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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Past New Hampshire Primaries Turned Out (ContributorNetwork)

The second great contest of the 2012 election cycle is the New Hampshire primary, scheduled for Jan 10. At hazard are 12 delegates for the Republican national convention, which will be distributed proportionally.

Past results of the New Hampshire primary had often negated the results of the Iowa caucus, which generally take place a week before.

2008 New Hampshire Primary -- The Republicans.

According to the New York Times, the winner of the 2008 contest on the Republican side was John McCain, which was surprising as Mitt Romney, who was a favorite son of a sort due to his coming from next door Massachusetts, had been expected to win. McCain, who went on the win the nomination, got just over 37 percent of the vote and seven delegates, Romney got just over 32 percent of the votes and four delegates. Mike Huckabee, who had won the Iowa caucus, took just 12 percent of the votes and one delegate.

2008 New Hampshire Primary -- The Democrats

According to the New York Times, then-Senator Hillary Clinton barely edged out then-Sen. Barack Obama, the winner of that year's Iowa caucus, with 39 percent and 36 percent of the vote. Each got nine delegates. John Edwards, who had been a senator, a 2004 presidential and vice presidential candidate, won about 17 percent of the vote and four delegates. Obama would eventually win the nomination and then the presidency.

2004 New Hampshire Primary

Since George W. Bush was the incumbent president, only the Democrats had a seriously contested primary. According to CNN, Sen. John Kerry, who was from next door Massachusetts, won with 38 percent of the votes and took 13 delegates. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean came in second with 26 percent of the vote and took nine delegates. Kerry would eventually win the nomination.

2000 New Hampshire Primary -- The Democrats

According to US Gov Info, then-Vice President Al Gore, the eventual nominee, won the primary with 50 percent of the votes and took 13 delegates. Bill Bradley came in second with 46 percent of the votes and took nine delegates. Gore would be the Democratic nominee that year.

2000 New Hampshire Primary -- The Republicans

According to US Gov Info, Sen. John McCain shocked the presumed front-runner, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, by winning the primary with 49 percent of the vote, taking nine delegates. Bush came in second with 30 percent of the vote and six delegates. Steve Forbes came in third with 13 percent of the vote and taking two delegates. Despite the unexpected defeat in New Hampshire, Bush would rally back to win the Republican nomination and then the presidency by the narrowest of margins.

View the original article here

Barney Frank's 2012 Slogan for Democrats: 'We're Not Perfect, but They're Nuts' (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Barney Frank announced a few weeks ago that he would not be seeking reelection in his home district in Massachusetts in 2012, ending a 32-year congressional career. But it hasn't stopped him from being as outspoken as ever. In an appearance on MSNBC Monday evening, Frank told Lawrence O'Donnell that the Republican candidates were making statements as if they were "kings" and that the GOP had moved further to the right. He also jokingly implied that voters in 2012 should vote for Democrats because Republicans were "nuts."

After telling O'Donnell that the Republican race thus far had been "entertaining," he suggested that the Democratic slogan for 2012 should be: "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."

Given Frank's moderate to liberal views, there is reason to believe that he was only partially joking. The GOP candidates have been only too willing to build a foundation for the argument that they're slightly eccentric, deranged, or mentally imbalanced.

Take, for instance, presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum's insistence that abortions were responsible for less money being taken in by the Social Security Administration and causing the prognosticated upcoming crisis of a broke system.

Then there are the multiple statements from Rep. Michele Bachmann about gays, including that homosexuals were "part of Satan" (as reported in the Daily Mail). CNN reported that she told an audience member at one of her rallies in Iowa that the landmark Kinsey Report was unfounded, agreeing with her husband's remark that the findings were a "myth." She also once stated before Congress (captured on C-SPAN) that there was no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide was a harmful gas.

