Obama’s Bigoted Campaign

Remember this speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention? My how times have changed. Obama has evolved on whether or not there’s a united America, I suppose. Now we live in no less than five or six different Americas going by Team Obama’s divisive campaign strategies this year. But that’s not what he promoted when he was introduced to the country eight years ago. He’s what he said then:

It is that fundamental belief — it is that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: “E pluribus unum,” out of many, one.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.

There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?

And here we are this year, when he and his campaign are doing just what he said “the spin masters, and negative ad peddlers…and the pundits” shouldn’t do: slicing and dicing us into blue teams and red teams, using poll-tested strategies to keep us confined to our identifying groups. Now his campaign plays by the “politics of anything goes.” Team Obama plays the most intolerant game in recent memory.

President Obama peddles bigotry, plain and simple. If you don’t like his work or his vision, you’re a racist. Likewise if you want free and fair elections where every vote counts. If you’re a conservative, you hate women. If you like a certain brand of fried chicken, you hate gays. If you want secure borders, you’re a xenophobe. If you care about the economy and want a change, you’re low-information and vote against your own interests. If you worry about the defense of our nation against the backdrop of spiking violence the world over, you’re a terrible person and bigoted towards Muslims. If you support Israel, you’re anti-peace. Warmonger.

If you want to be a Democrat, above all, you must subscribe wholly and loyally to every bit of the bigoted rhetoric coming out of his mouth, the mouths of his campaign staff, and from the fingertips of his progressive followers in every corner of the internet. And you better start promoting it yourself.

This is the real Obama.

Are you kidding me?

---

Politico:

Records: Iowa man in Romney video did jail time for assault of a peace officer

Jason Clausen, a Mason City, Iowa, man featured in Mitt Romney’s new video featuring unemployed people has a lengthy rap sheet and served ten days in jail for “assault on a peace officer,” public records show.

Clause is seen in the video “A few of the 23 million” saying, “When the economy went bad a month after my divorce, I lost my job, I lost my house.” He and his wife filed for a dissolution of their marriage, records show, in January 2009, months after the economy started tanking.

According to public records, a Jason Clausen with his birthdate was found guilty of “assault on peace officers and others” on Feb. 28, 2005. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail, with 110 of those days suspended. He was given 730 days of probation and paid $845 in fines, records show. Iowa Department of Corrections records show he was on probation for “a serious misdemeanor” until April 3, 2006.

The records show Clausen had nearly 20 busts, tickets or fines, a number of them traffic infractions related to things like driving while intoxicated, or with a suspended license. Some were related to accidents, others to driving without seat belts.

Clausen could not be reached for comment.

---

The Romney campaign made an ad video showing some people in Iowa who are suffering under the current economy. So the Obama campaign/media responds by vetting the people in the video.

This is really creepy, authoritarian stuff. Is this what we want to see – anyone who opposes Obama or supports Romney being placed under a microscope? Romney himself is fair game, but do all of his supporters need to worry about having their entire lives exposed to public view?

Meanwhile, we still haven’t seen Obama’s college transcripts.

UPDATE:

This information about Mr. Clausen does not disprove the basic story in the video – that he separated from his wife and lost his job after the economy tanked. The Politico article does not demonstrate any connection between his minor criminal record and his current difficulties.

Candidates are always fair game for vetting. The same thing generally applies to their close friends and major financial backers because those people are relevant to the candidate’s character – honest, decent people don’t consort with terrorists and crooks. The dirty laundry of some minor supporter in not relevant to anything.

Has Mr. Clausen even met Mitt Romney?

---

It’s Romney

---

I take a day off and big stories break:

Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign

Rick Santorum suspended his presidential campaign on Tuesday, bowing to the inevitability of Mitt Romney’s nomination and ending his improbable, come-from-behind quest to become the party’s conservative standard-bearer in the fall.

“We made a decision over the weekend, that while this presidential race for us is over, for me, and we will suspend our campaign today, we are not done fighting,” Mr. Santorum said.

Mr. Santorum made the announcement at a stop in his home state of Pennsylvania after a weekend in which he tended to his 3-year-old daughter, Bella, who had been hospitalized with pneumonia.

Mr. Santorum, who was holding back tears, did not exactly specify why he was ending his presidential bid. He referred to his daughter’s illness, but said she was making great progress and was back home after being hospitalized over the weekend.

