Ya know, I don’t always agree with Michelle Malkin; but this is very good.

Michelle Malkin is bit more “Firebrandy’er” than me. But, she makes a very good point here.

CBS News reports via Twitter:
Huntsman tells reporters in Concord: “Governor Romney enjoys firing people; I enjoy creating jobs.”
It’s a reference to this:
Mitt Romney, who’s under attack for his business record, said Monday that he likes to have the option of firing people.
“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” he told business executives from the Nashua Greater Chamber of Commerce, adding if he isn’t getting a “good service, I want to say, I’m going to get someone else.”
The point will get lost down the demagogic rabbit hole:
He added: “You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I’m going to get someone else to provide that service to me.’”
Mitt Romney’s chronic flip-flopping political career is teeming with reasons to oppose his nomination — from his support for racial preferences, to government funding of abortion, liberal judges, global warming enviro-nitwittery, TARP, auto bailouts, the Obama stimulus, gun control, and of course, individual health insurance mandates that presaged Obamacare.
Instead of focusing on his long political record of expedience, incompetent non-Romneys have morphed into Michael Moore propagandists — throwing not just Bain Capital under the bus, but wealth creators of all kinds who take risks in the private marketplace.
We’re screwed. via Michelle Malkin » The abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys

I don’t share her pessimism; it okay to paint contrasts between the establishment and the grassroots, between Moderates and Hardcores and so forth. However, like Mrs. Malkin points out, we should not start sounding like Michael Moore on process of doing such an exercise. 😯

I mean, Michael Moore is a fairly big guy and I do not think we should be trying to squeeze between him and Nancy Pelosi on thier side of the street. Put another way; its okay to strum the guitar of populism, but let’s not start taking up camp in “tent city,” those people stink and we do take showers. (Well, some of us do! 😉 )

No, I did not watch the Republican Debate last night

I had good reason not to watch too. From what I was hearing on twitter last night; while I was lying in the bed and drifting off to sleep, is that the debate was lousy. This was confirmed by things that I have read this morning. I guess the usual liberal partisan hacks over at ABC NEWS were living up to their expectations — not to mention the fact that the head of the DNC was at the debate outright lying to the media.

Also, the silly back and forth, not to mention the preening; as to who is the most Republican of them all — I find all that quite the bore. The truth is none of these contenders is of the Reagan stripe of Conservative, most of them, with the exception of Ron Paul; who is too far in the other direction — are just Neo-Conservative war hawks. Now will I vote for one of them? At this point, I really do not honestly know. It depends on which one makes the cut with the GOP nomination.

To be quite honest, the primary process really does not interest me that much. Now the general election is another story; the debates that I very much look forward to are the general election debates, how is Obama going to face someone like Romney? How is Obama going to stand there with a straight face and repeat that silly mantra of Hope and Change?

The truth is the only thing that is changed, is the amount of debt and the rate of unemployment. This is not to even to mention all the bureaucratic Government regulations that was put into place that killed many jobs in the oil drilling business. I just do not see how Obama is going to defend all of that, without sounding like a blithering idiot.

There is supposed to be a debate tonight as well, from what I hear. I will most likely skip it too. Again, I just do not have any interest in the Republican Party fashion shows. I just want to see this failure of a President try to debate and defend his failures in leadership. It is something that I do look forward to very much.

Rasmussen: Romney 27%, Santorum 24%, Gingrich 18% in SC Primary Poll

There is a reason for this and I will explain it:

Video:

(removed – video auto-played and was annoying…)

The Story:

What a difference a caucus makes. Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Palmetto State finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still in the lead, earning 27% support from likely GOP Primary Voters, up from 23% in early November. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in third with 18% of the vote, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 11%.
Bringing up the rear are Texas Governor Rick Perry with five percent (5%) and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman at two percent (2%). Another two percent (2%) of these likely primary voters like some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided. — Via Election 2012: South Carolina Republican Primary – Rasmussen Reports

Okay here is the reason that Romney is doing so well in this polls; First off, name recognition. Second of all, Romney is more of a moderate and those type of Conservatives will gravitate towards him. Santorum is a bit more of a hardcore Republican and Conservative, especially when it comes to social issues, like Abortion. This turns off the more fiscal Conservatives.

