Newt Gingrich Shakes Up Things With South Carolina Win (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | What a day for South Carolina. Every four years presidential hopefuls try their hardest to win the first in the South primary because every Republican candidate that has gone on to win the White House has won the South Carolina primary initially. If you find yourself in South Carolina during this time you will hear one phrase repeatedly: South Carolina picks presidents.

Armed with an array of television ads, various endorsements and thousands of miles traveled, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul fought for the endorsement and delegates of the Palmetto State. While the candidates strategy included a few jabs at each other, they were unified in the belief that President Barack Obama needed to lose his job and that push would be reaffirmed in a state suffering from a 9.9 percent unemployment rate. In a complete rebuttal of the Republican establishment, Gingrich won the Palmetto State, according to the New York Times.

While pundits and media hosts responded to his win as a surprise, voters contributed Gingrich's win to his debate performance, winability and being the conservative alternative to Romney. What is remarkable is Gingrich won the counties where he was projected to come in second and third -- mainly on the coast. He carried the powerful Evangelical, military and Catholic vote.

Romney's loss is contributed to voters' concerns about Romneycare and his moderate-leaning record. Rick Santorum came in third and Ron Paul at a distant fourth. For Santorum and Paul, their respective placing is not as big of a blow as it is to the Romney camp.

South Carolina's primary has added a new dimension to the candidates campaign. This primary shows there is no clear Republican nominee and that we are in for a long primary season.

In Romney's own words, "This debate is getting even more interesting." Gingrich's win is a forthright message to the GOP establishment. Conservatives aren't happy and the GOP needs to stop bending to the whims of the fringe elite concerning social issues, immigration and fiscal policy.

The Republicans have work to do, but the Obama campaign will now have to work even harder. Instead of having time to prepare for one front-runner candidate, President Barack Obama will have to prepare for two polar opposite candidates. I close with my favorite quote of the night. After the primary Santorum said, "Three states, three winners, what a great country."

View the original article here

Gingrich steals Romney's cloak of electability as president (Reuters)

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (Reuters) – Newt Gingrich didn't just beat Mitt Romney in Saturday's South Carolina primary, the former House speaker kicked away one of the main pillars of his rival's election campaign.

Exit polling data shows Gingrich convinced voters he would be the toughest Republican opponent against President Barack Obama in the November general election.

Electability - Republican campaign-speak for a candidate's ability to beat Obama - had been one of Romney's top selling points until Saturday.

Conventional wisdom was that the former Massachusetts governor's emphasis on jobs and the economy and his perceived appeal to independents would help him against Gingrich, who is often seen as erratic and divisive.

But Gingrich's combative style in debates resonated with voters keen for a heavyweight debater to take on Obama, who is grudgingly respected by Republicans as a formidable campaigner.

This may also be helping Gingrich's message on the economy gain traction, exit polling data showed.

South Carolina's Republicans rated the ability to beat Obama as a candidate's most important quality, an exit poll on CNN showed.

Forty-five percent of voters said that was the main attribute they sought in a nominee. Of that group, 51 percent voted for Gingrich compared to 37 percent for Romney.

Twenty-one percent of South Carolina voters said the quality that mattered most to them in their candidate was that he had the right experience.

"It is electability, and that is measured in your ability to effectively debate and prosecute your case against Obama," said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak.

Exit polls also showed that for 63 percent of South Carolina voters the most important issue was the economy. Gingrich won this group by a margin of eight percentage points over Romney.

The attraction of Gingrich as an anti-Obama candidate may be the factor that increased his ratings on other issues like the economy, Mackowiak said.

Attacks on Obama in recent weeks, including dubbing him "a foodstamp president," endeared Gingrich to voters in a state with unemployment of almost 10 percent.

OLD TIMER WITH EXPERIENCE

"He is an old timer with a lot of political experience. He's the only one who can beat Obama," said Jim Walters, a retired marine owner in the town of Aiken.

Gingrich slammed Obama as "truly a danger to the country" in his South Carolina victory speech and promised to bring down Obama in a series of long debates.

A master of the sharp turn of phrase who talks in big broad sweeps, the former House speaker was the clear star of the more than 20 Republican debates in recent months.

He left Romney floundering, particularly during two televised contests in South Carolina this week where the millionaire former executive stumbled over questions about his personal finances.

Republican voters in South Carolina, a conservative state with a taste for rough and tumble politics, lapped it up.

"I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that people really want to see Newt debate Obama," Mackowiak said.

"It reminds me of gladiators. You see an amazing gladiator have a string of victories in the middle of the Coliseum so you really want to see him go up against the biggest, baddest gladiator there is."

In a sign that Gingrich's well-documented marital infidelities might have created a problem with female voters, exit polls showed Gingrich held an advantage over Romney of 16 points among men but only 9 points among women.

(Editing by David Storey)

View the original article here

Gingrich Wins the South Carolina Primary (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The results were overwhelming for Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, according to the New York Times. The people of South Carolina rallied around the American flag, showing they wanted to take America back to a direction of patriotism that our forefathers once dreamed it could be, not toward a socialized nation like the Europeans have, that just is not America. Gingrich won 40 percent of the votes and Mitt Romney received 27 percent, while Rick Santorum came in third with 17 percent and Ron Paul with 10 percent.

Some in the media said, with an ex-wife coming out against the former speaker, he never stood a chance with women voters. He received a whopping 58 percent in favor when a poll where women were asked if they let a past infidelity change their decision about the former Speaker of the House. Gingrich showed America that he stands for America, and it shows on every face of every American who voted for the man.

Many in the media are also saying Romney stumbled when he was flip-flopping on his tax issues. When asked when he will release his tax statement for 2010, he said he did not know or he will or he won't. People are suspect when they think someone has something to hide. All politicians should be an open book or else, they will fall by the wayside fast.

The people of South Carolina have spoken. Many said they did not care about problems that happened with candidates years ago, they are concerned with now. The voters polled at various precincts were not concerned with domestic rhetoric with politicians personal lives or financial concerns, but were concerned with the direction of this country.

The voter turnout was higher than 2008 by at least 100,000 votes, which is a wonderful thing. It shows Americans are doing their civic duty and using their rights as Americans. The feeling this time was a patriotic one by most of the voters.

The amount of cheering and flag waving I have seen is addictive as patriotism is alive and well in the South. It is off to the Sunshine State in 10 days to see who comes out ahead. We have a long way to go in this, but the infectious pride of being American is spreading thanks to the final four.

View the original article here

Mitt Romney to release tax returns Tuesday (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Mitt Romney said on Sunday he will release tax returns for the last two years this week and admitted the flap over his returns hurt him in South Carolina, where he lost a primary to Newt Gingrich.

"I will release my tax returns for 2010, which is the last returns which were completed, on Tuesday of this week," Romney said on Fox News Sunday. "And I will also release at the same time an estimate for 2011 tax returns."

"We made a mistake holding off as long as we did and it just was a distraction," the former Massachusetts governor added.

Gingrich won 40 percent of the vote in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, while Romney came in a distant second with 28 percent.

Romney, one of the wealthiest U.S. presidential candidates in history, emphasized he was releasing two years of returns after Gingrich posted his returns for only 2010 on Thursday.

Gingrich and other Republican rivals attacked Romney in debates last week, asking why the former private equity executive would not release his returns.

Romney had said he would release them in April and also paved the way for the disclosure by saying he paid a tax rate of around 15 percent, below many American wage earners, but in line with wealthy individuals who earn income from investments.

Romney said his returns will be posted on his website.

(Reporting By Mary Milliken; Editing by Philip Barbara)

View the original article here

Senate GOP's next move awaited in nominations spat (AP)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's appointments to two key agencies during the Senate's year-end break ensures that GOP senators will return to work Monday in an angry and fighting mood.

Less clear is what those furious Republicans will do to retaliate against Obama's "bring it on" end run around the Senate's role in confirming nominees to major jobs.

While Republicans contemplate their next step, recess appointee Richard Cordray is running a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the National Labor Relations Board, with three temporary members, is now at full strength with a Democratic majority.

Obama left more than70 other nominees in limbo, well aware that Republicans could use Senate rules to block some or all of them.

The White House justified the appointments on grounds that Republicans were holding up the nominations to paralyze the two agencies. The consumer protection agency was established under the 2010 Wall Street reform law, which requires the bureau to have a director in order to begin policing financial products such as mortgages, checking accounts, credit cards and payday loans.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the five-member NLRB must have a three-member quorum to issue regulations or decide major cases in union-employer disputes.

Several agencies contacted by The Associated Press, including banking regulators, said they were conducting their normal business despite vacancies at the top. In some cases, nominees are serving in acting capacities.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., at full strength, has five board members. The regulation of failed banks "is unaffected," said spokesman Andrew Gray. "The three-member board has been able to make decisions without a problem." Cordray's appointment gives it a fourth member.

The Comptroller of the Currency, run by an acting chief, has kept up its regular examinations of banks. The Federal Trade Commission, operating with four board members instead of five, has had no difficulties. "This agency is not a partisan combat agency," said spokesman Peter Kaplan. "Almost all the votes are unanimous and consensus driven."

Republicans have pledged retaliation for Obama's recess appointments, but haven't indicated what it might be.

"The Senate will need to take action to check and balance President Obama's blatant attempt to circumvent the Senate and the Constitution, a claim of presidential power that the Bush Administration refused to make," said Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is his party's top member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Grassley wouldn't go further, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky hasn't tipped his hand after charging that Obama had "arrogantly circumvented the American people." Before the Senate left for its break in December, McConnell blocked Senate approval of more than 60 pending nominees because Obama wouldn't commit to making no recess appointments.

Republicans have to consider whether their actions, especially any decision to block all nominees, might play into Obama's hands.

