Newt Gingrich Thriving on Scandal

Lately, his second of three wives, Marianne Gingrich, told ABC news some dirty little secrets about her ex-husband that most candidates would be scrambling to hide or at least explain away. However, Gingrich seems perfectly unperturbed by them, especially with his win in South Carolina last night.

Seeing how sexual harassment accusations brought down Cain, and Newt Gingrich himself said that it isn't fit for a President to be a sex scandal (referring to Clinton,) it's amazing how the ex-speaker has managed to stay at the top of the polls as more and more of his social life comes to the forefront.

Marianne has some right to be upset. Sure, getting cheated on may be what goes around comes around, but now she sees the man she knows all too well prancing around with a much younger woman, spouting conservative family values like it’s his guidebook. The most shocking accusation was Gingrich asking for an open marriage, after his six year affair with his current wife went unnoticed. Or maybe it was the Gingrich did to her what he did with his first wife, asking for a divorce when she was sick with a serious disease.

For a man who once thought even the accusation of a relationship with a subordinate was reason for a President to be impeached, it’s amazing how he now thinks a politician’s personal life doesn’t apply in a presidential race. Once again, it’s just Newt thinking the rules don’t apply to him, and he is convincing enough to get voters to agree.


ABC Nightline
Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to be President, Ex-Wife Says
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-wife/story?id=15392899

Meet the Mormon

Forget health care and his time at Bain, if Romney is too win South Carolina by a good margin, some Evangelicals are going to have to suck it up and vote for a Mormon.
About 60% of South Carolina voters identify with the Evangelical faith. About 8% identify as Catholic, while only 7% are non-Christian. Considering mainstream Christianity's long term prejudice against Mormons, Romney might not sit well with all of them. Not to mention, he is being constantly attacked for his previous liberal views on abortion and gay marriage.
Some Evangelicals are in support for Romney, mostly because of financial experience. Still, this state barely registered him in 2008, and many people still don't like the idea of him as their nominee. The more conservative a voter is, the more likely it seems they will give their vote to Santorum, or possibly Gingrich or Romney.
The Church of Latter-day Saints does have a pretty controversial history. It's is rooted in America, where a man named Joseph Smith claimed to be a modern messiah, and that he had been led by an angel to find additional holy writings from God. These new books provided many amendments to the traditional Bible, most infamously allowing polygamous marriage. These practice along got Smith killed in Illinois, and drove the rest of Mormon church west, where they are principally located.
The old ways of Mormonism are gone, the current church as long rejected polygamy and no longer is openly racist. In fact, their one of the most conservative denominations in the U.S., especially when it comes to social issues. Still, the old ideas remain. Mormonism is seen as false Christianity and a secretive cult. Many South Carolina voters see faith as a critical criteria for leading the country, and wouldn't strongly consider voting for someone that did not share their particularly ideology. There is even a belief that Gingrich's infidelity is still of less worry than a Mormon leading the country. Some even say they consider a candidate's religious beliefs and values as higher importance than their economic policies or experience.
That is just sad. The president helps a country as a whole, and should have no involvement in religion as a function of the government. Considering morality in a candidate is one thing, but considering their religion is just un-American.
On a side note, here's some irony. In 1960, Kennedy was attacked for being Catholic, which many people considered to be the 'wrong type of Christianity for the country.' They were scared him being president would give the Catholic church control over America. Now, similar concerns are coming out the Mormon church and Romney. However, current Evangelicals poll at considering Catholics to be true Christians, and generally don't favor Protestants over the faith that there ultra-conservative ancestors fought against. It just took 50 years for the page to turn. In 2060, get ready for Evangelicals to be supporting the good Mormon for president over, let's say, a Jehovah's Witness.

Carolyn Click
The State 'Evangelical's Taking a Second Look at Romney'
http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/13/2111692/evangelicals-taking-second-look.html

Perry and Capitalism Sitting in a Tree

One of Rick Perry's main selling points in his dying bid for president, is his state's hugely successful economic record. Texas has somehow managed to stay above the fray in the past years, as it continues to show good employment records, and overall growth in profit. Why does it all work? Well according to Perry, it's all about how much he loves the capitalist system.

He, according to himself, as been a good governor, because of his strict loyalty to capitalism theories in his state's policies. The people who haven't been loyal to capitalism (Wall Street and Washington,) deserve the hard times that have befallen them.
The idea of sticking to ol' capitalism as been a huge hit with all candidates. They show themselves as keeping to the systems that have profited the U.S.A. in the days of yore. The opposite of their gleaning beacon of hope is the classic American foe, the socialist menace. Obama's health care plan and the general democratic penchant for social programs make him a concern for a lot of conservative voters.
However, given Perry's need to defeat Romney in the upcoming primary, such endorsements for capitalism are unnecessary. Every candidate in the race might not have Perry's record as a governor, but they do say similar things about their trust in free market strategies. Rick Perry's remarks on the subject are redundant, and he should be using every opportunity to make himself distinct from his opponents. Making vague comments aren't particularly helpful against the specific economic ideas of Gingrich and Romney. When Perry goes around make town hall speeches like this one, he really should be using his time more wisely. He's going to need to make every second count.