Texas governor Rick Perry made headlines -- a spawned a viral video, like that posted by the Associated Press -- with his reply to a child's question about evolution that it was a theory that was "out there." The fact is, it is a proven theory (as opposed to the creationism he said was taught in Texas public schools -- but is not).

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich also has sounded off on odd beliefs, such as the time when he told a group of evangelicals in San Antonio, according to Politico, that he feared his grandchildren would one day live in "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." Secular atheist and Muslim? As strange as that sounds, what about the grandchildren so easily reconditioned to forget that the "American way of life?"

Although these statements and positions are not indicative of Republicans as a collective and do not reflect upon candidates in the 2012 Republican nomination race as a whole, they should give voters pause -- especially with regard to future elections where these presidential contenders might compete. That is, unless voters choose to believe that it is outgoing Rep. Barney Frank who is "nuts" and that statements such as those made by several of the presidential candidates are reasonable.

Because, as is so much in the realm of politics, labeling persons, positions, and issues as "nuts" is most assuredly relative...

View the original article here

Turnout May Be the Most Reliable Forecaster from the Iowa Republican Caucus (ContributorNetwork)

ANALYSIS | The 2012 Republican Iowa caucus yielded a winner, barely. After months of ups and downs for each candidate, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum basically tied with 25 percent of the vote each. In fact, only eight votes separated the two candidates. Ron Paul was not far behind with 21 percent of the vote. Notably, former frontrunners Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann, who garnered 13 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent of the vote respectively, had trouble drumming up their previously held popularity and now have to question the wisdom of staying in the race.

Traditionally, the Iowa caucuses have held the distinction of limiting a party's field down to a few candidates and setting the tone as the primary season gets underway. However, history tells us that is not always the case meaning Romney and Santorum may not be there in the end. In 2008, the Democrat race revealed its frontrunner in Iowa, when a relatively unknown Barack Obama garnered 37.6 percent of the vote to beat the relatively more popular John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus was an accurate predictor of the eventual Democrat nominee.

The 2008 Republic caucus, however, was not as accurate. Mike Huckabee took 34.4 percent of the vote while the eventual Republican nominee, John McCain, took just 13.1 percent trailing Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. The Republican race changed significantly after the 2008 Iowa caucus. We may experience a similar roller coaster this year based on the months leading up to the 2012 Iowa caucus, the near tie between Romney and Santorum, and the relatively high turnout, which may be an indicator of Republican enthusiasm moving forward.

Over the last few months, polling has revealed wildly fluctuating numbers for the Republican hopefuls. First, it was Michelle Bachmann who, after a few impressive debate appearances, shot ahead in the polls. Ron Paul, the perennial candidate, has had his time in the limelight. Rick Perry shot ahead of Bachmann and appeared to be in the driver's seat before making a few gaffes and losing ground to the relatively unknown Herman Cain. Cain's demise began with rampant allegations of an affair and soon thereafter, Newt Gingrich took the lead.

So what does all this mean for the Republicans now that Romney and Santorum basically tied? As the 2008 Iowa Republican caucus demonstrated, the results are no sure indicator of the eventual nominee. The uncertainty seems even more relevant this time around given the extremely inconsistent polling and multiple leaders over the last few months. The 2012 Iowa caucus does lend itself to one predictor that is worth watching.

In 2008, a year of political volatility to be sure with an unpopular President Bush, a failing economy, and an unpopular war, both parties attempted to increase turnout by increasing interest and enthusiasm. It works for the Democrats as Barack Obama eventually enjoyed one of the largest turnouts ever for a presidential election.

This election is shaping up to be a volatile one as well. The economy is still sputtering along and President Obama's approval rating has suffered. The Republicans will certainly look to increase the turnout, and it appears that has begun already. In 2008, the Republican turnout at the Iowa caucus was 118,696, a relatively high number. This year's caucus saw even more vote with a Republican turnout of 122,255.