Obama has adopted an election-year theme of "we can't wait" for Republicans to act on nominations and major proposals like his latest jobs plan. Republicans have to consider how their argument that the president is violating Constitutional checks and balances plays against Obama's stump speeches characterizing them as obstructionists.

Senate historian Donald Ritchie said the minority party has retaliated in the past for recess appointments by holding up specific nominees. "I'm not aware of any situations where no nominations were accepted," he said. The normal practice is for the two party leaders to negotiate which nominations get votes.

During the break, Republicans forced the Senate to convene for usually less than a minute once every few days to argue that there was no recess and that Obama therefore couldn't bypass the Senate's authority to confirm top officials. The administration said this was a sham, and has released a Justice Department opinion backing up the legality of the appointments.

Obama considers the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a signature achievement of his first term. Republicans have been vehemently opposed to the bureau's setup. They argued the agency needed a bipartisan board instead of a director and should have to justify its budget to Congress instead of drawing its funding from the independent Federal Reserve.

Cordray is expected to get several sharp questions from Republicans when he testifies Tuesday before a House Oversight and Government Reform panel.

The NLRB has been a target of Republicans and business groups. Last year, the agency accused Boeing of illegally retaliating against union workers who had struck its plants in Washington state by opening a new production line at its non-union plant in South Carolina. Boeing denied the charge and the case has since been settled, but Republican anger over it and a string of union-friendly decisions from the board last year hasn't abated.

View the original article here

What You Missed While Not Watching the Last South Carolina GOP Debate (Time.com)

0 minutes. The CNN spaceship is set to launch, with blue gels on the lights that give the auditorium an alien aquarium vibe. It's the 17th GOP debate of 2012 cycle. Roll the intro montage: "Welcome to the South, the heart of the Republican Party," says the hokey disembodied voice, doing his best imitation of a Stephen Colbert send up, "where tradition lives and values matter." What? Do Iowa and New Hampshire not care about tradition and values? Nonsense. But we push on. We are veterans. We have learned to let the silly slide.

2 minutes. Each candidate gets a shout out. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is "the frontrunner." Texas Rep. Ron Paul is "the insurgent." Rick Santorum has "renewed momentum," though recent polls show it is in the wrong direction. Newt Gingrich is "on the rise." Then each of the men take the stage with their variation of a high school dweeb strut. Romney is third, and the most talkative. "Hi guys," he says to the others. "Newt," he says shaking Gingrich's hand. "Ha ha," he says, because perhaps it is funny to be shaking Gingrich's hand. "And then there were four," he adds, because that is all that remain. (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the Final Iowa Debate.")

5 minutes. CNN pomp is unending, as usual. After Twitter and Facebook mentions, some military cadets sing the national anthem. The crowd turns to a flat-screen projection of Old Glory. "That was fabulous. Absolutely fabulous," CNN host John King says afterward. One day the debate will start. Then he asks the candidates to make short opening statements. For those who speak Republican, this means brag about your brood.

7 minutes. Santorum begins, noting his "wife Karen and our seven children." He also thanks Iowa "for a little delayed but most welcome victory there." Romney beats Santorum, not in Iowa, but in brood count. "I'm married now 42 years. I have five sons, five daughters-in-law, 16 grandkids, and they're the joy of my life." The married-a-long-time thing is a knock on thrice-married Gingrich, though Romney would probably swear to his grave that this is not true. Gingrich eschews brood stats for geographic pandering. "As a Georgian, it feels good to be back at home in the South," he says. Paul mentions that he has been elected to Congress 12 times, 30 years as an obstetrician, and "I'm the only U.S. veteran on this stage tonight." (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the GOP National-Security Debate.")

9 minutes. Finally a question, and it's a doozy. Would Gingrich like to respond to his second wife's claim that he wanted an open marriage more than a decade ago? "No, but I will," he says, looking ornery. The crowd likes his attitude. "I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that." The crowd is on its feet applauding. "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine." The place is going nuts. Gingrich goes on for a while. Then he adds, as if it no longer matters, "The story is false."

11 minutes. Gingrich is still going. "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans." A second standing ovation. If being President only required an ability to rile the public into rage against the press, America wouldn't need an election. There would be a coronation.

12 minutes. King asks Santorum if this open marriage/mistress stuff is an issue. Santorum says yes, as softly as he can. "These are issues of our lives and what we did in our lives," he says. "They are issues of character for people to consider."

13 minutes. Romney won't go there. "John, let's get on to the real issues is all I've got to say." The crowd likes that too.

14 minutes. Paul uses his turn at the Gingrich mistress plate to say media corporations are bad. "What about the corporations that run the media?" he asks, before joining in the media's attack by adding apropos of nothing in particular that he has been married 54 years.

15 minutes. New topic. Unemployment. Name three things you would do to help reduce it. Paul says "sound currency," less regulations and near-zero income taxes. Gingrich says repeal Dodd-Frank, increase domestic oil and gas exploration, and radically overhaul the Corps of Engineers.

18 minutes. King follows up by asking Gingrich to attack Romney for his work at Bain Capital. Gingrich indulges, describing "Bain Capital's model, which was to take over a company and dramatically leverage it, leave it with a great deal of debt, made it less likely to survive."

19 minutes. Romney is asked to respond, and attacks Obama. "You've got to stop the spread of crony capitalism. He gives General Motors to the UAW. He takes $500 million and sticks it into Solyndra. He -- he stacks the labor stooges on the NLRB so they can say no to Boeing and take care of their friends in the labor movement," he says. The crowd rewards the Obama bashing with applause.

20 minutes. King persists on Bain, asking Romney to explain how he comes up with the figure of 120,000 jobs created at the firm. Romney says that is what four companies he started now employ. "I'm someone who believes in free enterprise," he continues. "I think Adam Smith was right. And I'm going to stand and defend capitalism across this country, throughout this campaign." Then he turns it up a notch. "I know we're going to get hit hard from President Obama, but we're going to stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong." The foie gras attack.

22 minutes. Santorum distinguishes between regular capitalism and the "high finance" of Romney. "We need a party that just doesn't talk about high finance and cutting corporate taxes or cutting the top tax rates," Santorum says. "We need to talk about how we're going to put men and women in this country, who built this country, back to work in this country in the manufacturing sector of our economy." He's the Joe Biden of the GOP. Pure Scranton.

24 minutes. Talk about the challenges faced by returning military veterans. Everyone on stage is concerned. Paul says he worries about the high rate of suicide. Santorum says there should be job preferences. Romney says he wants the states to do much of the work. Gingrich says cut taxes and help veterans with a program like the G.I. Bill after World War II.

31 minutes. Question on ObamaCare. Romney says repeal it and replace it with something "like a market, a consumer market, as opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the post office." This is not an accurate description of how ObamaCare works, but let it slide. Move on. Gingrich says he'd "repeal all of it because I so deeply distrust the congressional staffs that I would not want them to be able to pick and choose which things they cut." By this logic, congressional staff would never get to do any legislating. But let it slide. Move on. (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the CNBC 'Oops' Republican Debate.")

35 minutes. Santorum uses this opportunity to attack both Romney and Gingrich for once supporting the individual mandate in ObamaCare. He calls Romney's health reforms in Massachusetts "an abject disaster." Romney objects. "First of all, the system in my state is not a government-run system," he says. This is true, but it is kind of funny to hear Romney say it, since he just mischaracterized ObamaCare as a "government-run system." Let it slide. Move on.

39 minutes. They go back and forth for a while, covering old ground. At one point, Romney does another "Ha ha," to express condescension at the attacks on him. When it comes around to Gingrich, he changes the subject by saying, again, that he wants 3-hour debates with Obama. "I will let him use a teleprompter. I would just rely on knowledge. We'll do fine." A real crowd-pleaser that Gingrich.

42 minutes. After more needling from Santorum, Gingrich admits he was wrong about the individual mandate.

43 minutes. Paul finally gets a chance to talk again. He says government should not be involved in medicine. Then he pivots to a discussion about why U.S. military bases overseas are bad, as are recent military adventures.

45 minutes. That brings us to the first break. Before cutting to commercial, King says Gingrich has released his tax returns while the candidates have been on stage. Nice trick. Can we expect gimics like this in future debates?

49 minutes. We're back. King promptly gets Gingrich and Santorum fighting again. "Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich," Santorum says. "I don't want a nominee that I have to worry about going out and looking at the paper the next day and worrying about what he's going to say next." That is a line taken almost word-for-word from the Romney campaign. Then Santorum says he finished ahead of Gingrich in New Hampshire, which is not true. Gingrich got 49 more votes. Nonetheless, Santorum accuses Gingrich of having "not cogent thoughts."

53 minutes. Gingrich responds by listing pretty much everything good that happened during his two decade run in the U.S. House. Then he says, "I think grandiose thoughts. This is a grandiose country of big people doing big things." Applause of course. More tit for tat follows. But no more fancy words like grandiose.

56 minutes. Romney tries to chime in by saying that this squabbling just shows he's the outsider who can fix Washington. But Romney does it really awkwardly, describing himself as someone "who's lived in the real streets of America." Not clear if he is referring to the old family mansion in Belmont, Mass., or the beach house in La Jolla, Calif., or the Deer Valley, Utah, lodge he once owned. Or maybe another "real street" he has yet to disclose. In the middle of the answer, Romney gets lost. Then he finds his way, and attacks Gingrich for not really having as much to do with Ronald Reagan as he claims. "You're mentioned once in Ronald Reagan's diary," Romney says.

58 minutes. Gingrich shoots back. "You did very well under the rules that we created to make it easier for entrepreneurs to go out and do things," he says to Romney. "I don't recall a single day saying, 'Oh, thank heavens Washington is there for me,'" Romney responds.