Not only this, Romney is appealing to the Independents as well — which will ruin Obama’s chances of relection, if Romney gets the nomination — which, at this point, I believe will be the case. Also, if he is as smart, as he seems to be — Romney will pick Santorum as as his running mate and that will be the ticket come the 2012 general election. Which will put Democrats into a frenzy and you talk about war? Holy crap! 😯

Others: The Hill, The Moderate Voice, American Research Group, Hot Air, CatholicVote.org, GOP 12, LifeNews.com, Big Government, Campaign 2012, Outside the Beltway, ABCNEWS, Taegan Goddard’s …, FiveThirtyEight, Ballot Box, The PJ Tatler, Wake up America and American Spectator

Ha! Newt says he is “not rich”

Man, this is bad.

AllahPundit calls it “laying it on with a trowel”. I was thinking more of a 12 horse motor pump into a 10 inch hose fitting myself. I’m talking about a cement pump.

What am I talking about?

This:

CONCORD, N.H. — Less than 12 hours after finishing in fourth place in the Iowa caucuses, Newt Gingrich opened a new, more aggressive chapter in his campaign, taking pointed shots at rivals Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, who both finished ahead of Gingrich. At one point, Gingrich hinted he would make Romney’s personal wealth an issue, telling a reporter “I’m not rich.”
Speaking to reporters shortly after arriving in New Hampshire, Gingrich dismissed Romney’s razor-thin victory—the former Massachusetts governor ended the night with 25 percent of the vote and only eight more votes than Rick Santorum. “The fact is, three out of four Republicans rejected him,” Gingrich said.
When asked why he chose to congratulate Santorum and not Romney on his caucus success, the former House speaker said, “I find it amazing the news media continues to say [Romney’s] the most electable Republican when he can’t even break out of his own party.… The fact is, Gov. Romney in the end has a very limited appeal in conservative party.”
Later, in a campaign stop in Laconia, Gingrich’s kept up his attack – and it got personal. Asked by a local reporter if he would buy a home in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, where Romney has a summer home, Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that, I’m not rich.” His wife, Callista, added a jab at Romney as well. “We have one home,” she demurred. The Romneys own two summer homes, including one in California.

This coming from a dude who made 1.6 million from Freddie Mac . 🙄

Over to you AllahPundit:

Surely a man eligible for a six-figure line of credit at Tiffany’s has the means to buy himself a cottage in the sticks. Or maybe more: I’ll bet $1.6 million from Freddie Mac would get you something nice and airy in Hanover. This is the second time that Gingrich has taken a dig at Romney’s wealth, do note, but the first time came with caveats: Romney had already taken a dig at his Freddie earnings in that case, and Gingrich wasn’t sniffing then at the fact that Romney’s rich but rather what he did to become that way. Tonight’s little aside is more of a pure class pander, which is yet more evidence of just how bitter Newt is about that beating he took on the air in Iowa.

Indeed.

My question is simply this — if Newt is poor, what the heck am I?!? 😯

Oh and also; pandering?!? That doesn’t even begin to describe it. The dude is flinging poo at Romney desperately hoping something — anything will stick.

Thus another reason why I am not very big on Newt. Him, the heir to the Reagan mantle — yeah right! 🙄

Honestly why does anyone care what this stupid woman thinks?

No, No… I don’t mean Tina Korbe.

I mean this woman, Megan McCain…:

Ugh, it’s like listening to a valley girl talk about politics. Like gag me with a spoon man. 🙄

This is why I am not that big on Newt

Because of silly stuff like this right here:

Newt Gingrich still won’t congratulate Mitt Romney for winning the Iowa caucuses.
At a news conference in Concord, N.H., Gingrich was asked by CBS correspondent Dean Reynolds why he congratulated Rick Santorum but not Romney.
Gingrich stared at the reporter and raised his eyebrows in silence, eventually drawing laughter from some of the reporters.
“Because I know you would be a man of great professionalism, I know that’s a rhetorical question. And a good one,” Gingrich said.
During his speech in Des Moines last night, Gingrich visibly seethed at mention of Romney, who along with his supporters ran a barrage of attack ads against the former speaker.
Romney said he’d spoken with every GOP rival last night except Gingrich.