Mr. Santorum called Mr. Romney earlier in the day to tell him of his plans to suspend his campaign. Mr. Santorum told Mr. Romney that he is committed to defeating President Obama, but that he is not going to endorse immediately, said a source familiar with the call.

---

Rick is out, Gingrich is broke and Ron Paul is . . . Ron Paul. All the other Not-Romneys faded or flopped. Now we’ll see if Romney can unite and motivate the GOP.

Here’s an interesting “what if?” scenario:

What if Palin had challenged Romney instead of Santorum?

---

---

The Real Mitt Romney Open Thread

---

What’s happening tonight?

---

So, about that war on women…

If you thought the contraception debate was about expanding or protecting women’s existing right to reproductive health care, think again. If you were waiting for the other shoe to fall, congratulations. You are not blinded by your own bias and can see clearly and painfully exactly how much the left, especially the new Democratic constituencies attracted under Obama, care about the signature women’s issue according to left-centered feminists. Which is to say they do not care at all. Women, you have served your purpose, and it is time for reassignment back under the bus. Contraception coverage, decided and issued just over a month ago, is already up for review:

Taking a conciliatory tone and asking for a wide range of public comment, the Obama administration announced this afternoon new accommodations on a controversial mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in health care plans.

Coming after a month of continued opposition from the U.S. bishops to the mandate, which was first revised in early February to exempt certain religious organizations, today’s announced changes from the Department of Health and Human Services make a number of concessions, including allowing religious organizations that self-insure to be made exempt.

Note that they are asking for public comment. It would be irresponsible for organizations such as NOW, Emily’s List, and NARAL to remain silent on this. I expect to see a big fundraising push to raise awareness about this issue. There’s a war on women, for goodness sakes! And women must fight the good fight! I’m waiting for it. I’m just sure it’s going to happen…

But wait. There’s more!

About that new student rule, which Sandra Fluke fought so hard for, and for which she suffered so much indignity, may not be as permanent as she would like, or as immediate. The proposal suggests ways that universities can easily skirt the rules. It’s so nice of the Obama administration to publish the loopholes at taxpayer expense so that these universities don’t have to pay lawyers to figure it out themselves. Obots are right that Obama is like Jesus in one sense: The lord giveth and he taketh away.

News of the changes also came as a separate ruling on student health insurance coverage was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services this afternoon. Under that ruling, health care plans for students would be treated like those of employees of colleges and universities — meaning the colleges will have to provide contraceptive services to students without co-pay.

Religiously affiliated colleges and universities, however, would be shielded from this ruling, according to a statement from the HHS.

“In the same way that religious colleges and universities will not have to pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, they will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer,” the statement said.

I’d be very curious to learn what Fluke’s opinion is of this specific issue, and the other reproductive health proposal (both linked in the article above) overall. If she or anyone else participating in the debate on the pro-contraception side can support this, it does raise some questions. Most notably: So, it’s okay (to segregate medical care by gender) if you’re a Democrat? I wonder if it will even be an issue, if any self-labelled feminist of the progressive/liberal persuasion will comment on it at all. I’m guessing not if the last three years are any indication. I mean, who cares if Obama’s health care plan segregates women’s reproductive health care, or if it rolls back EEOC rulings that have stood for 12+ years? He’s the coolest m*therf*cking feminist president evah!

Cross-posted from P&L.

Super Tuesday GOP Primary Results Open Thread

---

If you want to talk about the results of today’s GOP primaries here’s the place to do it. Or talk about whatever else you want to discuss.

---

---

The last GOP debate in less than 60 seconds

---

Eyewitness reports say Newt won, Satanorum lost, Mitt was present and Paul was Paul.

I really don’t care anymore. The next four years are going to be very unpleasant no matter who wins.

Some Republicans are figuring out that the game has been rigged. Ace of Spades:

I believe the party wants to lose.

I believe the party has decided the problems facing us are so big that they cannot be overcome.

I believe the party has decided, maybe subconsciously, maybe consciously, that we are not up to the task, and the best thing to do is just duck out and Blame the Other Guys. Let them Own Their Problems.

If that’s the plan, let me know. We don’t have to contend very hard at all if our goal is to lose.

Easiest thing in the world, losing. Even easier when you’ve gotten practice at it.

I believe the party does not think it is capable of working positive good in policy. If so, I take it as knowing itself best, and perhaps it’s time for a new party.

---

Why should the Republican establishment want to win? They get everything they could dream of and the Democrats take the blame.

---

I thought Beelzebub was a Democrat?