59 minutes. Question for Paul. Will he release his tax returns? "I'd probably be embarrassed to put my financial statement up against their income," he jokes of the others on the stage.

60 minutes. Romney cleans up his big mistake from the last debate, and says he will release his tax returns in April. Then, as he always does when uncomfortable, he attacks Obama. "You've got a President who's played 90 rounds of golf while there are 25 million Americans out of work," Romney says.

63 minutes. Santorum says he will release his returns as soon as he gets home and prints them off his computer.

64 minutes. King asks Romney if he will release 12 years of his tax returns, like his father George Romney did when he ran in 1968. Romney smiles at the mention of his father, but doesn't answer the question. "Maybe," he says, as the crowd starts to boo. "You know, I don't know how many years I'll release."

66 minutes. King asks a question premised on the fact that the best example of American corporate success at the moment, Apple Inc., has 500,000 employees in China and much fewer in the United States. This allows Santorum to get another Joe Biden riff going about revitalizing American manufacturing. Paul sees the question as an opportunity to deliver an economics lesson on the benefits of trade. Then Paul and Santorum bicker about Santorum's one-time aversion to a national right-to-work bill.

71 minutes. King asks a question about the recent bills in Congress that would put new restrictions on websites to protect intellectual property. He also discloses that CNN's parent company, Time Warner, which is also TIME's parent company, is a big supporter of these bills. The mention of the corporate monster responsible for The Hangover II and Harry Potter VII earns lots of boos from the crowd. "You're asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood," Gingrich jokes. Bottom line, Romney, Gingrich and Paul are against the bills. Santorum is against the bills as well, but more eager to find some new rules to further protect intellectual property. "Where in America does it say that anything goes?" Santorum asks. There are some places, but Santorum has probably never been to them.

76 minutes. Break number two. Say what you want about the evils of Time Warner, but at least it allows CNN to go light on the commercial breaks.

78 minutes. We're back. No we're not. Another commercial break. Ignore the corporate backscratching at minute 76. Another movie made by Time Warner: Cats and Dogs -- The Revenge of Kitty Galore.

81 minutes. Back for real this time. The candidates are asked for one thing they would do over in the campaign. Gingrich says he would skip the first three months of the campaign when he "hired regular consultants and tried to figure how to be a normal candidate." Romney jokes that he would "get 25 more votes in Iowa." That's funny. Then Romney adds, "I guess I also would go back and take every moment I spent talking about one of the guys on the stage and spend that time talking about Barack Obama." This is disingenuous, but on message, and thus an apt summary of Romney's apparent strength and weakness. (As Romney says it, his campaign is blitzing reporters with more anti-Gingrich agitprop by e-mail.) Paul and Santorum can't think of anything they would do differently.

84 minutes. Immigration time. Same as before. Build a fence. Etc. Just look through previous "What You Missed" summaries to get the idea.

95 minutes. Abortion time. Gingrich attacks Romney for changing his mind on the issue. "Governor Romney has said that he had a experience in a lab and became pro-life, and I accept that," Gingrich says. Experience in a lab. Priceless. Then Gingrich says that Romney still appointed pro-choice judges, and still allowed for Planned Parenthood to benefit from his state health reforms. Santorum piles on, saying the country needs a pro-life crusader, not just a pro-life politician. It's like a tag team. At one point Gingrich even says, "I'll yield to Senator Santorum." Romney defends himself by pointing out that he had little choice, given the state he was in, and says he really is pro-life.

103 minutes. Paul finally gets a chance to speak again. He gets into a spat with Santorum about his own pro-life record. Paul calls abortion "a violent act" that should be handled by state, not federal, law; Santorum disagrees. At one point, Paul says to Santorum, "You are overly sensitive."

107 minutes. Final break.

111 minutes. We're back. King asks for closing arguments. Paul talks about liberty. Gingrich talks about certain doom if Obama is reelected, and suggests he is the only person who can defeat Obama. Romney lapses into his stump speech, quoting from the Declaration of Independence, and whatnot. Santorum argues that you need a conservative who will draw a sharp contrast with Obama. (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the Las Vegas GOP Debate.")

118 minutes. "That concludes our debate this evening," says King. And so it does. Four candidates still remain. No one knows how many more Republican debates are left. Should they go the way of that one pizza guy, they too won't be missed.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Does the South Carolina Primary Change Anything? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The political atmosphere in my house is always interesting. I am a far-right person who feels the Republican Party does me a disservice every year, while my wife leans left and is slowly dipping her toes into voting Republican. As a social studies teacher, I love this time of year and find the discussion of elections, primaries and caucuses to be highly entertaining. And though I dislike much of our national political situation, I love living in South Carolina during primary season because it is the rare time that all eyes are here, at the home of the "first in the South" primary.

This year has been especially exciting leading to Saturday. Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's to the wire finish in Iowa will be discussed in political science classes for a while, I am sure. Meanwhile, Romney pulled a strong lead in New Hampshire, which was to be expected. Everyone began discussing South Carolina and our great claim to fame: the person who wins South Carolina wins the Republican nomination, election cycle after election cycle. All Romney had to do was win here and many pundits said it would be all over.

So what happened? Somehow, Newt Gingrich pulled out a victory in South Carolina. Now, instead of Romney being the assured victor of the Republican nomination, it is a contest considered wide open. Three states have chosen three winners. This completely blows my mind. I can't recall this happening in my life time in the Republican elections.

I must confess, I found this year's crop of candidates extremely disappointing. With voter dissatisfaction at an all-time high for all of Washington, the Republicans needed a decent candidate who could gain broad support across a spectrum of voters. Instead, we got niche candidates.

Santorum appeals to the social conservatives, which I certainly am, but has little excitement in his candidacy outside of his sweater vest collection, which I hear has a Web page devoted to it. Romney is a typical politician whose opinions change with the wind. He sounds good but when you pay any attention to his record, it is nearly impossible to tell where he would stand on issues.

My wife continues to remind me it is normal in politics, and I can't disagree, but I wish for more. Gingrich shot to national prominence 17 years ago as he led the Republicans to congressional victory but was cast out in a humiliating coup, when he was revealed to have all the moral fortitude of the president he led the charge to impeach.

Finally, there is Ron Paul. Paul is fun and has a great concept in returning to the Constitution, as a supreme guide for America. Meanwhile, he continues promoting an isolationist approach to world affairs, which would have been welcome 100 years ago but hardly seems possible in a world with satellite TV, cellphones and the Internet.

So where is the Republican Party headed now? Though many pundits have claimed recently the Republican Party is on the verge of collapse, due to the fractured primary, the majority of Republican-leaning voters will rally behind the eventual nominee, for fear of four more years of record unemployment, Obamacare and the constant downgrading of our allies to woo our enemies.

I don't believe the nominee will be chosen soon. This may be one of those once in a lifetime seasons where most of the states get a say, before a definite leader is seen. Before anyone says this is proof the Republican Party is in jeopardy, I remind you of the 2008 Democratic primary season, in which I was sure the hateful rhetoric between Hillary Clinton's and Obama's camps would tear the party apart. Instead, they now own the White House. This could be an interesting election year.

View the original article here

Santorum says he feels no pressure to quit race (AP)

WASHINGTON – Rick Santorum says he's under no pressure to quit the GOP presidential race so conservative voters can coalesce around Newt Gingrich.

The former Pennsylvania senator tells CNN's "State of the Union" that his campaign is building momentum even after a third-place finish in South Carolina. He says he expects to run well in Florida's Jan. 31 primary.

Santorum says the suggestion that conservatives will have to coalesce to beat former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is "objectively false."

Santorum points out that he beat Romney in Iowa and says Gingrich "smoked him here in South Carolina."

Santorum says that while Romney has more campaign money, he has the better ideas and message to inspire voters.

View the original article here

Long Race Better for GOP (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | CNN reports Rick Santorum is declaring the race for 2012 Republican presidential nominee to be a long and winding road, especially since each of the first three primaries has been won by a different candidate. Santorum eked out an updated victory in Iowa, Mitt Romney cruised to a win in New Hampshire and former underdog Newt Gingrich routed the competition in South Carolina. As the primary in Florida looms large, many people are declaring the race for the GOP nomination to be wide open.

Is a lengthy, high-octane primary season good or bad for Republicans?

Though critics might contend a long, drawn-out primary election unnecessarily batters the eventual nominee and gives opponents ample time to develop battle strategy, I like to view a lengthy and arduous challenge as a strength -- and discipline -- building exercise. A battle-tested candidate who fought through a tough primary will perform better in the general election. This was the case with both political parties in 2008, where competition among both Democrats and Republicans was fierce: Think Mitt Romney vs. John McCain and Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama.

Additionally, the job of president is a tough one. Those who wish to reap its rewards should have to demonstrate that they can handle its challenges and responsibilities. One of the best ways to do that is to undergo trial by fire where one's thoughts, opinions and past decisions are tested and scrutinized by competitors and voters alike. You only know your weaknesses once they have been exposed.

Finally, competition is as American as free enterprise capitalism. Whenever a candidate is discussed as the inevitable shoo-in for a party's nomination I am unhappy. Politics should always be a healthy challenge, not a fixed game. Regardless of whether you are Democrat or Republican, there should never be an uncontested election. There should always be multiple names on the ballot. A person elected to public service should be one who proves his or her desire and ability by challenging an equal rival. Elections that lack competition smack of corrupt political machines reminiscent of the Gilded Age.

Therefore, I hope it is a long and trying Republican primary for the remaining four candidates. Regardless of who wins, all will be made stronger by their effort.

View the original article here

South Carolina Primary Election Quotes (ContributorNetwork)

Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina presidential preference primary in dramatic fashion. In the week leading to the election, the supposed front-runner was Mitt Romney. Then Gingrich surged ahead and won more than 40 percent of the vote in the Palmetto State. The New York Times reports Gingrich had 40 percent of the vote and 23 delegates.