The results of the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus results may not tell us much in regard to who the party will put forward as their nominee and challenger to President Obama. However, the turnout in this early caucus does indicate that the Republicans may enjoy a bump in numbers from increased turnout similar to what Obama experienced during his trek to the White House in 2008.

View the original article here

Rick Santorum Another Republican Out of Touch with Reality (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum may be the newest flavor in the Republican of the Month contest after Iowa voters finally got to weigh in their votes on Tuesday, finishing just eight votes behind Mitt Romney, but one thing is certain: Santorum is clearly out of touch with reality with the majority of Americans, including the dire state of the economy, health care and employment.

The former senator apparently is so out of touch that he apparently believes African-Americans are the only citizens on welfare in our country.

According to the New York Daily News, while Santorum was at an Iowa campaign stop on Sunday, January 1, he told his supporters, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

As you can imagine, the NAACP is up in arms about his remark, and as well they should be. We all should be. Santorum hasn't apologized for the remark. He's decided to go another route and deny he made the comment at all, but he can clearly be heard on a CNN video making the controversial statement.

Not only is it an unfair stereotype, it isn't even accurate by a long shot. Federal benefits are not determined by race, but by income. In Iowa, only nine percent of welfare recipients are black. 84 percent are white.

Santorum also goes on during his speech Sunday to explain why four in ten children of Iowa are on Medicaid. It isn't because they need health care. The former Senator says it's because President Obama wants their vote. Somehow I think that's a pretty far stretch from the truth. If you ask parents of these children if they signed their children up for Medicaid for any other reason assure they have access to healthcare, they would likely find his statement laughable.

Does Santorum and the other GOP candidates realize the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system? The reason that many children as well as adults do not have health care insurance is because their employment benefits ended after a job loss or change and many employers do not offer benefits at all. To say that Obama wants to provide health care for children just because he wants the vote, is a sad attack on the truth.

Santorum will likely dive to the bottom of the GOP candidate pool soon enough, and there should be an outcry against not only his racially prejudiced comments, but his unrealistic view of American society.

View the original article here

History of Winners of the Republican New Hampshire Primary (ContributorNetwork)

The New Hampshire Primary first became the famous first in the nation contest with the 1952 contest. The Republican contest has selected eight nominees and four presidents since that year through the 2008 contest.

The results were, according to the Primary New Hampshire Site:

1952 - General Dwight Eisenhower

General Eisenhower won this contest with 50.4 percent of the vote against Robert Taft who took 38.7 percent. Eisenhower, who did no campaigning in the state, thanks to his being commanding general of NATO at the time, went on to win the nomination and the election.

1960 - Vice President Richard Nixon

Nixon took the contest with an overwhelming 89.3 percent of the vote. Nelson Rockefeller, then governor of New York, took 3.8 percent of the vote. Nixon went on to win the nomination but was defeated by then Senator John F. Kennedy narrowly in the general election.

1964 - Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge

Ambassador Lodge, then representing the United States in South Vietnam, was a surprise write in victor with 35.5 percent of the vote. Senator Barry Goldwater, Governor Nelson Rockefeller, and former Vice President Richard Nixon followed with 22.3 percent, 21 percent, and 16.8 percent of the vote respectively. Goldwater went on to win the nomination but was handily defeated by President Lyndon Johnson in the general election.

1968 - Nixon

Nixon won the primary decisively with 77.6 percent of the vote with Rockefeller winning 10.8 percent. Nixon went on to be the nominee and won the general election narrowly against then Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

1976 - President Gerald Ford

President Ford fought off a stiff challenge against then former Gov. Ronald Reagan, taking 49.4 percent of the vote against Reagan's 48 percent. Ford went on to be the nominee, but lost narrowly against Jimmy Carter.

1980 - Former California Gov. Ronald Reagan

Reagan won this time around with 49.6 percent of the vote. George W. Bush, Senator Howard Baker, and Rep. John Anderson followed with 22.7 percent, 12.1 percent, and 9.8 percent respectively. Reagan went on to win the nomination and the general election.