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rick-perry-says-i-love-capitalism-15349377

Panic, and the Claws Come Out

South Carolina might be the last chance for somebody, anybody, to beat Mitt Romney before he wins the nomination. It's no secret, so hopefully Romney went South with a thick skin, because some old politicians, with their pride on the line, are getting desperate.
Meet Gingrich and Perry. Both had there days of poll numbers that were higher than old Mitt's, both were bested by him. Perry failed to debate even half as coherently as Romney, and Gingrich was left scrambling in Iowa after a series of attack ads funded by one of his super-pacs. Needless to say, they're not happy, and they are now determined to go down fighting. They hope to bring Romney along with them.
There are two parts of Romney's past at issue: his lacking commitment to conservatism, and his lucrative job where he, in simplest terms, made money firing people. (On a side note, George Clooney did that in Up in the Air, and people love him still.)
The southern gentlemen have to hope their words are hold and it will be enough, but Romney's resources can send an equally devastating strike back, via expensive air time and about 10x more volunteers calling on his behalf. Plus, the governor of the state, a Tea Party supported Nikki Haley, has given her support to Romney, praising his financial experience especially. According to her, the work he did saved companies and was just an exercise of the free market.
Senator DeMint, who is more pro-Gingrich, is annoyed that the candidates aren't using their resources more effectively. He doesn't consider Romney's political pandering or religion the problem, but just that he is too moderate and won't do enough to help the country. He, and many other conservative leaders, agree that the only way to beat Romney is for every other conservative candidate to get behind more man. Heck, Evangelical leaders are meeting to discuss it this week. (Obviously, choosing a Presidential favorite is a matter of God.)
This will be Romney's most challenging victory, but if he can pull it off, there is nothing but Obama stopping him from redecorating the Oval Office.

Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times 'Republican Rivals Batter Romney in South Carolina'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/politics/candidates-go-after-romney-in-south-carolina.html?_r=1&ref=politics

The Voter Contact Program

While other candidates are making bids from the heart, Mitt Romney's political strategies are purely cerebral. His funds go into research at a far larger margin than any other candidate's can. His researches study voting patterns, demographic shifts and voter compatibility (to what speech Romney would be making that week.) He pays particularly close attention to financial trends and records, since most of his campaign is based on his business experience, and not on social values. All this effort is worth the cost, since it definitely gets results. Romney has found a way to target specific groups for support months before a primary begins, and they don't disappoint him on voting day.
He targets older and higher income families with a strong interest in children and extra-curricular activities. The type of people that might be the head of their PTA, or a regular at the country club golf course. They are usually staunch Republicans, but not necessarily die hard church goers. Being a Mormon is still a huge drawback for Romney in states as conservative as South Carolina, so his volunteers don't waster their time focusing on Evangelical voters, even when they make up about 60% of the state (as they do in SC.) They know that they other candidates can split that vote, leaving a whole 40% left for Romney.
When making calls or going door to door, volunteers are trained to listen for interest from voters in economic issues, but also border control and welfare programs. Romney takes a pretty popular views on these issues, ones that are shared by his fellow candidates. The idea is that if a voter is still undecided, they can make Romney seem just like his fellow candidate but only an improved version. So, if they are considering someone else they might think 'I agree with this, but Romney has the same view PLUS the economic experience. I will choose Romney.' The concept is so simple, I'm amazed it's news.
And that is what Romney needs, simple support. The nomination is his if he just gets people to the polls.

Maeve Reston
Los Angeles Times 'Voter Data Critical to Romney's Victory'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-analysis-20120111,0,2836600.story

The Republicans Are Missing Some Logic

Here are two main arguments made in the Republican Primary:
          1 - No higher taxes on job creators. Do not punish the incredibly wealthy by making them pay more than their share. The 1% do NOT get unequal treatment by the government, or society.

          2 - Do not trust the elite. Down to Earth 'average Joes' are the core of American society and values.

And then there is Mitt Romney. A rich 'job creator' that deserves to be treated like everyone else, and use his money how he sees fit. This is the type of guy who usually wins (or pays for) some Republican's support. But since Romney is using his finances to fight his competitors and buy negative ads, part two of the conservative ideology is coming out. As an elite career politician, liberal New Englander, big bad boss man millionaire, Romney is the enemy. He is the bully beating up on the rest of the poor, humble (but actually very rich themselves,) truly American candidates.
So, the problem comes between two of the demographics that give Republicans some of their most staunch supporters. There are the upper class, and the lower class, and candidates have to pander to both. Between the two mentioned ideas, they can (somewhat irrationally,) reach both the richest and poorest citizens of America.