Here's are quotes from the four major candidates on the night of the South Carolina primary.

* "We want to run not a Republican campaign, we want to run an American campaign because we are optimistic about the future because America has always been optimistic about the future. If we unleash the American people, we can rebuild the America that we love." -- Newt Gingrich, giving his victory speech in South Carolina. Politico reports his tone was much different than after the Iowa caucus. Gingrich graciously accepted the speeches of the other three candidates.

* "In recent weeks, the choice within our party has also come into stark focus. President Obama has no experience running a business and running a state. Our party can't be led to victory by someone who also has ever led a business and never run a state. Our campaign will be about the businesses I helped start, not the bills I tried to pass. Our president has divided the nation, engaged in class warfare, and attacked the free enterprise system that has made America the envy of the world. We cannot defeat that president with a candidate that has joined in that very assault on free enterprise." -- Mitt Romney in his concession speech, according to CBS News . He was attacking Gingrich's credentials for being president as well as Obama's work at the White House. Romney came in second in South Carolina after finishing first in New Hampshire.

* "Three states, three winners, what a great country. Let me assure you, we will go to Florida, and then to Arizona, and Colorado, and.... It's a wide open race!" -- Rick Santorum on his future plans, according to ABC News . Florida is the next primary election on Jan. 31. Santorum came in third in South Carolina after winning the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3.

* "This is the beginning of a long, hard job. We will continue to do this. There's no doubt about it. In the beginning, I thought it would just be promotion of a cause. Then it dawned on me, when you win elections and you win delegates, that's the way you promote a cause." -- Rep. Ron Paul of Texas on his future plans for the GOP nominating process. Politico reports he finished fourth in South Carolina, the only one of the mainstream candidates who hasn't won a primary contest yet.

View the original article here

Analysis: Gingrich forces GOP into grueling debate (AP)

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took a giant step Saturday toward becoming the Republican alternative to Mitt Romney that tea partyers and social conservatives have been seeking for months.

Gingrich's come-from-behind win in the South Carolina primary snatches away the quick and easy way for the GOP to pick its presidential nominee. Only days ago, it seemed that party activists would settle for Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who stirs few passions but who has the looks, money, experience and discipline to make a solid case against President Barack Obama in November.

Now, the party cannot avoid a wrenching and perhaps lengthy nomination fight. It can cast its lot with the establishment's cool embodiment of competence, forged in corporate board rooms, or with the anger-venting champion of in-your-face conservatism and grandiose ideas.

It's soul-searching time for Republicans. It might not be pretty.

Romney still might win the nomination, of course. He carries several advantages into Florida and beyond, and party insiders still consider him the front-runner. And it's conceivable that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum can battle back and take the anti-Romney title from Gingrich. After all, he bested Gingrich in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But Santorum's third-place finish in South Carolina will doubtlessly prompt some conservative leaders to urge him to step aside and back Gingrich, as Texas Gov. Rick Perry did Thursday.

Even if Santorum revives his campaign in Florida, the fundamental intraparty debate will be the same. Voters associate Gingrich and Santorum with social issues such as abortion, and with unyielding fealty to conservative ideals. That's in contrast to Romney's flexibility and past embraces of legalized abortion, gun control and gay rights.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul will stay in the race, but he factors only tangentially in such discussions. His fans are largely a mix of libertarians, isolationists and pacifists, many of whom will abandon the GOP nominee if it's not the Texas congressman.

Strategically, Romney maintains a big edge in money and organization. He faces a dilemma, however. Gingrich resuscitated his struggling campaign in this state with combative debate performances featuring near-contempt for Obama and the news media. Romney likely would love to choke off that supply by drastically reducing the number of debates.

Ducking Gingrich after losing to him in South Carolina would suggest panic or fear, however, and all four candidates are scheduled to debate Monday in Florida.

Gingrich is benefitting "from the inherent animosity and mistrust GOP primary voters have with mainstream media," said Republican strategist Terry Holt. "Their first instinct is to rebel, and that's what they did. The question is whether he can sustain that anger and build it into a legitimate challenge to the frontrunner."

Gingrich tried to stoke that anger with his victory speech Saturday. He referred repeatedly to "elites" in Washington and New York who don't understand or care about working-class Americans. He decried "the growing anti-religious bigotry of our elites."

Gingrich made $3.1 million in 2010, but he nonetheless is tapping middle-class resentment in ways reminiscent of Sarah Palin. "I articulate the deepest-held values in the American people," he said.

Despite their contrasting personalities, Romney and Gingrich don't differ greatly on policy. Both call for lower taxes, less regulation, ending "Obamacare" and a robust military. They promise to cut spending and increase jobs without offering many details of how they would do so in a divided nation and Congress.

Romney vs. Gingrich in some ways mirrors the Democrats' 2008 choice between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, which turned mostly on questions of personality, style and biography. The Republicans' choice, however, will plumb deeper veins of emotion and ideology.

Romney appeals to Republicans who want a competent, even-tempered nominee with a track record in business and finance. His backers are willing to overlook his past support of abortion rights and his seeming tone-deafness on money matters — even if it feeds caricatures of him as a tycoon.

Until Saturday, GOP polls had shown Romney easily ahead on the question of who would be Obama's toughest challenger. South Carolina exit polls, however, showed Gingrich with an edge among those who said it was most important that their candidate be able to beat Obama.

Romney will try to regain that advantage in Florida, which votes Jan. 31. It's not clear what strategies will work. In his concession speech Saturday, Romney said Obama has attacked free enterprise and "we cannot defeat that president with a candidate who has joined that very assault on free enterprise."

He was alluding to Gingrich's past criticisms of Romney's record running Bain Capital, a private equity firm. But Gingrich and a friendly super PAC dropped their references to Bain days ago.

Romney hinted at another approach. "Our party can't be led to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never led a state," he said. Gingrich's background didn't seem to bother South Carolina's Republicans, however.

What they've done is steer the primary contest into more emotional, and possibly dangerous, waters. They rewarded a candidate who gave voice to their resentment of the news media, federal bureaucrats and what they see as undeserving welfare recipients and a socialist-leaning president.

Two South Carolina debate moments crystalized Gingrich's rise. Both involved an open disdain for journalists, whether feigned or not.

In Myrtle Beach on Monday, the Martin Luther King holiday, Gingrich acidly told Fox News' Juan Williams that he would teach poor people how to find jobs, and that Obama has put more Americans on food stamps than any other president. Gingrich repeated the food stamp lines in his speech Saturday night.

At Thursday's debate in North Charleston, Gingrich excoriated CNN's John King for raising an ex-wife's claim that Gingrich once asked for an "open marriage," to accommodate his mistress.

Conservatives inside the hall and out seemed to love the tongue-lashing. The details of Marianne Gingrich's allegations, which Gingrich denied almost as an afterthought, seemed to matter much less to voters. That's remarkable in a state whose GOP electorate is nearly two-thirds evangelicals.

Mike McKenna, a Republican strategist, said Gingrich seems to be drawing many people, including tea party activists, who are fairly new to politics. They don't know or care much about Gingrich's legacy of leading the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress, or his subsequently lucrative career as a writer and speaker that sometimes veered from conservative orthodoxies, McKenna said.

Instead, he thinks these voters are reacting emotionally to someone they hope "can take the fight to the president, to the media, to whomever. They are not particularly concerned about what kind of president he will be."

Therein, of course, is the potential peril of a Gingrich candidacy. Along with his verbal fireworks he carries baggage that might give Democrats more to exploit than do Romney's policy flip-flops and record at Bain.

Gingrich's impressive South Carolina victory will force Republicans in Florida and other states to make a hot-or-cool choice.

They can pick the data-driven Harvard MBA grad who smoothed out the Winter Olympics and now runs a by-the-numbers nationwide campaign. Or they can pick the pugnacious firebrand who didn't manage to get his name on the Virginia primary ballot but who wows an angry electorate that can't wait to lay into Obama in debates next fall.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Babington covers politics for The Associated Press.

View the original article here

Factors Shaping Gingrich’s South Carolina Primary Win (ContributorNetwork)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich pulled off a convincing win in the South Carolina primary on Saturday. Gingrich received 40.4 percent of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney got 27.8 percent, as reported by the New York Times. The primary leaves some interesting takeaways to ponder, including factors that influenced Gingrich's victory.

* South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley endorsed Romney early, but it apparently didn't have an impact, for she's losing popularity, too, according to Politico.

* Even though the southern state suffered through heavy precipitation Saturday, The State reported around 600,000 voters turned out, which bested the turnouts for 2008 and 2000. In total, South Carolina has about 3 million registered voters.

* CNSNews.com reported a Public Policy Polling survey and it showed Gingrich had a 54 percent favorable rating among likely GOP primary voters compared to a 37 percent unfavorable rating. Gingrich's attacks on the media seem to jell with the voters there, too, for only 14 percent of these people favor the media, compared to 77 percent who don't.

* The Detroit Free Press cited McClatchy-Tribune's reporting that super PAC and GOP presidential hopefuls' ad spending in "The Palmetto State" totaled some $12 million.

* According to CBS News exit polling, 64 percent of voters said the debates (with Gingrich getting standing ovations the previous two spectacles), influenced their vote, as opposed to 34 percent who didn't, according to CBS News' Political Hotsheet.

* According to the New York Times, Romney only won three counties, including the counties where the cities of Charleston and Columbia are. Gingrich won all the other counties.

* FoxNews.com reported one notable state endorsement Gingrich got came from the Rev. Bill Monroe, a highly esteemed religious leader, which helped the former House speaker win the evangelical vote easily per Fox News exit polls.