Because when you do stuff like this; you come off as an old bitter curmudgeon. Last night, while watching Newt’s speech, I was not impressed at all. Because instead of being gracious, he came off as angry. Newt starting punching up, and attacking Romney and attacking Ron Paul. Whatever happened to just thanking your supporters and the others who also competed with you in the caucases?

Either way, this will not go over well for those in New Hampshire. Because it makes him sound ungratful, not to mention the fact that Newt is a bomb thrower, who is not good at thinking on his feet. All of this will flush itself out during the caucas process — hopefully.

It’s getting ugly between Gingrich and Romney

…and Gingrich does not disappoint with this shot across Romney’s bow: (Via CBS News)

Video:

Of course, the bad part was that Gingrich sort of stuck his own foot in his mouth, when he called Romney a liar and then turned right around and said he would support him if he were the GOP nominee. D’oh! 🙄

Lord Edward Morrissey, who knows this stuff better than anyone, I think, saith the following:

Hey, not to rain on Gingrich’s parade, but how is that different than any other PAC or super-PAC? I’m pretty sure that Gingrich-supporting PACs aren’t run by disinterested strangers, nor are those for Rick Perry or any of the other candidates in the race. That’s a problem in the structure of the campaign finance regulations that impose artificial divisions on contributions. If those were removed, the same money would flow into these races, but the candidates themselves would be responsible for its use instead of hiding behind PACs and super-PACs — and that includes Newt Gingrich.
As I’ve written earlier, there is nothing wrong with so-called “negative” campaigning. Candidates should draw contrasts between their positions and those of their opponents, and their records as well. As long as that is being done honestly, there is nothing wrong or dishonorable about it; in fact, that’s why we have primaries. Gingrich chose to eschew that strategy and now wants to claim some kind of victimization because the rest of the field chose not to follow in his footsteps. On top of that, Gingrich has descended to name-calling, which looks more like a dog-in-the-manger ploy than a way to gather support in the few short hours before Iowa voters trudge to precincts tonight. A confident candidate wouldn’t have sunk to the level of this conversation the morning of a caucus.

Indeed.

Also too, I say this as a kid, who grew up in the inner city of Detroit; there is nothing funnier than watch to rich, white old guys fighting it out like school kids. I find it quite amusing. 😉 😛

Again, as it is has been written many times over in the right-wing political blogosphere and also said by others on Fox News; Gingrich is a thinker, a Conservative intellectual, if you will — but he is also a bomb thrower, who is not apt to thinking on his feet. This video above proves that. In other words, it is okay to be a bomb thrower, you just have to be able to run from the bomb, in the right direction! 😯 😛 😉 😀

Romney Leading Paul in Paul in Iowa Poll

It is starting to look like Romney might just be the man who gets the GOP nod. It is early, but I have that feeling.

Via the Des Moines Register:

The Des Moines Register’s latest Iowa Poll shows a surprise three-way match-up in contention to win the Iowa Republican caucuses: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.
Santorum, who has been largely invisible in the polls throughout the campaign season, is now beating the other evangelical choices and has a clear shot at victory Tuesday night.
But political analysts note there’s little time for Santorum to cash in and regroup before New Hampshire, where voters weigh in nine days from now, while Romney is positioned to replicate what he’s done in Iowa in all the early states.
In four days of polling, Romney leads at 24 percent, Paul has 22 percent and Rick Santorum, 15 percent.
But if the final two days of polling stand alone, the order reshuffles: Santorum elbows out Paul for second.
“Few saw this bombshell coming,” GOP strategist David Polyansky said. “In an already unpredictable race this is another stunning turn of political fortune.”

The piece goes on to talk about Santorum; who I utterly despise as a human being. The only reason that Santorum is getting traction at all, is because of the collapse of Bachmann’s campaign. Of course, polls mean nothing, they are simple snapshots into the minds of those taking the poll. What honestly counts is the actual caucuses themselves.

Either way, it should be very interesting.