Since everybody loves the underdog, it might not be a bad strategy. Especially since their rich supporters know the ‘down with the businessman’ routine, is just all talk.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart 'Extremely Loud & Incredibly Wealthy'
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-9-2012/indecision-2012---extremely-loud---incredibly-wealthy

The Huckabee Strategy

In some ways, Santorum is a cliche. He is the fifth in a long line of Republicans who surged to the top of primary polls, challenged Mitt Romney, attacked Ron Paul, laughed at Jon Huntsman, then fell to the bottom before the primaries even began. Now, as he is the only 'suddenly popular' candidate to make it a few weeks into 2012, he has a different cliche to face. The early sort of favorite who disappears after a few states. This role was previously given to Mike Huckabee in 2008, and it seems Santorum just can't resist some of the same tactics.

Having won Iowa, (which surprised a few,) Huckabee decided to gamble for New Hampshire, instead of heavily campaigning in South Carolina, which has demographic more similar to Iowa than to New England. This idea failed him on two fronts, after he lost both states and continued a downwards path into Fox News correspondent oblivion.
Santorum is relying on the 'hey who is this guy that came from nowhere and now could win', press coverage that could carry him from a loss in New Hampshire. However, this whole plan rests with him still displaying hope and media attention into later primaries, ones that he will have to win to reasonably challenge Romney. If anything upstages him, his money and preparation might falter, leaving him stuck in a state where candidates like Gingrich and Perry have decided to bet all their savings. If history repeats itself, he will falter in the polls of the all important deciding state, and be forced to bow out a few months later.
Santorum's politics make him the new Huckabee, he can only hope the metaphor ends there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorum-and-the-huckabee-trap/2012/01/09/gIQAlwfplP_story.html

Santorum Desplays the Regular Amount of Corruption

 It's no secret that our representatives in Congress vote for self interest. Companies can pay for their vote, but usually do so in a way that doesn't attract unwanted attention. The most typical way to get a elected representative cleanly in your camp is to play up the very nature of their position. Once they aren't in power anymore, they'll need a job. And what could be better than a high paying position in a large business that guaranteed, if you vote in ways that benefit them.
 Usually, once the official has left public office and expects this suspicious position, they are not intending to reenter politics and their new job isn't given much thought. However, if a person, such as a one term Pennsylvanian senator, tries to run for president, a closer look at such a job might be warranted.

After leaving the Senate, it's no surprise that companies he was favorable to in legislature then offered him jobs. Since 2007, he has worked for Universal Health Services, leaving with almost a million dollars net worth, Consol Energy, which profited from anti-environmental bills he supported, and he helped a lobbying firm called the American Continental Group.Now, Santorum is really harping on Romney for being a wealthy businessman relying on the help of even richer friends. The hypocrisy is pretty evident, since Santorum's been just as interested in a good stock portfolio as anyone else would reasonably be. If he weren't trying to run for office again, his typical political dealing wouldn't be a problem.
It's the old cliche. A politician can start his career as a coal miner's son, but he won't end it as one.


Mike McIntire and Michael Luo
The New York Times, 'After Santorum Left Office, Familiar Hands Reached Out'
January 5th, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/politics/after-senate-santorums-beneficiaries-became-benefactors.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Romney: Slide By or Demolish?

It's the day of the New Hampshire primary, and people are as confident in Romney winning as they are the sun will rise after he does. The real attention, ironically, isn't really going to focus on his victory, but to what degree he can win. If he wins by an insurmountable lead, then he just needs South Carolina and he can practically start introducing his Vice Presidential pick. However, if another candidate can sneak up on him, like Santorum did in Iowa, then he should start sweating. An average victory won't mean a thing in a state that's in his backyard. The rest of Republican party will still be searching for their preferred neo-conservative candidate.
Gingrich and Perry aren't counting on a high showing in New Hampshire, instead their counting on South Carolina. Instead, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman particularly, have been focusing on New Hampshire. Depending on the poll, either Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman (cute how their first names match) are taking second place after Romney, and usually by more than 20 points. If Paul or Huntsman can take that position, it will give them enough momentum to continue.
In the case of Santorum, he isn't counting on a comeback like in Iowa, but finishing third would be huge. It would mean his appeal extends to other types of voters, not just committed conservative Republicans from Iowa. Right now, people are taking him as the anti-Romney candidate, and he hasn't shot himself in the foot, like so many predecessors of the position did.
For Romney, he will continue to lead unless someone, at this point anybody, can reach independents and moderates like he can. His head start is ensuring him New Hampshire and other early primary states, but he needs to hold on strong so people can finally get the message.
Republicans, this is your nominee.