* The Associated Press reported early Sunday that Gingrich will take at least 23 of the state's 25 delegates, while Romney is the only candidate who has any chance of getting the other two delegates. Final results are expected to take at least a week to be completed.

View the original article here

Florida next stop in now-scrambled Republican race (AP)

TAMPA, Fla. – A suddenly scrambled Republican presidential contest shifts to Florida after Newt Gingrich stopped Mitt Romney's sprint to the GOP nomination with a convincing victory in South Carolina.

The air of inevitability that surrounded Romney's candidacy is gone, at least for now. His rivals, led by Gingrich, have until Florida's Jan. 31 contest to prove South Carolina was no fluke.

Larger, more diverse and more expensive, Florida brings new challenges to Gingrich, who again must overcome financial and organizational disadvantages as he did in South Carolina, whose primary he won Saturday.

"We don't have the kind of money at least one of the candidates has. But we do have ideas. And we do have people," Gingrich, the former House speaker, told cheering supporters after his victory. "And we proved here in South Carolina that people power with the right ideas beats big money. And with your help, we're going to prove it again in Florida."

Romney struck a defiant tone before his own backers gathered at the South Carolina State Fairgrounds, saying: "I will compete in every single state." He wasted no time jabbing at Gingrich, saying: "Our party can't be led to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never led a state."

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, third in South Carolina, pledged to compete in Florida and beyond. His presence in the race ensures at least some division among Florida's tea party activists and evangelicals, a division that could ultimately help Romney help erase any questions about his candidacy.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul likely will not be a factor in Florida. He already had said he was bypassing the state in favor of smaller subsequent contests.

As the first Southern primary, South Carolina has been a proving ground for Republican presidential hopefuls in recent years. Since Ronald Reagan in 1980, every Republican contender who won the primary has gone on to capture the party's nomination.

Returns from 95 percent of the state's precincts showed Gingrich with 41 percent of the vote to 27 percent for Romney. Santorum was winning 17 percent, Paul 13 percent.

But political momentum was the real prize with the race to pick an opponent to President Barack Obama still in its early stages.

Already, Romney and a group that supports him were on the air in Florida with a significant television ad campaign, more than $7 million combined to date.

Gingrich readily conceded that he trails in money, and even before appearing for his victory speech he tweeted supporters thanking them and appealing for a flood of donations for the Jan 31 primary. "Help me deliver the knockout punch in Florida. Join our Moneybomb and donate now," said his Internet message.

Aides to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had once dared hope that Florida would seal his nomination — if South Carolina didn't first. But that strategy appeared to vanish along with the once-formidable lead he held in pre-primary polls.

Romney swept into South Carolina as the favorite after being pronounced the winner of the lead-off Iowa caucuses, then cruising to victory in New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary.

But in the sometimes-surreal week that followed, he was stripped of his Iowa triumph — GOP officials there now say Santorum narrowly won — while former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman dropped out and endorsed Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry quit and backed Gingrich.

Romney responded awkwardly to questions about releasing his income tax returns, and about his investments in the Cayman Islands. Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, benefited from two well-received debate performances while grappling with allegations by an ex-wife that he had once asked her for an open marriage so he could keep his mistress.

By primary eve, Romney was speculating openly about a lengthy battle for the nomination rather than the quick knockout that had seemed within his grasp only days earlier.

View the original article here

In a Surprising Twist, Gingrich Wins South Carolina Primary (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Leading up to the South Carolina primary, Mitt Romney seemed to be the front-runner. That is until the debate on Thursday. There was a mixed reaction of South Carolina voters about Romney's personal wealth and his taxes. Romney plans to release some of his tax returns but has yet to disclose what years and how far back he will be disclosing. Two-thirds of South Carolina voters said Mitt Romney's personal background will have no dealings on how they voted, according to ABC News.

Newt Gingrich seemed to be a long shot going into Saturday's primary; however, he came out ahead. Early exit polls had put Gingrich in the range of 30 percent to 35 percent, with Romney second. The Washington Post says Gingrich finished with 40.4 percent to Romney's 27.9 percent.

South Carolina has picked the Republican nominee with its primary every presidential election since 1980. This was a crucial race for all contenders in the race. This made the South Carolina primary important to all potential nominees. There will be many more primaries and caucuses over the next several months. The winner of the nomination will go on to compete against sitting President Barack Obama.

This election the biggest issue on the table with the candidates for the Republican nomination is the economy. This issue will be a large issue in November when voters cast their final vote for the next president.

Gingrich's win in South Carolina means voters have chosen a different candidate in every primary so far. Romney won the New Hampshire primary and it appeared he had won the Iowa caucus, but after a recount shows former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum took Iowa.

The nomination still could be anyone's. Because South Carolina has chosen the winner of the nomination at each of its primary's since 1980 does not necessarily mean Gingrich will win the nomination. This could be history in the making that South Carolina will break its trend and not have chosen the winner of the nomination at its primary.

View the original article here

Romney's $20 Million IRA: A Lousy Investment? (Time.com)

Mitt Romney may have made the classic IRA mistake: holding low-tax investments inside a tax-favored account. His IRA strategy isn't clear, of course. Romney continues to guard his personal finances. But details are trickling out, and even if it turns out that Romney's traditional IRA is built right for him, the securities he holds in it serve as a valuable reminder that not all investments belong in a tax-favored account.

Romney's IRA is valued at between $20.7 million and $101.6 million, according to The Wall Street Journal. That's an extremely wide range that the Journal found in Romney's latest financial disclosure report, filed in August. His IRA produced income between $1.5 million and $8.5 million last year.(MORE: Cash Back: Banks Battle for Your Rollover IRA.)

So he's not like most of us, financially speaking. But he is exactly like us in that he has limits on how much he can contribute to an IRA, or to a 401(k) plan that can be rolled into an IRA. Given those limits it's remarkable that he has been able to amass such wealth in a tax-deferred account.

For most of his years at Bain Capital, the annual IRA pre-tax contribution was capped at $2,000 and the annual 401(k) pre-tax contribution, including employer match, was capped at $30,000. Other limits are in force today: $5,000 for an IRA ($6,000 if you over 50); $16,500 for a 401(k) ($22,000 if you are over 50).

Assuming Romney was maxing out pre-tax contributions, as should anyone who can afford to do so, he still would have needed extraordinary returns within his tax-deferred accounts to build such a big balance. He must have been investing in stocks and other high-growth potential vehicles, which produce a capital gain.

Here's the rub: The max capital gains tax is just 15%. That's what Romney would pay in federal tax upon selling his stocks from a taxable account. Yet when Romney begins taking distributions from his IRA, as he must in his 71st year, the money will be subject to federal income tax at rates of up to 35%. That tax-rate disparity is why it often makes sense to hold stocks in a taxable account and things like real estate investment trusts, rental properties, bonds and other income-generating investments in an IRA or 401(k). This is especially true for the wealthy, like Romney, whose net worth is about $250 million. Rich people have ample resources to max out tax-deferred vehicles with bonds and hold their stocks in a taxable account -- all while maintaining a desired asset allocation of, say, 60% stocks and 40% bonds.(MORE: More Fees, Fewer Branches as Banks Cope With Lower Profits.)

This doesn't necessarily work with limited resources. If you only save in a 401(k) and must stretch to get the full company match, you're probably better off with a mix of stocks and bonds in that account. Stocks also make sense in a tax-deferred account with at least 20 years before distributions begin, according a study by T. Rowe Price. And holding stocks in your IRA won't hurt if your income tax rate will shrink when you begin to take distributions.

But, in general, it makes sense to add low-tax investments like stocks (even dividends get taxed at a max 15%) to a taxable account and income-generating investments to a tax-deferred account -- especially with fewer than 10 years to retirement. A presidential candidate probably knows that. But thanks, Mitt, for the reminder.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

See the Cartoons of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Attacks on Mitt Romney Over Tax Return Issue Are Unfair (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Few presidential candidates have faced more pressure to make available their tax returns than Mitt Romney. Despite the fact Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have also not released their tax returns, as revealed in a South Carolina debate, the former Massachusetts governor is being singled out by the media. The hyperbole scrutiny of Romney's tax returns reveals bias in the part of the media.

If Romney was a salaried man with less than eight-digit figures in his bank account, he would not have faced the same pressure to release his tax returns as he is now. People love a narrative. A successful and wealthy businessman must have a lot of skeletons in his closet, and hence we need see his tax returns. Even if Romney decides to release his tax returns at this instance, the media will follow up and demand to see returns from previous years and decades.

What the media seems to forget is that they are journalists and not auditors. It is the job of the IRS to scrutinize Romney's tax returns for problems. All the media will do is scouring the Michigan native's returns for politically inexpedient details and magnifies them. The decision to release tax returns should be his to make and for the public to judge.

Legally, Romney has the right not to disclose his tax returns. Moreover, he is only a candidate and not the president. If Romney is elected to the presidency, he will likely follow traditions and release his tax returns every year of his term. The media obsession over Romney's tax returns gives the impression that presidential candidates are required to make public their returns, which is incorrect.

Ultimately, it is more prudent for Romney to release his tax returns as soon as possible to temper the controversy. To his credit, the Michigan native has indicated that he will make available his tax returns in April. Four years ago, GOP nominee John McCain also released his tax returns in April. All in all, Romney's wealth is expected to continue to be a hotly debated topic in the 2012 Republican race.

View the original article here

Romney to release his tax returns on Tuesday (AP)

WASHINGTON – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Sunday that he will release his 2010 tax returns and 2011 estimates on Tuesday, acknowledging it was a mistake for his campaign not to have done so earlier.

Stung by a loss to Newt Gingrich in Saturday's South Carolina primary, the former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist said it was "not a good week for me" and he cited all the time he had spent talking about his tax returns as his rivals pressed him to make them public.