Other sites covering this subject, right and left — via Memeorandum: CNN, The Politico, Iowa Caucuses, Washington Post, Hot Air, FiveThirtyEight, The Moderate Voice, msnbc.com, Patterico’s Pontifications, Washington Monthly, 2012 Decoded, New York Times, Outside the Beltway, Daily Kos, Business Insider, americanthinker.com, The Iowa Republican, ABCNEWS, The Huffington Post, Big Government, The Caucus, Guardian, Ballot Box, The Daily Caller, The Atlantic Online, Catholic Bandita, A plain blog about politics, Campaign 2012, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Talking Points Memo, The Spectacle Blog, Mediaite, The Page, State of the Union, Balloon Juice, GOP 12, Riehl World View, Politisite, Associated Press, Saint Petersblog and Yahoo! News

The folly of Erick Erickson

I have read some stupid stuff that this joker has written before, including his idiot smearing of me in the past, by some of his sock puppets at that joke of a site of his; but this right here takes the cake.

Here is ol’ Erick Erickson going full on anti-Christian bigot:

No Surprise, Iowa Social Conservatives Are About To Shoot Us All in the Foot Again
Posted by Erick Erickson
Wednesday, December 28th at 4:02PM EST
I’m hearing several campaigns and external pollsters have a surge for Rick Santorum. With the National Review folks fawning over him again, it probably means a surge is real and any surge by Rick Santorum is another factor ensuring Mitt Romney wins the nomination. (To be fair, this doesn’t look like real momentum)
Santorum has no money or organization outside of Iowa and cannot win the nomination, but Iowans love a guy who sucks up to them and makes sure they know he loves the babies.
As a pro-lifer myself, I have to throw up a bit in my mouth that Iowa conservatives are seriously considering Rick Santorum, which will only help Mitt Romney, a guy who even after his supposedly heartfelt conversion to life put some seriously pro-abortion judges on the Massachusetts bench hiding behind the “Well it was Massachusetts for Pete’s sake” defense.
Let’s remember Rick Santorum could not even win re-election in his home state of Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum also supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the U.S. Senate back in 2004.
But most damning to me is Rick Santorum’s actual record in the Senate and House of Representatives. I keep hearing him say he was such a paragon of fiscal conservative virtue, when he was anything but that. He was as go along to get along as all the other Republicans who led to our downfall.

Okay, let me explain something to this simple-minded idiotic buffoon. There are three legs of Conservatism — as explained and used very well by President Ronald Reagan. Those legs are social conservatives, foreign policy conservatives and economic conservatives. The late President Reagan built an alliance of these three groups of conservatives that changed the political landscape of the Nation.

The point I am trying to make here is this; try winning the Nomination of the Republican Party, much less the election for President of the United States without any one of these legs of the stool. If the evangelical base does not like a Republican candidate, he can forget about being elected, that is why John McCain lost. Not because of Sarah Palin, in fact she boosted his support! It was because most rib-rocked Conservatives saw John McCain is a petty phony and too much of a moderate. Furthermore, the evangelical Christian base was not impressed with McCain second trophy wife and little slut dressing daughter.

That is why McCain lost and Obama won, because the Republicans stayed home and did not vote, because the candidate did not appeal to the base. That base is made up; again, of social conservatives, foreign policy conservatives and economic conservatives; if you try to win an election or even a primary without one of these groups, you are spinning your wheels. This is why Ron Paul and others are trying to win their votes.

This, again, proves to me, that Mr. Erickson should not be taken seriously, at all.

Others: Washington Monthly, Campaign 2012, Balloon Juice, The Daily Caller and The Atlantic Online

Gingrich sails into lead

Via PPP:

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP’s national polling. He’s at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.
Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4. Although a fair amount of skepticism remains about the recent allegations against Cain there is no doubt they are taking a toll on his image- his net favorability is down 25 points over the last month from +51 (66/15) to only +26 (57/31). What is perhaps a little more surprising is that Romney’s favorability is at a 6 month low in our polling too with only 48% of voters seeing him favorably to 39% with a negative opinion.
Gingrich’s lead caps an amazing comeback he’s made over the last 5 months. In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he’s at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then. As recently as August Gingrich was mired in single digits at 7%, and even in September he was at just 10%. He’s climbed 18 points in less than 2 months.
There’s reason to think that if Cain continues to fade, Gingrich will continue to gain. Among Cain’s supporters 73% have a favorable opinion of Gingrich to only 21% with a negative one. That compares to a 33/55 spread for Romney with Cain voters and a 32/53 one for Perry. They like Gingrich a whole lot more than they do the other serious candidates in the race.

Which means, I will be voting libertarian. Sorry, I am not voting for that creep; period, end of story.

Blogger Round up here.