare, anyone? A staple in the Obama administration and his liberal media parrots.

"One" of the wealthiest presidential candidates? Let's look at John Kerry. His worth (including his wife's estate) in 2004 was estimated upwards of $3 billion. That's billion, folks. Anyone remember the media going after the "wealthiest senator" in the U.S. Senate? I remember it being mentioned that he was rich, but he was not vilified for being rich, for marrying wealth, or for creating wealth.

$20 million? Really? We're making a big deal out of $20 million earned dollars a year? 

Thank God for people like Romney. I'm not supporting him right now for the nomination, but if he wins, you bet I'll throw everything I can into his race. Any Republican is better than Obama. But the point here is this: it's not how much he makes, but that he can make it rich in this country. He did not inherit his wealth. HE MADE IT. And he created jobs for over 100,000 people. He gives to charities. He "spreads the wealth around" by spending and investing and giving.

His message is this: capitalism works. And it can work for you and me. God bless Mitt Romney.

Focus on Defeating Obama

It's always a challenge for members of the party primarying not to get discouraged. Romney came out blasting Gingrich today, as was expected. Glenn Beck accused Newt of being a progressive. Santorum is being propped up by the Republican Establishment and conservative Christian leaders. Romney's a One-Percenter. Gingrich is an adulterer (although redeemed). Santorum is a mouse. Romney is reserved. Gingrich is an avenger. Santorum is trying to get a word in edge-wise. Oh, and Ron Paul? He's insignificant.

You get the idea. If you listen to the media, you'd think none of the Republicans were capable of winning a game of Bridge, much less the presidency. So, we keep fighting. At the end of the day, that's why we're doing this anyway: we keep our eyes on the prize and press forward, undeterred, undaunted, and determined.

The Republican Field in Florida

Gov. Perry excited me when he entered the race. I danced and shouted around my home, thrilled that FINALLY, a true conservative with a fighter's spirit was running for president against Obama. When he pulled out of the race, my spirits plummeted. I looked at the field of contenders and felt as despondent about this election season as I did in 2008. Who in this race would represent my strong conservative values, both socially and economically? I didn't believe Romney was that person; he'd flipped on every issue and I just flat-out didn't trust him. Santorum? He appeared weak to me, a whiner, not someone who would hold his dukes up long enough to get in a good punch. Ron Paul? Puh-lease.

And then there was Newt, with all his baggage.

Now he's leading in Florida, and a part of me wants to be thrilled that his strong voice may, just may, reflect my voice. Another part of me cringes when anger crosses his face. Stay cool, Newt. Be presidential. Act the part; every president is a great actor. Keep it succinct. Stay on point. Get some rest. And come out punchin'.

If you do, we just might win this thing.

Santorum's Dilemma is Gingrich's Dilemma

How many times did we hear that Speaker Gingrich's campaign was stalling/imploding/out of money and, therefore, insignificant? We expected to hear the death knell for the Gingrich campaign several times. Turns out, the pundits were all wrong. He's the frontrunner since winning the South Carolina primary by 13 points over Romney.

Now the focus has shifted to Rick Santorum. He's running out of money, seems to be stalling, but he is not insignificant. If he stays in the race through Florida, he's a spoiler for Romney, keeping the Tea Partiers and conservatives divided between a relatively strong conservative record (Santorum) and a really strong conservative messenger (Gingrich). And since we have a strong liberal/socialist/Alinsky "messenger" in the White House with no substantive record that is beneficial (key word) to this country, we need a strong conservative messenger to go up against him.

Gov. Romney would love to have Santorum stay in the race (McCain anyone, 2008?). 'Nuff said.

Gov. Rick Perry honorably discharged his campaign at the right moment to cause more of a surge for Gingrich and his first win in South Carolina. Now that the Republican Establishment and conservative religious leaders are attempting to prop up the Santorum campaign (not necessarily to help Santorum win, but to get rid of Gingrich so their rave-fave can win), this question keeps lifting its poignant head: is it time for Santorum to get out and make way for our "really strong conservative messenger"?

What Newt Needs to Say About Family Values

After the South Carolina primary, pro-family fighters in Washington, D.C. are scrambling for a Rick Santorum look-alike, and Newt Gingrich doesn't fit the bill. A Newt nomination and presidency would not focus on family values, these fighters say, and that's a hard pill for those on the pro-family front lines to swallow.