After months of resistance, Romney had said last week that he would release tax information for 2011, but not until April, close to the tax filing deadline. That also was seen as a time, before the South Carolina race rattled his front-runner status, when the GOP nomination might have been decided.

"I think we just made a mistake in holding off as long as we did. It just was a distraction. We want to get back to the real issues of the campaign: leadership, character, a vision for America, how to get jobs again in America and how to rein in the excessive scale of the federal government," Romney told "Fox News Sunday."

Romney disclosed on Tuesday that, despite his wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars, he has been paying in the neighborhood of 15 percent, far below the top maximum income tax rate of 35 percent, because his income "comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past."

"Given all the attention that's been focused on tax returns, given the distraction that I think they became in these last couple of weeks," Romney said in the broadcast interview that he would release his 2010 returns and estimates for his 2011 returns at the same time "so there's not a second release down the road."

"We'll be putting our returns on the Internet, people can look through them," Romney said. "It will provide, I think, plenty of information for people to understand that the sources of my income are exactly as described in the financial disclosure statements we put out a couple of months ago.

During 2010 and the first nine months of 2011, the Romney family had at least $9.6 million in income, according to a financial disclosure form submitted in August.

Further focusing attention on his wealth was Romney's offhand remark to reporters that his income from paid speeches amounted to "not very much" money. In the August disclosure statement, he reported being paid $373,327.62 for such appearances for the 12 months ending last February. That sum alone would him in the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers.

In addition, Romney owns investments worth between $7 million and $32 million in offshore-based holdings, which are often used legitimately by private equity firms to attract foreign investors. Such offshore accounts also can enable wealthy investors to defer paying U.S. taxes on some assets, according to tax experts.

An Associated Press examination of Romney's financial records identified at least six funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a small Caribbean island chain that has long been used as a base for international investments because of low tax rates and financial secrecy. Romney has acknowledged that some of his investments are based in the Caymans, but he has not identified all of the specific accounts and the amounts based there. There is no indication Romney uses the accounts to dodge any U.S. tax obligations.

"Cayman Islands account so-to-speak is apparently an investment that was made in an entity that invests in the United States, the taxes paid on that are full U.S. taxes," Romney said.

The Caymans have often been associated with individuals and corporations seeking to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It is legal for U.S. residents to own investment accounts that are set up there, if they file the proper forms with the Internal Revenue Service and pay the appropriate taxes.

"I know people will try and find something," Romney said, adding, "We pay full, fair taxes, and you'll see it's a pretty substantial amount."

View the original article here

Republican hopefuls take fight to Florida (Reuters)

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (Reuters) – After a bruising clash in South Carolina, Republican presidential frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich will take their battle to a bigger stage when the campaign moves to Florida on Sunday.

Gingrich, a former U.S. House of Representatives speaker, thrashed Romney in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, suggesting the race for their party's nomination and the right to face President Barack Obama in November may last months more.

The largest of the early voting states by far, Florida presents logistical and financial challenges that appear to give an advantage to Romney's well funded campaign machine.

But Gingrich has momentum after coming from behind in South Carolina to win around 40 percent of the vote, followed by Romney with 28 percent. Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator, was in third with 17 percent and U.S. congressman Ron Paul in fourth with 13 percent.

"We proved here in South Carolina that people ... with the right ideas beats big money," Gingrich told supporters after his victory in the conservative state.

After strong performances in a series of debates, Gingrich was seen by South Carolina voters as the most likely Republican to beat Obama, a Democrat, in the November 6 election.

They also rejected millionaire former businessman Romney's pitch that he is the best bet to fix a broken U.S. economy and win the White House.

Romney and Gingrich, who have attacked each other mercilessly in a series of negative television ads since December, face off in a debate in Tampa, Florida, on Monday night.

ROMNEY TAX SOLUTION?

Romney has stumbled over questions about his personal finances in recent debates and acknowledged last week that he only pays a 15 percent tax rate, much lower than that of most working Americans.

The former Massachusetts governor has so far resisted calls from rivals, and even ally New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, to release his tax returns.

To try to put the tax return controversy behind him, the Romney campaign has a plan to settle the issue next week, a Republican official said.

That is part of a strategy to be more aggressive against Gingrich, a formidable debater who nevertheless has personal and professional baggage that the Romney team could exploit. Romney accuses Gingrich of being a Washington insider.

"The choice within our party has also come into stark focus. President Obama has no experience running a business and no experience running a state. Our party can't be lead to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never run a state," Romney said on Saturday.

Romney saw his aura of inevitability erode in South Carolina after leading opinion polls by 10 percentage points a week ago.

In Florida, he leads Gingrich by 40.5 percent to 22 percent, according to a poll of polls by RealClearPolitics.com. Santorum, a social conservative who is from Pennsylvania, is third with 15 percent.

Campaigns must spend at least $1 million each week to reach voters in the sprawling southern state, according to local political officials. Romney's allies have already spent $5 million, mostly on ads attacking Gingrich. No other candidate has a significant presence in the state.

(Editing by Paul Simao)

View the original article here

Where Does the GOP Race Go from Here? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | South Carolina Republicans have completed their "first in the South" primary by giving New Gingrich a campaign-saving victory as the Los Angeles Times reports. Throughout the last 30-plus years, South Carolina has picked the eventual Republican nominee. We will see if the trend continues. Let's take a look at each candidate and see where they stand moving forward after South Carolina.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich is certainly the big winner. The conservatives are desperate to unite behind a "not Romney." It looks like they did that with Gingrich. The national polls are also moving toward Gingrich and away from Romney. South Carolina Republicans at least want this race to go on longer to decide a winner. If Gingrich stays disciplined and on message, he can win the nomination and beat President Barack Obama. Since we have three winners in three contests so far, Florida on Jan. 31 may be the critical primary this time to decide the nominee.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney looks anything but a certain nominee after South Carolina. A win here would have practically clinched the nomination. South Carolina confirmed Romney has a ceiling of 30 percent support. Now that the race has narrowed to four, it will be tough for Romney to win. When they thought about Romneycare, abortion and taxes, 70 percent of South Carolina voters (including me) could not support him. The voters in South Carolina are looking for a conservative and they know Romney is not. Romney has lost his status as inevitable front-runner. South Carolina has made sure this will be a long campaign fight.

Rick Santorum

Santorum finished a distant third. South Carolina made Gingrich the not-Romney conservative. While Santorum will head to Florida, I just do not see him becoming the "not Romney." I see his win in Iowa as a fluke given that he spent so much of 2011 there. He does not have the money and the organization to make a credible run through Super Tuesday on March 6. I do not see Santorum in the race without a win in Florida

Ron Paul

In spite of his fourth-place finish, I am pleased with my vote for Ron Paul and his campaign for life and liberty. Paul's campaign is forcing the party back to limited government. Paul, because of the proportion delegate apportionment this year, will have many delegates at the convention and will be able to steer the party platform toward his libertarian views. Paul cannot be ignored anymore; the Republicans risk losing the election by alienating Paul voters.

Republicans, buckle up for the nomination ride. It is going to be a long one.

View the original article here

South Carolina Primary Results by the Numbers (ContributorNetwork)

Newt Gingrich has been declared the winner of the South Carolina presidential primary. With three presidential races finished to this point, there have been three winners. Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucus. Mitt Romney was victorious in New Hampshire. Gingrich has won South Carolina. For the first time, three candidates have won the first three races.

Here's a look at the results of the South Carolina primary, by the numbers.

23: Delegates to the Republican National Convention that Gingrich earned. The delegates are based on the population of the state. Gingrich won just more than 40 percent of the vote, according to the New York Times. There are 25 delegates available from the Palmetto State.

4: Mainstream candidates on the ballot in South Carolina. For the Iowa caucus, there were eight major candidates.

46: Counties in South Carolina. Polls were open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

1.1: Percentage of votes earned by Herman Cain. Even though he dropped out of the race in early December, Cain got over 6,300 votes in South Carolina. That number would not have made a difference in the final tally.

34: Percentage of voters in South Carolina who identify themselves as having an affiliation with the tea party. A CBS News poll claimed nearly half of them supported Gingrich.

18: Percentage of voters who came to the polls. Some precincts had heavier turnouts than others, especially in large cities where Republicans do well.

243,398: Votes Gingrich won in the primary, with 99 percent of the precincts reporting. The front-runner had 75,000 votes more than second place finisher Romney.

143,224: Votes Sen. John McCain won in the 2008 primary. He won by only 15,000 votes over Mike Huckabee.

3: Counties Romney won in South Carolina. Gingrich won the rest. Romney won Charleston County, Richland County and Beaufort County. Those places include Columbia and Charleston.

167,957: Votes Romney won. He improved upon his 2008 total by more than 100,000 votes. He won nearly 28 percent in 2012 vs. 15 percent four years ago.

4: Place Rep. Ron Paul finished in South Carolina. He came in last out of the mainstream candidates. Paul is the only major candidate who hasn't won a primary election in 2012.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics. Born in St. Louis, Browning is active in local politics and served as a campaign volunteer for President Barack Obama and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

View the original article here

Nothing About Iowa Caucus Results Say Romney Is a True Front-Runner (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Mitt Romney may have walked away with a "win" in Iowa, but not much of one. The results from the Associated Press shows a race that is still very much up in the air.

Romney left with 24.6 percent or the vote, garnering 30,015 votes. This is only eight votes higher than runner-up Rick Santorum, who got 30,007 votes, or 24.5 percent. Ron Paul's supporters also came out en mass to deliver him 21.5 percent of the vote, putting him in third place with 26,219 votes.

These three can walk away with some sort of momentum, but how much is a questionable. An important thing to notice is that none of them was able to get even a quarter of the vote. All three men have very different political views.