The Lightbringer

---

The Sludge Report:

SANTORUM’S SATAN WARNING

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

MORE

The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.

“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”

“He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”

Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.

---

Like clockwork, a GOP contender rises in the polls past Mitt Romney and and suddenly the hounds of hell try to drag the contender down.

What’s surprising is this is an attack from the left. When is the last time you saw a Republican getting slammed for being too Christian? I can personally vouch that what Santorum was preaching is standard fundamentalist orthodoxy. Some churches spend more time talking about the Devil than they do about God.

What I want to know is whether this means we can take a closer look at what Mitt Romney believes? And can we go back and revisit Reverend Wright now?

Fair is fair.

---

---

I guess there are no hummers in heaven

---

Rick Santorum:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

---

Are you shitting me? What fucking century did he grow up in? Are married couples supposed to cut a hole in a sheet lest they have too much fun?

I couldn’t believe Santorum really said that shit until I watched the video for myself. We like to joke that Republicans are batshit insane, but this one really is.

Watch it at 17:48:

---

---

Hat Trick Rick

---

Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado results: A sweep for Santorum

Rick Santorum dealt an embarrassing setback to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign Tuesday night, sweeping non-binding contests across three states and raising new questions about conservatives’ willingness to accept Romney as their nominee.

Santorum beat Romney handily in the Missouri primary and Minnesota caucuses, and well after midnight on the East Coast he was also declared the winner of Colorado’s caucuses. He defeated Romney by 30 percentage points in Missouri, 55 percent to 25 percent; in Minnesota, Santorum took 45 percent to Ron Paul’s 27 percent and Romney’s 17 percent.

The margin in Colorado was the closest of the three contests — Santorum led by 5 points with 100 percent of precincts in. But that defeat may have stung the most for Romney, who led polling in the Western state, where his Mormon faith was expected to be an asset.

---

Just when it looked like Mitt was going to walk away with it, the GOP voters spoke up. They’re just not that into Mitt.

But Rick Santorum? Seriously?

Expect to hear the words “non-binding” and “beauty contest” quite a bit the next few days as the Republican establishment tries to stop the hemorrhaging of support for Romney. Counting Iowa, this gives Santorum four wins compared to three for Romney and one for Gingrich.

It won’t be easy to lose to Obama next November, but the Republicans seem determined to try.

---

---

Florida Primary Open Thread

---

The polls will be closing soon. All the experts are predicting a win for Romney. The only question is how big a win it will be.

Next up will be the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, February 4th.

---

It ain’t over ’til it’s over

Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ron

---

InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race ‘Tighter Than Expected’

A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted Sunday night of likely Republican voters in the state of Florida shows a significant surge for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The poll has former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leading with 36 percent of voters, followed by Gingrich at 31 percent.

The Sunday results of 646 likely GOP voters are as follows:

Romney 36 percent
Gingrich 31 percent
Santorum 12 percent
Paul 12 percent
Other/Undecided 9 percent

“The race will be tighter than expected,” Matt Towery, chief pollster of InsiderAdvantage told Newsmax.

Towery noted that his poll showed a surge for Romney on Wednesday, with him leading Gingrich by 8 points. The InsiderAdvantage poll was among the first to show Romney’s resurgence after his dismal showing in the S. Carolina primary.

The InsiderAdvantage poll was also the first to show Gingrich’s rise in S. Carolina and accurately forecast his win there.

“The trend is favoring Gingrich,” Towery said, noting that while Romney’s lead was still outside the margin of error of 3.8 percent, “It’s not by much.”

Towery said Gingrich is doing “substantially better” with men than Romney, 38 to 28, but the former House Speaker still faces a “gender gap,” as women are still favoring Romney.

“Men are moving in droves to Gingrich and away from Romney,” Towery said.

---

If Newt pulls out a win in Florida the fit will hit the Shan.

This is starting to remind me of the movie Jeepers Creepers, where the “good guys” were so stupid I began to root for the monster.

“Hey sis, I think that guy was dumping dead bodies into a pipe. Let’s go back and check.”

---

This doesn’t add up

---

Compare the graph above to the article below:

Consensus of Polls Shows Romney Up in Florida

You can find pretty much every species of poll in Florida right now.

[...]

Though the numbers were here and there, the outcome was the same everywhere.

Unless there is a major glitch, Mitt Romney will beat Newt Gingrich.

---

For the past few days we’ve seen numerous polls stating that Romney is extending his lead over Gingrich in Florida. But at the same time nationwide polls show that Romney’s popularity is going down like the Costa Concordia.