FoxNews.com
'In New Hampshire, Question Is Not Whether Romney Wins, but By How Much.'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/10/in-new-hampshire-question-is-not-whether-romney-wins-but-by-how-much/

Gingrich Owes a Thank You to the Supreme Court as Big Money Helps Him Out

Gingrich has a lot of rich friends, plenty of whom have contributed in some way to his campaign. While he falls behind in endorsements and support from fellow politicians, his funding comes disproportionally from big business, rather than cumulative small donations. Still, Gingrich defends that he still pails in comparison to Romney's funds, much of which also comes from rich friends. On the other hand, Gingrich has to be aware of who are his friends. Adelson has controversial views and a history a suspect business practices.

Newt Gingrich is no stranger to the arts of government funding, in terms of campaign contributions. He is well known for his dealings with rich businessmen, who are eager to have a powerful representative on their side.
This Friday, a billionaire named Sheldon Adelson, a long term friend of Newt Gingrich, gave 5 million dollars to one of his super-pacs. Gingrich supporters had been after him for weeks to help finance a counterattack to Romney's aggressive ads in Iowa, which helped bring down Gingrich's momentary lead. They reserved most of the money for advertising in South Carolina, where Gingrich would have to win or come close to winning, to stay in the race for the White House.
The recent Supreme Court decision opened up campaign funding to even less scrutiny, allowing businesses and billionaires to but public officials. Gingrich in particular can be grateful that the only thing keeping his presidential hopes afloat, can't be found to be illegal.

Nicholas Confessore and Eric Lipton
New York Times 'A Big Check, and Gingrich Gets a Big Lift'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us/politics/sheldon-adelson-a-billionaire-gives-gingrich-a-big-lift.html?ref=politics

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire

Unless hell freezes over, pigs learn to fly, or he is struck by a meteor, Mitt Romney is going to win New Hampshire. This is his state, where moderates and independents can flock to support their favorite well-spoken businessmen, a former governor of their region, and a man who has spent more time campaigning there than Iowa and South Carolina combined. He's done it once, and it will happen again.
So it makes sense that his fellow candidates are leaving him somewhat in peace for the moment, and attacking each other to try and win the very coveted 'runner-up' position. Notably, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are focusing on each other as their main competition in the most recent debate. Using personal statements, Paul points out Santorum's votes for big government and current position at a large corporation. Santorum comes back, with 'you should know better.' The animosity between the two is certainty registered, as it begins with Paul attacking Santorum’s credentials as a fiscal conservative and the latter responding with condescending remarks towards Paul’s libertarian sensibilities. Regardless, both seem to think the other is misguided in their approach to the economy, and are trying to prove that their own knowledge is superior. However, since most people in America aren’t financial experts, these arguments may not matter. Santorum won Iowa because of his social conservatism, and Paul’s supporters are in favor of his economic strategies. The actual content of the debate attacks might not matter, as much as the delivery.

CNN 'Deabtes in New Hampshire'
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2012/01/08/steinhauser-nh-gop-debate.cnn

Iowan Voters with Mixed Agendas

What is more important to Iowan voters? A relative certainty of a Republican president, or the possibility of having the best conservative president. As the caucus closes, the polls show they don't have a uniform opinion on the subject.

The caucuses are in a interesting position to gain voter turnout this year. There is no Democratic alternative AND there was a Republican primary four years ago, so the interest in candidates holds. This dynamic can attract a lot of moderates and independent voters to contribute to the voting process. However, only registered Republicans can vote in Iowa, so middle American isn't well represented.
This makes a large turnout of far right leaning voters, Tea Party members themselves made up almost two thirds of the voters. Though they didn't all get behind one candidate, the majority supported Santorum, who is the latest in a long line of second placers to Romney this year.
The results of the caucus, then, are somewhat surprising. Bachmann won the strawpoll this summer, but finished last, despite Tea Party support. The anti-conservative candidate, Romney, was the surprising winner.
How can this happen? Well, a little common sense and prudence. Romney won almost all votes among people who said the electability of the nominee in general election was the most important factor. Even if the president isn't perfect, he would be better than Obama.
In contrast, the young idealists wanted Paul and the middle aged Christians wanted Santorum, who scored highest among those who counted 'moral character' as the most important aspect of a nominee. Many voters came in undecided, or were considering their options until just a few days before Tuesday. While many bit the bullet to give Romney his win, if just 9 less had given in, Santorum would be taking his victory lap. The Iowa Caucus isn't the final say, and it seems reasonable that Iowans wanted to make a point: for now, Santorum seems like a viable perfect Republican president.

Nicholas Confessore and Marjorie Connelly
The New York Times, 'Electability and Principles Split Iowa Voters, Poll Finds'
p://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-polls-show-sharp-divide-among-voters.html?ref=politics