What does this spell for the GOP? It could mean a long, expensive, drawn-out primary season. Romney may be able to claim a win, but it's a sign that he is still weak. Nothing about this says "front-runner." If anything, is says people are still wary of Romney.

There were some definite losers in Iowa. Michele Bachmann got only 6,073 votes to put her at 5 percent. After this defeat, ABC News reports Bachmann has dropped out of the race. Her defeat in Iowa was a full 360 degree turn from her top spot in the Ames Straw Poll, showing just how much momentum she had lost over the last few months.

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich also suffered in Iowa, netting 10.3 percent and 13.3 percent of the vote. The two of them combined don't surpass Santorum or Romney, giving them an uphill battle. Rick Perry has not given up though, as he posted on Twitter that he is ready for South Carolina. Newt Gingrich has also used Twitter to report that he is on the ground in Iowa, and is already attacking Romney as being "timid."

Jon Huntsman, who did not focus on Iowa, had his own take on the Iowa results. The Washington Post reported Huntsman said that "[t]his is an open race." He might be right. Without a clear front-runner in the race, it does leave you wondering what will happen next.

The Republican Party seems to be divided, and the longer they stay divided, the more money they will have to spend to defeat each other. The more the candidates attack each other, the easier they make it for Democrats to repeat the attacks and raise money themselves.

With no clear leader yet in the GOP race, it could mean we are all in for a long primary season. Romney has the most to lose, as he's been seen as the likely nominee. If he continues to perform poorly, people may start to lose faith in his ability to compete. Only time will tell where this race will go, but it will certainly be a race to follow.

View the original article here

Huntsman hopes to build steam in NH primary (AP)

CONCORD, N.H. – Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman says if he can chug out of the New Hampshire primary "with a head of steam" he can prove he's the Republican candidate who can defeat Barack Obama.

With Mitt Romney favored in Tuesday's voting and most of the rest of the field vying to become the conservative alternative, Huntsman is taking a different path. He says the GOP needs a nominee who can reach beyond Republicans to win over people who voted for Obama in 2008. Huntsman says his supporters include independents and even a few Democrats.

Asked on NBC's "Today" show whether he would leave the race if he doesn't place at least third in New Hampshire, Huntsman declined to say.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman likes to express his excitement about running for president by exclaiming: "Gimme a break! It's the New Hampshire primary!"

It's part of the awestruck, aw-shucks shtick Huntsman uses in when he marvels at the small state's outsized influence on presidential politics. But it also sums up his whole campaign: He needs a break in New Hampshire to keep going.

Huntsman, who skipped the Iowa caucuses to stake his candidacy on a strong showing in Tuesday's primary, has struggled to win over New Hampshire's conservative Republicans. He's been making an aggressive play for independent voters, who can vote in the GOP primary, and has shown signs of gaining ground in the last few days.

Huntsman, 51, also has been making the most of his weekend debate response to front-runner Mitt Romney, who criticized Huntsman for serving as the Obama administration's ambassador to China.

Huntsman quickly adopted Sen. John McCain's old campaign slogan "Country First" and had large signs displaying that message at his final campaign event Monday night, a rally in Exeter. He told the crowd to remember the word "trust" when they vote Tuesday, saying it encompasses his entire campaign.

"It's going to take us all the way to the finish line tomorrow," he said, "and we're going to surprise the heck out of `em!"

That confidence was reminiscent of the Huntsman who proclaimed months ago that he would win the New Hampshire primary. But he switched to predictions about "beating market expectations," and two weeks ago suggested that anything below a third-place finish in New Hampshire would mean an end to his campaign.

In the past week, Huntsman cast himself as the underdog fighting against Romney, whom he called the "status quo candidate." After he campaigned in seven communities Monday, Huntsman's only public appearance scheduled Tuesday is a noontime visit to a Manchester polling place.

View the original article here

Wolfeboro, NH, braces for possible "White House North" (Reuters)

WOLFEBORO, New Hampshire (Reuters) – If Mitt Romney gets his wish, the ranks of presidential retreats that include Crawford, Texas, and Rancho del Cielo near Santa Barbara, California, could soon be joined by Wolfeboro, New Hampshire.

Big change could be coming to the rustic but affluent lakeside resort town on Lake Winnipesaukee if front-runner Romney becomes Republican nominee Romney, and ultimately President Romney after the November 2012 election.

Residents are already bracing for the good, the bad and the ugly that could accompany a "Northern White House."

The Romney's summer house on New Hampshire's largest lake is a three-story, six-bedroom, 5,400-square-foot contemporary home set on an 11-acre lot with a wide water frontage and estimated value of about $10 million.

The spread includes a large boathouse and a former stable that has been converted into a guest house. It sits well back from the road up a long driveway, invisible to passers-by.

The Romney clan, which includes five grown children and 16 grandchildren, often congregate in Wolfeboro in the summer. Empty-nesters Mitt and Ann Romney also own a townhouse in Belmont, Massachusetts, and an oceanfront house in La Jolla, California, which is undergoing a fourfold expansion.

Locals describe the Wolfeboro house, within walking distance of town, as tasteful and classy, which is also pretty much how they describe the owners.

Romney, the former chief executive of buyout firm Bain Capital and Massachusetts governor, is estimated to be worth some $200 million. He is the richest man to run for the White House since publisher and businessman Steve Forbes, who was worth about $430 million when he ran in 1996 and 2000.

Unlike Forbes, who made little headway in his quest, Romney is a strong favorite to win Tuesday's New Hampshire Republican primary, kick on to become party's nominee and have a fighting chance to take down President Barack Obama.

"We're already talking about how we might change this business if he is the nominee. We know things would change if he's the president," said Judith Colcord, co-owner of the Downtown Grille and Cafe. That might include adding staff or changing operating hours at the stylish coffee shop, with views of the lake from its back room and seasonal patio.

"I would like to talk to businesses in Kennebunkport about how it changed their community," said Colcord, referring to the coastal town in Maine where George H. W. Bush spent large amounts of time while he served as president and vice president.

Almost everyone in Wolfeboro has a story about the Romneys, many revolving around seeing the former Massachusetts governor cycling around town, helmetless (don't touch the hair!) on an old three-speed bike, or going to the town's popular ice-cream stand with various family members.

"I delivered him a pizza once, about five years ago, when he was governor," said Nick Sackos, 22, who works at Dive Winnipesaukee, an outdoor equipment store.

GEO-CACHING WITH THE ROMNEYS?

A few hundred yards off the Romney property at Clark's Point is a sunken rowboat, the Bumble Bee, used for "geo-caching" -- a treasure-hunting game that involves finding targets, including submerged objects, using GPS coordinates.

"We go scuba diving right outside his house," Sackos added. "We would probably do even more dives if Romney were president."

Wolfeboro residents insist they are not star-struck, given the many celebrities who visit the town each summer.

The roster has included actors Drew Barrymore and Leonardo DiCaprio; talk show host Jimmy Fallon; Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, recruiting at the elite boarding school Brewster Academy; and many current or former corporate executives who either own or rent properties here.

"We love the waterfront people in Wolfeboro. They pay almost 70 percent of the property taxes and don't put kids in the schools," said realtor Robert Hughes. "They are people who can live anywhere - and this is a very nice 'anywhere.'"

A 2007 vacation in town by French President Nicolas Sarkozy is remembered more critically than interactions with the good-neighbor Romneys. Some locals spoke of an overly aggressive security detail comprised of local law enforcement and private bodyguards while he stayed at a $30,000-a-week rental.

Teachers Joshua and Jennifer Keaton, out walking the family labradoodle, have seen Romney and his wife Ann cycling through town. "One time we saw him at Mise en Place (a local upscale restaurant). Most of the people in town are used to him," Joshua Keaton said.

Driving through downtown takes just a few minutes in the winter, when many stores are shut and summer residents long gone. The town is congested in the summer, and some residents worry about presidential motorcades clogging narrow roads and nosy tourists taking up the good parking spots.

The candidate was introduced to the Wolfeboro area by members of the Marriott hotel clan - not surprising since Willard Mitt Romney was named after J. Willard Marriott, the devout Mormon businessman who founded the company.

Romney bought the property in 1997 from Butch Cash, another hotel executive, for less than $3 million.

In 2004, realtor Hughes sold Romney, then Massachusetts governor, a small parcel of land abutting the main property. Hughes told him in an overnight letter the piece was available and being keenly sought by developers.

Romney quickly called back. "I dealt with him directly. I had his office phone, his private phone, his cell phone," Hughes recalled from his comfortable Main Street office.

"The residents here take pride in not bothering him. He's not a showy person. He's just a neighbor."

(Reporting By Ros Krasny; editing by Todd Eastham)

View the original article here

Herman Cain Say's He Wants to Be Defense Secretary -- and He's Not Joking (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | According to CNN , former GOP presidential candidate and Godfather's Pizza CEO, Herman Cain, would like to be the Secretary of Defense. "I happen to believe that national security is one of our biggest threats," said Cain on Piers Morgan's show. "If you look at what has happened during the Obama administration, defense spending has gone down every year under his administration," said Cain, adding he believes the U.S. pulled out of Iraq too soon.

Cain's argument goes to the heart of what's wrong in America. Any man who can complain that a president has lowered defense spending, which by all accounts should be renamed "foreign aggression spending," is not qualified for the job. (Nations truly interested in defense have a strong Coast Guard, a strong National Guard, strong border security, and a shell Army, Navy, Air force, and Marine Corps rather than the other way around.)

Never mind that Cain's superiority complex leaves him so arrogant that he believes it's funny to refer to other nations as "Ubekki-bekki-bekki-bekki-stan-stan, and who had the audacity to refer to some countries in an interview with CBN as "small" and ergo "insignificant" has no business advising his own children, no less the president of the United States on matters of military aggression.