WTF?

---

Cut out the middleman

---

Romney would rank among richest presidents ever

Just how rich is Mitt Romney? Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you’re in Romney territory.

He would be among the richest presidents in American history if elected — probably in the top four.

He couldn’t top George Washington who, with nearly 60,000 acres and more than 300 slaves, is considered the big daddy of presidential wealth. After that, it gets complicated, depending how you rate Thomas Jefferson’s plantation, Herbert Hoover’s millions from mining or John F. Kennedy’s share of the vast family fortune, as well as the finer points of factors like inflation adjustment.

But it’s safe to say the Roosevelts had nothing on Romney, and the Bushes are nowhere close.

The former Massachusetts governor has disclosed only the broad outlines of his wealth, putting it somewhere from $190 million to $250 million. That easily could make him 50 times richer than Obama, who falls in the still-impressive-to-most-of-us range of $2.2 million to $7.5 million.

---

If you worried about electing a Wall Street puppet, vote for Romney and cut out the middleman.

---

Sarah goes rogue again

---

Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

[...]

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

- Sarah Palin

---

One of the things that was so disturbing about 2008 was the lengths the Democratic party leaders were willing to go to to ensure that their pre-chosen candidate “won” the primaries. You would think in this modern era that the role of the party would be to ensure a fair and open process so that the party voters could choose the person they want to be the nominee.

The reality is that neither party’s leadership believes in democracy. They want Soviet-style sham elections.

This is not to say that the leaders of the two parties should have no input or influence. But they should not control the outcome. Right now we are facing the likelihood of a rigged election where both candidates are Wall Street favorites.

I am no fan of Newt Gingrich but I am a fan of principles. The GOP establishment should take their collective thumb off the scale and let the voters decide.

---

Here we go again

---

It’s Newt vs. Mitt, live from Florida!

5 pm Yosemite (8 pm Okefenokee time) on CNN

I’ll be watching reruns of Chappelle’s Show. The Wayne Brady episode is supposed to be on.

This is an open thread.

---

Put up or STFU

---

Pelosi On President Gingrich: “That Will Never Happen! There’s Something I Know.”

---

So what does Nancy know? Not this by Byron York, apparently:

Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years. Unlike many in Congress — and journalists, too — IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole. They then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich’s political network.

In the end, in 1999, the IRS released a densely written, highly detailed 74-page report. The course was, in fact, educational, the IRS said. “The overwhelming number of positions advocated in the course were very broad in nature and often more applicable to individual behavior or behavioral changes in society as a whole than to any ‘political’ action,” investigators wrote. “For example, the lecture on quality was much more directly applicable to individual behavior than political action and would be difficult to attempt to categorize in political terms. Another example is the lecture on personal strength where again the focus was on individual behavior. In fact, this lecture placed some focus on the personal strength of individual Democrats who likely would not agree with Mr. Gingrich on his political views expressed in forums outside his Renewing American Civilization course teaching. Even in the lectures that had a partial focus on broadly defined changes in political activity, such as less government and government regulation, there was also a strong emphasis on changes in personal behavior and non-political changes in society as a whole.”

The IRS also checked out the evaluations written by students who completed the course. The overwhelming majority of students, according to the report, believed that Gingrich knew his material, was an interesting speaker, and was open to alternate points of view. None seemed to perceive a particular political message. “Most students,” the IRS noted, “said that they would apply the course material to improve their own lives in such areas as family, friendships, career, and citizenship.”

The IRS concluded the course simply was not political. “The central problem in arguing that the Progress and Freedom Foundation provided more than incidental private benefit to Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other Republican entities,” the IRS wrote, “was that the content of the ‘Renewing American Civilization’ course was educational…and not biased toward any of those who were supposed to be benefited.”

The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

---

Yeah, it’s a wingnut site. But if you have better facts let’s see ‘em.

---

---

Panic in the Pachyderm Party

Andrea Mitchell: Romney Adviser Said Party Elites Will Find Alternative If Romney Can’t Win Florida

“I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney cannot win in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against,” Andrea Mitchell said on NBC tonight after the debate.

---

Damn voters. What the hell makes them think they have any input in this process?

---

---

UCLA Political Scientist says Newt Gingrich is Biggest Threat to Obama

---

We hear a lot of speculation from journalists who are experts at . . . uh, . . . journalism. But there actually is an academic specialty on the study of politics. It’s called “political science.“

After watching in frustration as the nation’s press corps has written the history of one presidential election after another, UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck finally decided something had to give.