But not so fast. Who better to tout family values than Newt Gingrich, the poster child for bad family decisions? He's spoken of a deeper faith experience and getting right with God and his church. That's good; people can rah-rah around a humble candidate speaking about redemption. But let's go one further: Newt needs to talk about the pain of divorce and the effects it has on family members. His daughters can attest to that. He can attest to that. I'm sure his ex-es can attest to that (have we not all seen Marianne's pain?). And it doesn't have to be a long tirade with sickening, intrusive, and frankly, uninteresting, details. A few sentences addressing the pain of NOT having family values would assuage most evangelicals and libertarians, and he would be the pro-family hero in owning up to those mistakes:

"I made some mistakes. I made wrong choices. I hurt my family. Divorce hurts families. I can't go back and change those mistakes. But I can spread the word about this: the power of redemption heals broken lives."

Now, that would be an effective statement on all fronts, and it would keep the power of family values, in a Newt Gingrich presidency, intact.

Romney or Gingrich?

I'm not sure who would be the best for our country. Romney looks presidential (but so does Obama). Romney has business experience that could help this country get back on its feet, and at least facing the right direction. I'm not sure Christians will vote for a Mormon. I've heard many people say that if Romney is the nominee, then they will stay home on General Election day. How stupid is that? Any Republican would be better than Obama.

Newt has so much baggage that I'm sure the election season will be more about uncovering and debating his relationships than it will be about the issues and how Newt's vast experience and knowledge could help this country get back on track.

Santorum is a non-issue. He doesn't have the charisma or the verbal skills to effectively state his case or debate Obama. He has improved, yes, but he's not there yet. And I think the people of South Carolina have seen that. I like Rick Santorum. But I'm not sure he can defeat Obama or win the Republican nomination.

And Ron Paul? He has so many great ideas, but he's lacking on foreign policy. 'Nuff said. He will not be the nominee.

South Carolinians: Get out and Vote!

You've heard it said many times: "This is the most important election in our country's history." If you're pleased with the socialist agenda of the Obama administration, then don't read any further. But if you're not happy with the direction this country has been taking since January 09, you must get out and vote in the primary today in South Carolina. Any Republican is better than Obama. Even a Mormon, or a baggage-ladened establishment guy, or a Texas Congressman intent on isolationism, or a Senator from Pennsylvania who isn't very exciting. But nothing will change unless you get out and vote.

Why is the Republican "Frontrunner" a Moderate?

According to recent polls, the Republican frontrunner (by a hair) is a Massachusetts moderate. In an election where everything we have believed in as Americans is on the line, how in the world did a MODERATE become the frontrunner, if only by an inch?

The conservative vote is being split between Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. Romney has rarely seen the light of day above a 25% approval rating from Republicans. That means that more than 75% of Republicans do not want to vote for him. He is a Massachusetts moderate. He has flip-flopped on virtually every topic sacred to conservatives. [Funding for abortion is in RomneyCare.] What Gingrich said earlier today is true: unless we want a repeat of 2008, when the moderate McCain slid past all the conservatives running and became the Republican candidate for president, someone (or two) needs to get out of the race now to ensure that a conservative wins in South Carolina. He called for Perry and Santorum to step down so Gingrich could win. As the second-placer in recent polls, that is a good call. Otherwise, Romney slides past all the conservatives running and becomes the Republican candidate. And I'm not sure he is electable, because too many people have said they would never vote for him. Personally, I would rather it was Perry making the call for others to step down, but Gingrich would be my second choice.

It's a given that any of the Republican candidates would be infinitely better than Obama. But it would take someone with incredible resolve to see to it that a conservative gets elected to actually step down in favor of a rival. It would take guts. It would take humility. It would take a man of vision. Basically, it would take a miracle. Tebowing, anyone?

To my twin brother, Tim, today...

Happy birthday!

South Carolina Debate

I'm not sure who won the debate tonight in South Carolina. Newt received the first standing ovation in debate history. I agree with so much that he has to say, but I'm not sure he (we) can get him into the White House with his baggage. I, like so many, would love to see him CRUSH Obama in a debate, but wanting that may not be enough to get the "W" after his name in November. Rick Santorum? I like him, mostly. He lacks charisma, which is necessary to win (what about Nixon, you say? Point taken). Romney, Romney, Romney. What to do with Romney. I'm in the Not Romney camp, because of all the flip flops. Man, that cat has flipped on every issue out there. But he looks good, doesn't he? Handsome, well mannered, a businessman--no a super businessman--a good family life, but he's a Mormon. The "but" in that sentence isn't mine, but some of the people I've talked to have a problem with it, and say they'll stay home if he wins the nomination. I think most American Christians have gotten over his Mormonism, but maybe not. Rick Perry. Now there's a man that should have had the nomination. A veteran, a governor with a successful record on job creation, 2nd Amendment proponent, pro-life (yes, he believes we should protect life; it's in the Constitution actually: the pursuit of life, liberty...), pro-marriage. But he has no clear path to victory, although I really like him. Ron Paul? Nope, nada, zilch. 'Nuff said.