"It's not that you have to be a defense expert," Cain added in his interview with Morgan, "but I would like to be in a position to try to influence on one of our most critical crises, and that's our national security crisis."

So, in essence, Cain admits that he is not expert on national security, but he does believe he's important enough that he should be given the job of advising the president on things of which he [Cain] has no expert knowledge. Well that sounds like an excellent way for the world's only super power to conduct itself on the world stage. What could possibly go wrong? I have one question for Cain, if he's capable of reading: What exactly did you people put on those pizzas back in the day?

View the original article here

Republican Candidates on Abolishing Courts and Subpoenaing Judges (ContributorNetwork)

According to the Huffington Post, Newt Gingrich declared that as president, he would abolish courts and subpoena activist judges that he thought were out of line. This position has been characterized as "outrageous," "totally irresponsible" and a threat to checks and balances by two former conservative attorney generals, according to Bret Baier.

As a result, the candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination were asked for their opinions on subpoenaing judges and judicial power, in general.

Here is what they said, according to a debate transcript provided by the American Presidency Project:

* Newt Gingrich: "The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful, and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people. … When the Ninth Circuit Court said that 'one nation under God' is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. … I decided, if you had judges who were so radically anti-American that they thought "one nation under God" was wrong, they shouldn't be on the court. ... We have a balance of three branches. We do not have a judicial dictatorship in this country. And that's what the Federalist papers promised us. And I would -- just like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR -- be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict itself in what it was doing."

* Michele Bachmann: "I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority. Because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbitrator of law is the court system. It isn't. The intention of the founders was that the courts would be the least powerful system of government. And if we give to the courts, the right to make law, then the people will have lost their representation. They need to hold onto their representation."

* Ron Paul: "Well the Congress can get rid of these courts. If a judge misbehaves and is unethical and gets into trouble, the proper procedure is impeachment. But to subpoena judges before the Congress, I'd really question that. And if you get too careless about abolishing courts, that could open up a can of worms. … But the whole thing is, if you just say, well we're going to -- OK there are 10 courts, let's get rid of three this year because they ruled a way we didn't like. … That's a real affront to the separation of the powers."

* Mitt Romney: "As many as half the justices in the next four years are going to be appointed by the next president. This is a critical time to choose someone who believes in conservative principles. Now I don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to have Congress overseeing justices. The only group that has less credibility than justices perhaps is Congress. So let's not have them be in charge of overseeing the justices."

* Rick Perry: "When I talk about overhauling Washington, D.C., one of the things I talk about besides a part-time Congress is no longer having lifetime terms for the federal bench. I think that is one of the ways that you keep these unaccountable legislators from rogues to try to dictate to the rest of us."

View the original article here

Bachmann Throwing a 'Hail Tebow' for a Last-Second Iowa Win? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic, this latest political ploy using some vacuous associative context to attempt to win over voters for Michele Bachmann just before the Iowa caucus. It would appear supporters of the Minnesota congresswoman, a candidate flailing in single digits in the presidential preference polls, has called upon a higher power to deliver her a win in the nation's first GOP electoral contest -- NFL quarterback Tim Tebow. The context? They're both defiant born-again Christians.

In a television ad released by No Compromise PAC, a narrator informs the audience that the "establishment" just "loves to hate" Tebow and Bachmann, asserting the Denver Broncos quarterback makes sports fans feel guilty because the avowed Christian doesn't "drink, cuss, smoke or kick opponents when they're down."

The ad goes on to make the comparison: "The same could be said of Michele Bachmann: No baggage, Christian and like Tebow, she keeps fighting and she just keeps winning votes."

So what is to be gained from the "hail Tebow" last-second pass? Tebow is popular (he just topped a poll where he would be America's most desirable neighbor). He's a Christian who wins games even though he's criticized for the way he plays and for his open display of his beliefs. Bachmann is a Christian who is criticized for the way she plays politics and for her beliefs. Therefore, Republican voters in Iowa should understand that, by linear logic, Bachmann is every bit as much a winner as is Tebow. Because she's a Christian.

And perhaps because Tebow throws the football like Bachmann? Maybe.

But Tebow and the Broncos have lost three games in a row (although the Broncos still made the playoffs) since reeling off six consecutive wins. Does the Super PAC ad mean to say if Bachmann loses the Iowa caucus and a few other contests, she'll continue campaigning?

Regardless, except for the fact the two are born-again Christians, the ad appears ludicrous, a thinly veiled and laughable attempt to draw on the popularity of a star football player for political gain. Where's the endorsement of the player himself?

Perhaps Bachmann and the guys behind the Iowa ad should take a knee. That is, try a little "Tebowing" before the caucus. Who knows? It can't be any less effective in Iowa than the ad.

View the original article here

GOP rivals turn Romney's jobs record against him (AP)

By KASIE HUNT and CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Kasie Hunt And Charles Babington, Associated Press – Mon Jan 9, 10:42 pm ET

NASHUA, N.H. – Mitt Romney's Republican rivals accused him Monday of exaggerating his successes and coldly laying off thousands of workers while heading a profitable venture capital firm, an effort to turn the presidential front-runner's biggest asset into a liability.

The heightened focus on the firm Bain Capital threatens to slow Romney's cruise-control campaign because it goes to the heart of his No. 1 appeal to voters: the claim that he knows far more than President Barack Obama about creating jobs.

Romney's takeover-and-restructuring firm "apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed and walked off with millions of dollars," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on NBC's "Today" show. A group friendly to Gingrich is preparing to air TV ads of laid-off workers denouncing Romney.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry joined in. He cited South Carolina companies that Bain bought and downsized, and he practically dared Romney to ask for voters' support there in the name of easing economic pain. "He caused it," Perry said in Anderson, S.C.

Romney points to thousands of jobs created at companies that Bain bought, invested in or restructured. But he struck a discordant note Monday, just as attention to the Bain jobs history was spiking.

Speaking of insurance options before a New Hampshire audience, Romney said, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."

He remained favored to win Tuesday's New Hampshire primary. But his rivals might improve their hopes of halting his momentum in South Carolina's Jan. 21 primary if they can persuade voters that his jobs legacy is not what he claims.

Thanks to millions of dollars from a Las Vegas casino owner who supports Gingrich, TV ads in South Carolina will try to do just that. Like many attack ads they are emotional, one-sided and not subtle. They show angry victims of layoffs from Bain-controlled companies, according to excerpts shown to reporters.

"We had to load up the U-Haul because we done lost our home," a woman says.

On the campaign trail, Romney rarely mentions his four years as governor unless asked. But he constantly touts his time in the private sector, asking voters to trust his instincts and experience in creating jobs.

The claims rely on Romney's career at Bain, a Boston-based private equity firm that poured investors' money, and Bain executives' expertise, into more than 100 companies in the 1980s and `90s. Some of the companies thrived and expanded. Some took on unsustainable debt and went bankrupt. Some became leaner or were broken into various parts, shedding jobs and improving profits.

In a recent debate, Romney repeated his claim that the Bain-run companies netted a total increase of 100,000 jobs.

Studies by The Associated Press and other news organizations conclude that the claim doesn't withstand scrutiny. That alone, however, hardly suggests Romney was an unsuccessful business executive. He became wealthy, a hero to many entrepreneurs, and the leader of the much-praised 2002 Winter Olympics.

The 100,000 jobs claim comes from activities at only three companies, all of them successes: Staples, Domino's and Sports Authority. However, it counts many jobs that were created after Romney left Bain in 1999. And it ignores job losses at many other firms that Bain invested in or took over.

The Wall Street Journal, which examined 77 businesses that Bain invested in during Romney's tenure, concluded Monday that the record is mixed. Twenty-two percent of the companies closed down or filed for bankruptcy reorganization within eight years, "sometimes with substantial job losses," the Journal reported.

"Bain produced stellar returns for its investors," the paper reported. But 70 percent of the profits came from 10 deals.

A separate AP analysis found that at least 4,000 workers lost their jobs at 45 companies bought by Bain between 1984 and 1994, according to company reports, news releases and news coverage. The tally probably is higher, because it does not include other jobs lost in bankruptcies and other store and factory closings.

Like any venture capital company, Bain's main purpose was to generate profits for investors, not to create jobs. So it is easy for political campaigns to find dazzling success stories and heartbreaking plant closures in the company's history.

A new 28-minute film, "King of Bain," portrays Romney as a profit-driven predator. A pro-Gingrich super PAC bought the film and plans to use excerpts for the attack ads in South Carolina. The group says it will post the entire film online.

Gingrich's struggling campaign has been helped by $5 million given to the super PAC by casino owner Sheldon Adelson.

Obama's campaign aides have long considered the Bain record to be Romney's weakest spot, more damaging than his much-discussed flips on abortion and other issues.

Romney told reporters Monday in New Hampshire that the attacks from Gingrich and Perry surprised him.

"Free enterprise will be on trial" in the 2012 election, Romney said. "I thought it was going to come from the president, from the Democrats, from the left. But instead it's coming from Speaker Gingrich and apparently others, and that's just part of the process. I'm not worried about that."

Romney's record at Bain has both helped and hurt his political career for nearly two decades. Bain was a pioneer in the often lucrative practice of "leveraged buyouts," which involve heavy borrowing against the assets of a just-purchased company, and sometimes aggressive restructuring. Romney's role there is generally lauded in corporate circles.

But in his unsuccessful 1994 Senate bid, Democrats ran ads featuring a worker who lost his job after Bain bought and restructured American Pad & Paper.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the deal generated $102 million in investment gains. But Ampad filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000.

___

Babington reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Stephen Braun in Washington and Brian Bakst in South Carolina contributed to this report.

View the original article here