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

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker: “Unions want me dead”

Just a showing of how bad it is gotten up in Winsonsin:

With a June recall election all but certain, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says the debate is no longer just about collective-bargaining rights for state workers. Union leaders and others, he said, have made it personal.
“They want me dead. I don’t think that’s an exaggeration,” Mr. Walker said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times after a roundtable discussion Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute.
His opponents have until Jan. 15 to collect about 540,000 signatures and trigger another election, which would surely center around Mr. Walker’s successful but controversial efforts to strip many collective-bargaining rights from teachers and other government employees in his state, all in an effort to close budget gaps and put Wisconsin back on firm financial footing. — Via Wisconsin Gov. Walker: Unions ‘want me dead’ – Washington Times

I feel for the guy, but I have to say this; this above, is why Rick Snyder did not do anything drastic here in Michigan. Because I believe he happens to know, what I know — that actions always have consquences. There is also something else too; that little thing that the C.I.A. likes to call “Blowback.” Blowback is the adverse reaction to an action taken by someone in position or power; it always happens, especially in politics. It is Ron Paul’s favorite term. 🙄

There is something else too; there is a thing in politics called political capitial. Many Presidents have burned through it quickly. Bush did, Obama did and still is. When you have burned through it; you are quite screwed. Smart Presidents have slowly burned through it and went on to serve two terms and do well. The not-so-smart ones end up like Bush and Obama — hated before they even can really do anything.

I guess nobody told Scott Walker about this. You just do not make drastic changes, when first taking office without paying for it in the end. This is just how it works, and also long as we have a two party system in this Country, that is how it will be for a long time to come.

(H/T HotAir Headlines)

As of now, I have zero respect for Jesse Ventura

Because of this: (H/T HotAir)

CONTENT WARNING! Language!

You want to know what a Ron Paul supporter acts like, want to know their mentality? Play the video.

This, my friends, is why I despise Ron Paul. Military or no Military; Ventura is a lying scumball.

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.

Is Rick Santorum a “Big Government” Conservative?

My answer? Aren’t they all? 😀

This guy seems to think so: (H/T HotAir.com)

Rick Santorum, like most Republican candidates, fashions himself the one true conservative running in 2012. If the thought of big, intrusive liberal government offends you, he might just be your man. And if you favor a big, intrusive Republican government, he’s unquestionably your candidate.
People are taking a look at Santorum. Important people. People in Iowa. Even New York Times columnist David Brooks recently celebrated his working-class appeal, newfound viability and economic populism, noting that the former Pennsylvania senator’s book “It Takes a Family“ was a ”broadside against Barry Goldwater-style conservatism” — or, in other words, a rejection of that Neanderthal fealty for liberty and free markets that has yet to be put down. Santorum’s book is crammed with an array of ideas for technocratic meddling; even the author acknowledges that some people “will reject” what he has to say “as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”
Santorum grumbles about too many conservatives believing in unbridled “personal autonomy” and subscribing to the “idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do … that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom (and) we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.” — Via Santorum: Conservative Technocrat | TheBlaze.com

Go read all of that, it’s quite interesting.

Nate Silver explains it.

This pretty much sums it up…:

I don’t care if you call it a win or a tie. In Iowa on Tuesday, Mitt Romney had a performance that looks ugly on the stat sheet , but which accomplished quite a bit when you consider it in its broader context.
The two most important things that Mr. Romney accomplished are as follows:
First, Mr. Romney eliminated Rick Perry from the nomination contest. Of course, Mr. Romney got a lot of help from Mr. Perry himself. Maybe we should use the passive voice — Mr. Perry was eliminated from the nomination contest. The conclusion is the same: the man who once looked like Mr. Romney’s most formidable rival has suspended his campaign.
The result was not unexpected based on late-stage polling — in fact, the polling average nailed Mr. Perry’s share of the vote almost to the decimal point.
But it was not long ago that Mr. Perry looked like he might finish in a solid third place, at a bare minimum, in Iowa; a poll conducted as recently as Dec. 12 actually had Mr. Perry ahead of Mr. Romney. And there was some chance that Mr. Perry might have done quite a bit better than third place. I’m not convinced that there was anything that happened to Rick Santorum that couldn’t have happened to Mr. Perry, if only Mr. Perry had received the right injection of momentum — say, an endorsement from the Family Leader, a conservative group — at the right time. — via Winning Ugly, but Winning – NYTimes.com

I think is pretty mcu spot on, read the rest, it is very interesting. A little wonkish, but very interesting.

This is a mememorandum thread.

Let’s not get carried away please

Listen, I stand for Israel as much as the next Conservative. But this article here, is borderline idiotic:

So Paul Krugman phoned in his periodic “Keynes Was Right” column today, arguing that the Obama Porkulus failed only because, like “true” Communism, it wasn’t tried vigorously or faithfully enough.
I wonder if Krugman also credits Keynes’s views on Jews, which British blogger Damian Thompson of The Telegraph brings to our attention.
via Keynes Was Right–About the Jews? | Power Line.

I mean, to make this sort of a comment to a man, who happens to be a liberal and Jewish, coming from another Jewish person is about the worst backhanded insult ever.

Now this point here, I will not contest:

Anti-Semitism used to be a property of the Right, yet it’s worth pointing out that today many of the intellectual heroes of the right are Jews, such as Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, etc., or that anti-Semitism has become almost wholly the province of the Left today.

I got news for Mr. Hayward; it is still a property of the right. Ron Paul is a perfect example. Although it is far to point out that Ron Paul’s faction of the Republican Party is a very small one. One that believes in “Limited Freedom” for those who are White and Christian only. Although, to be fair, Rick Santorum basically feels the same way; the whole extremist Christian bigot.

My overall point here is this; we should be very careful about dropping the Anti-Semite flag during a political football game. It hurts those who are innocent of said charges. Just ask me.

Others: Wizbang, Ed Driscoll