1988 - Vice President George H. W. Bush

Bush won the primary this time around with 37.8 percent. Senator Bob Dole, Rep, Jack Kemp, and Pete DuPont followed with 38.6 percent, 12.7 percent, and 10.7 percent respectively. Bush went on to win the nomination and the general election against Mass Gov. Michael Dukakis.

1992 - Bush

Bush fought off a stiff challenge from Pat Buchanan, taking 53.2 percent of the vote against Buchanan's 36.5 percent of the vote. Bush won the nomination but was defeated for reelection at the hands of then Gov. Bill Clinton.

1996 - Patrick Buchanan

Buchanan won the primary this time around with 27.3 percent of the vote. He was followed by Dole, Lamar Alexander, and Steve Forbes with 26.2 percent, 22.6 percent, and 12.2 percent of the vote respectively. Dole went on to win the nomination but was beaten by President Clinton in the general election.

2000 - Senator John McCain

McCain shocked then Gov. George W. Bush by winning with 49 percent of the vote. Bush took 30.2 percent. Bush went on to win the nomination and the general election against then Vice President Al Gore.

2008 - McCain

McCain won the contest the second time around with 37.1 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee followed with 31.6 percent and 11.2 percent. McCain won the nomination but lost against then Senator Barack Obama.

View the original article here

Comparison of Pending Right to Work Legislation (ContributorNetwork)

The first day of a new legislative session in Indiana was halted because most of the Democratic state representatives decided to stay home from work and prevent a quorum, according to the New York Times. The Republican majority had planned to introduce "right to work" legislation, making Indiana the 23rd state to permit voluntary union membership. A similar amendment may soon be on the ballot in Ohio, according to the Toledo Blade.

Indiana

Governor Mitch Daniels favors the "right to work" legislation and stated that the pending bill is designed to create new job opportunities, according to Reuters. Indiana Democrats and union members are preparing to fight any attempted changes to mandatory membership at public employee workplaces and private businesses where unions exist. According to Reuters, pro-union forces are promising statehouse protests like those which occurred in Ohio and Wisconsin last year.

If approved, the "right to work" law ends the ability of labor unions to force employees to join or pay any type of dues to the organization. Last year when similar legislation was introduced Democratic lawmakers fled to Illinois for five weeks to avoid taking a vote on the bill, according to Reuters. Governor Daniels initially planned security changes at the state house to avoid the pandemonium which occurred in Ohio and Wisconsin during union legislation debates last year, according to the Indy Star. Although Daniels repealed some of his initial plans to limit entrance to 3,000 visitors and restrict public access to some elevators and doors, an increased state trooper presence is still visible at the governmental building.

Ohio

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is attempting to get a "right to work" proposal on the ballot in Ohio, according to the Toledo Blade. The group began working on the amendment prior to the fall 2011 election which the Ohio Senate Bill 5 repeal issue. Months of statehouse protests in Ohio preceded the approval of the bill which would have required merit based pay for public employees, put an end to teacher tenure and collective bargaining reforms.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine was unable to certify the initial wording of the proposed ballot issue because the wording failed to detail legal remedies available under the amendment's mandate, according to the Toledo Blade. Like the Wisconsin law, Senate Bill 5 would have limited collective bargaining rights of public employees to specific issues. The Republican sponsored legislation would have also ended the practice of outside arbitration during public employee union contract disputes.

Wisconsin

Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana began collective bargaining reform battles at approximately the same time last year, only Wisconsin being successful in getting legislation passed, according to the Washington Post. Thousands of protesters gathered on the statehouse law chanting "shame" at conservatives who supported alterations to the state's union membership and bargaining policies. Recall elections prompted to remove those who supported union reform failed, according to the Post. Unlike Ohio's collective bargaining reform legislation, the Wisconsin bill made exceptions for firefighters and police officers.

View the original article here