“It takes academics three years to analyze all the data and figure out what really happened in a campaign, and that is almost always in contrast to what has already been written into the record by journalists,” she said. “But by that point, nobody cares anymore.”

So she and research partner John Sides are foregoing the stately pace of scholarly journals — at least during the 2012 election.

“With technology being what it is, academics can survey people much more quickly than has been possible in the past, and we can put our assessments out there at the same time as journalists,” she said.

To that end, Vavreck, an associate professor of political science and communication studies at UCLA, and Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, will be surveying 1,000 people a week beginning Jan. 3 and ending on Election Day in 2012.

They will post findings from DATA POINTS 2012, as they’re calling their in-depth survey, on two blogs: The Monkey Cage and Model Politics.

---

Watch the video of Vavrek up above. It was made back in December. She talks about Gingrich starting at 1:58

---

UPDATE:

I apparently won’t be able to watch the GOP Debate in Florida tonight live and livesteaming is a little too much for my 5 year-old E-Machine (Dell clone) so there won’t be a separate debate thread tonight. Besides, I already drank my weekly ration of beer last night watching football.

I’ll probably follow the Drunk Blog at VodkaPundit and try to watch some of it later. If there is anything noteworthy I may post about it for the morning. I’ll be around for a while though.

Newt Notes

I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!

---

I had a dream last night. There was a primary somewhere and Newt Gingrich was closing in on the magic number of delegates needed to win the GOP nomination when suddenly they raised the number. I don’t know what it means but it may be prophetic.

I think last night was a game-changer. Ever since Newt first surged into the lead back in November he has been the target of a smear campaign coming from the Romney campaign and the GOP establishment. In Newt’s case most of the smears are true, but such an all-out attack on a Republican by other Republicans is unheard of in modern history.

Newt withstood the attacks and came back to win a decisive victory in a state that was not a natural stronghold. Most of the punditocracy is ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room – the GOP voters don’t want Mitt Romney. Just one week ago the experts were speculating that Mitt would run the table and essentially close the race with a win in South Carolina.

Then Newtmentum happened.

There are two main keys to Newtmentum. The first is Not-Romney. Approximately 25% of the GOP (including the establishment) supports Mitt Romney. The other 75% want someone else. Part of it is that “Mormon” thing. I was telling people four years ago (when Mitt was considered by some to be a frontrunner) that there was no way the fundiegelicals were going to vote for a Mormon.

Anti-Mormon bigotry still exists in this country, and not just on the evangelical right – there are lots of lefties that hate ‘em too. I don’t want to discuss the reasons for AMB in this post, but it’s real. Last night’s exit polls showed that the people who said religious beliefs were very important to them voted overwhelmingly for Gingrich.

But that’s not the only reason the right-wing doesn’t want Romney. More than anything the opposition is ideological. They consider Mitt to be a RINO – Republican In Name Only. His record and statements from his days in Massachusetts are anathema to conservatives. And then there’s that Romneycare thing.

Last but not least, Mitt has baggage – money bags. This might seem a little counterintuitive because of the long-standing connection between the Republican party and big business, but the rank and file GOP is almost as leery of the 1%ers as the OWS crowd. That is the reason that the filthy rich who jump into politics have rarely been successful. And don’t forget – it was the House GOP that opposed the TARP bailouts.

Each of Mitt’s strengths is a double-edged sword. He is a successful businessman/he got rich as an investment banker. He has experience as a governor/he was elected in a blue state where he ran and governed as a moderate-to-liberal. He is devoutly religious/he’s a Mormon.

But being Not-Romney is only one of the keys to Newtmentum.

There is a lot of anger out there these days. That’s not surprising considering the economy. Millions of people are hurting. Millions more that aren’t hurting are scared they will be soon. Most of the anger is still unchanneled.

Anger was the key to the early success of OWS, but then they sacrificed their credibility when they took a hard left turn into Smelly Hippieland. Anger is a powerful emotion but it’s hard to successfully channel it into political action. The same anger that fires up the mob scares away the masses.

One of the things that made Ronald Reagan successful was his ability to mix anger and optimism. It might have been all bullshit but it worked. Newt Gingrich is a Reagan acolyte. Like Howard Beale he articulates the popular rage, but then he shifts gears and starts talking about a utopian future.

Watch this clip from the first South Carolina debate earlier this week: