Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

Santorum wins big in 3 states!

Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment have better hold their water ’cause a Mitt presidential nomination is not a done deal.

Last night, true conservative Rick Santorum who actually had won the Iowa caucuses, swept the GOP caucuses and primaries in three states — Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri!

The Minnesota result marked the first time so far in the 2012 Republican race that Romney did not come in first or second. Romney also lost in two states – Colorado and Minnesota – that he had won in his failed 2008 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Steve Holland reports for Reuters, Feb. 8, 2012:

“Former U.S. senator Rick Santorum rejuvenated his presidential hopes on Tuesday with a shocking sweep of the three nominating contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, dealing a blow to wounded front-runner Mitt Romney.

Even though Romney still holds strong advantages in financing and organization, his campaign will now have to refocus to fight back the challenge from the surging conservative Santorum.

Backed by a wealthy “Super PAC” that pays for attack ads against rivals, Romney had excelled in major contests thus far in the race. After big wins in Nevada and Florida in the previous week, he did little campaigning in Minnesota and Missouri and had been expected to win easily in Colorado.

Until Tuesday, Santorum had won only one of the first five Republican contests in the state-by-state battle for the Republican nomination to face President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.”

Here are the results of the GOP contests in the three states:

Colorado Caucuses (36 delegates; with 99% of precincts reporting):

  1. Rick Santorum: 40%
  2. Mitt Romney: 35%
  3. Newt Gingrich: 13%
  4. Ron Paul: 12%

Missouri Primary (52 delegates; with 99% of precincts reporting):

  1. Rick Santorum: 55%
  2. Mitt Romney: 25%
  3. Ron Paul: 12%
  4. Uncommitted: 4%

Minnesota Caucuses (40 delegates; with 95% of precincts reporting):

  1. Rick Santorum: 45%
  2. Ron Paul: 27%
  3. Mitt Romney: 17%
  4. Newt Gingrich: 11%

Santorum is a devout Catholic who had been in a battle with Gingrich to become the conservative alternative to RINO Romney. Santorum’s victories give heart to social conservatives fighting battles of abortion, gay marriage and contraception in recent days.

Tuesday’s strong showing by Santorum came as divisive social issues came to the forefront again in U.S. politics. Earlier in the day, a U.S. appeals court ruled that California’s ban on gay marriage violated the U.S. Constitution in a case expected to lead to a showdown in the Supreme Court.

In addition, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops have slammed the Obama administration for a new regulation that would require health insurance to include birth control. The bishops contend the policy infringes on religious liberty because the church does not condone birth control of any kind.

Santorum took some jabs at Obama, focusing in particular on the new contraception rule. He accused the president of trying to “impose his secular values on the people of this country.”

“I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama,” he added to cheers from the crowd.

The startling results in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri raised fresh doubts about whether Romney, long considered the most likely Republican nominee, can win over the broad swathe of Republican voters, particularly the most conservative ones who are the most unenthusiastic toward him.

But Santorum’s campaign is far behind Romney in fund-raising and in support by the Republican establishment. Santorum is not a wealthy man like Mitt, nor does he have a billionaire SuperPAC donor like Newt. Despite that, Santorum has managed to win 4 of 8 GOP contests to date (Mitt won 3; Newt won 1; and Ron has won none).

So if you want a real conservative to run against Obama this November, donate some dollars to Rick Santorum! Click here.

The next major Republican nominating contests are the Arizona and Michigan primaries on February 28, while Maine wraps up its caucuses this Saturday.


Mitt vs. Newt: Whose Tax Plan is Better?

Why Gingrich’s Tax Plan Beats Romney’s 

Newt’s flat tax would do a lot more to attract capital, spur growth and reduce compliance costs.


Jobs and wealth are created by those who are taxed, not by those who do the taxing. Government, by its very nature, doesn’t create resources but redistributes resources. To minimize the damages taxes cause the economy, the best way for government to raise revenue is a broad-based, low-rate flat tax that provides people and businesses with the fewest incentives to avoid or otherwise not report taxable income, and the least number of places where they can escape taxation. On these counts it doesn’t get any better than Mr. Gingrich’s optional 15% flat tax for individuals and his 12.5% flat tax for business. Each of these taxes has been tried and tested and found to be enormously successful.

Hong Kong, where there has been a 15% flat income tax on individuals since 1947, is truly a shining city on the hill and one of the most prosperous cities in history. Ireland’s 12.5% flat business income tax propelled the Emerald Isle out of two and a half centuries of poverty. Mr. Romney’s tax proposals—including eliminating the death tax, reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%, and extending the current tax rates on personal income, interest, dividends and capital gains—would be an improvement over those of President Obama, but they don’t have the boldness or internal integrity of Mr. Gingrich’s personal and business flat taxes.

Imagine what would happen to international capital flows if the U.S. went from the second highest business tax country in the world to one of the lowest. Low taxes along with all of America’s other great attributes would precipitate a flood of new investment in this country as well as a quick repatriation of American funds held abroad. We would create more jobs than you could shake a stick at. And those jobs would be productive jobs, not make-work jobs like so many of Mr. Obama’s stimulus jobs.

Tax codes, in order to work well, require widespread voluntary compliance from taxpayers. And for taxpayers to voluntarily comply with a tax code they have to believe that it is both fair and efficient.

Fairness in taxation means that people and businesses in like circumstances have similar tax burdens. A flat tax, whether on business or individuals, achieves fairness in spades. A person who makes 10 times as much as another person should pay 10 times more in taxes. It is also patently obvious that it is unfair to tax some people’s income twice, three times or more after it has been earned, as is the case with the death tax.

The current administration’s notion of fairness—taxing high-income earners at high rates and not taxing other income earners at all—is totally unfair. It is also anathema to prosperity and ultimately leads to the situation we have in our nation today.

You will find the rest of the article here.

At least Newt is on the right track, as his plan is far superior to Romney’s as well as the idiotic one we have in place now, which is broken beyond all hope of repair.

The problem I have with a flat tax (aside from my derision at federal income taxes of any kind) is that congress will probably start screwing with it right out of the box, just like they did back in the mid 1980s, and before you know it we will be right back in the same boat a few years down the road.

A flat tax also leaves the hideous IRS intact, and as I see it, the goal of all freedom-loving true conservatives should be the total elimination of that most tyrannical of government agencies.

But there is a plan out there that is far and away better than either Romney’s or Newt’s.

It is called the Fair Tax, which not only does away with federal income taxes entirely, but will ultimately rid us of the IRS.

Now if we could just get Newt on board.


(h/t: boortz.com)

Newt Gingrich’s women problem

…or rather women have a problem with Newt Gingrich, and I don’t mean his two ex-wives, Jackie and Marianne.

Newt and Wife #2, Marianne, in happier times

Newt enjoyed a surge of popularity immediately after he chastised the newsman at a GOP debate for asking him about Wife No. 2 Marianne’s claim that Newt had wanted an open marriage so that he could continue his 6-year adulterous affair with self-professed lifelong Catholic, Callista Bisek (who later became Wife No. 3).

But that surge was short lived. Either that, or the surge of popularity is confined only to men.

The AP reports, Jan. 30, 2012, that although there was relatively little gender difference in Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, exit polling data of yesterday’s GOP primary election in Florida show that women — Republican, not Democratic, women — abandoned Gingrich in droves, which helped fuel Mitt Romney’s win.

While Florida men narrowly preferred Romney, the message from women is striking:

Women voted for Romney (over Gingrich) 52% to 28% — and this held true across every category of education and income.

The exit poll data suggest that many women’s votes were influenced more by a personal distaste for Gingrich than by liking Romney. Asked their views of Gingrich as a person, men said they generally viewed him favorably by 62% to 34%, but women were about evenly divided. Among all voters on Tuesday, 55% expressed favorable views of Newt personally, compared to 77% who said the same about Mitt.

Don’t say I hadn’t warned you about Newt’s high unfavorability ratings! See my post, “Newt wins South Carolina but is widely disliked.”

Newt with Wife #1, Jackie, his former hi-school math teacher whom he later dumped for Marianne

Exit polls also found that:

  • Hispanics, who comprised about 1 in 7 GOP primary voters yesterday, preferred Mitt, 54% to 29%.
  • Older voters (65 or older) preferred Mitt, 51% to 34%.
  • Those most worried about the economy, around 6 in 10 Florida GOP voters, preferred Mitt 52% to 30%.
  • Those concerned about electability — the nearly half of Florida voters yesterday who said they most wanted a candidate who can beat Obama this November — preferred Mitt 58% to 33%.
  • Mitt enjoyed a slight advantage among higher-income voters, although he won among every income category overall.
  • Newt had a small 4-3 margin over Mitt only among voters who identify themselves as very conservative and strong supporters of the Tea Party.  Mitt had a decisive edge among everyone else.


Mitt wins Florida

Mitt Romney is the winner in Florida’s GOP primary today, the biggest GOP contest to date, and is projected to  get all 50 of the state’s convention delegates.

With 95% of precincts reporting, Romney led with 46%. Gingrich had 32%, followed by Rick Santorum with 13% and Ron Paul with 7%.

Yesterday, Jan. 30, Newt Gingrich visited Pensacola to drum up support for his candidacy. CBS affiliate WKRG, Channel 5 news, has a video of Newt and his supporters.

A loyal member and regular commenter of FOTM speaks his mind at the 0:38 mark. (Go here for the video)

You have three guesses as to who this highly intelligent and good looking dude is:  ;)

  1. Terry
  2. Terry
  3. Terry

~Eowyn & Steve

GOP candidates’ real positions on family and morality

SaveAmerica.com and SaveCalifornia.com teamed together to compile a report card on how the four remaining GOP presidential candidates (Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum) stand on 10 family and moral issues.

To see the report card in PDF, go here.

Here’s the report card:

YES = Position in support
YES? = Position in likely support
? = Unknown, unclear, or inconsistent position
NO? = Position in likely opposition
NO = Position in opposition

1. Support protecting marriage licenses and marriage rights for only one man and one woman:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

2. Oppose marriage substitutes, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

3. Oppose homosexual couples adopting children:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

4. Support repealing open homosexuality in military:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

5. Oppose forcing private business owners to support homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality:

  • Gingrich: Yes?
  • Paul: Yes?
  • Romney: No?
  • Santorum: Yes

6. Oppose establishing or expanding pro-“LGBT” “hate crime” laws:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes
  • Romney: ?
  • Santorum: Yes

7. Oppose supporting or commemorating “Gay Pride” or “LGBT Pride” events:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

8. Will enforce federal laws against obscenity:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No
  • Romney: Yes?
  • Santorum: Yes

9. Support the Boy Scouts’ right to prohibit homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

10. Oppose teaching schoolchildren to support homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality:

  • Gingrich: Yes?
  • Paul: Yes
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

As you can see, Rick Santorum is the most culturally conservative, with a perfect score: “Yes” on all 10 issues.

Next is Newt Gingrich, with 8 “Yes” and 2 “Yes?”

Next is Ron Paul, with 3 “Yes”, 3 “Yes?”, 2 “No?”, and 2 “No”.

Last is Mitt Romney, with only 1 “Yes?”, 1 “?”, 1 “No?”, and 7 “No”.

H/t our beloved Tina.


Military Supports Ron Paul

Many conservatives do not support GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul because of his pacifist and isolationist foreign policy. Paul has said the following:

“Far from defeating the enemy, our current polices provide incentive for more people to take up arms against us.”

“We have an empire. We can’t afford it.”

“Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

So the news that Paul has considerable support among members of America’s active-duty military is something of a cognitive dissonance.

Reservist Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, 28, is now in trouble with the U.S. Army for speaking at a Paul rally in Iowa, Jan. 3, 2012

Timothy Egan writes in the New York Times, Dec. 22, 2011:

Many of the service members returning from Iraq — where nearly 4,500 American lives were lost, 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed and about 600,000 Christians were forced to flee the country with other refugees — are paying close attention to the campaign to decide who will be commander in chief. […]

The men and women in uniform probably wouldn’t support [Ron Paul] this proponent of limited engagement. So goes the conventional wisdom, which holds that those in the military support a leader itching for a fight.

But in fact, Representative Ron Paul, the congressman who favors the most minimalist American combat role of any major presidential candidate and who said all of the above quotes, has more financial support from active duty members of the service than any other politician.

As of the last reporting date, at the end of September, Paul leads all candidates by far in donations from service members. This trend has been in place since 2008, when Paul ran for president with a similar stance: calling nonsense at hawk squawk from both parties.

This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations — totaling $113,739 — from the military as does Mitt Romney. And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation.

What seems, at first blush, counterintuitive makes more sense upon further review. There’s a long tradition of military people being attracted to politicians with Paul’s strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Not even a full 1 percent of Americans are active-duty military. The troops have become props for politicians who shower them with fulsome praise, while dreaming up schemes to send them into harm’s way.

Yet, these soldiers, sailors, air men and women, and assorted boots on the ground know the cost — in trauma, in lives ruined, in friends lost, in good intentions gone bad — of going to war far more than the 99 percent not currently serving. Where they put their money in a campaign, paltry though it may be in comparison to the corporate lords who control a majority of our politicians, says a great deal.

And if the overwhelming service support for Ron Paul is any indication, the grunts of American foreign policy are gun-shy about further engagement in “useless wars,” to use Dr. Paul’s term.

“It’s not a good sign when the people doing the fighting are saying, ‘Why are we here?’” said Glen Massie, a Marine Corps veteran who lives in Des Moines, Iowa, and is supporting Paul for president. “They realize they’re being utilized for other purposes — nation building and being world’s policeman — and it’s not what they signed up for.”

Now that Obama has begun yet another war — this time against Iran — stretching our already over-stretched military even thinner, it is no wonder that our active-duty servicemen and women support Ron Paul.

Conservatives say we love and respect our soldiers. Maybe we should then listen to them and take another look at Ron Paul’s candidacy.


Newt wins So. Carolina but is widely disliked

Based on exit poll data, ABC News is projecting Newt Gingrich the winner in today’s South Carolina primary. Mitt Romney is a distant second, Rick Santorum will place third, and Ron Paul fourth.

Gingrich’s win is all the more impressive because he had trailed Romney by double digits just days ago. But that changed quickly after Gingrich’s fiery performance in Thursday’s night debate.

But Gingrich and his supporters should be mindful that what he won is a GOP state primary. There are sobering polling data that point to Newt being widely disliked by the larger American populace.

In an article for the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential, Jan. 20, 2012, titled “America hates Newt Gingrich,” Conn Carroll writes:

“Unlike Mitt Romney, who occasionally beats President Obama in general election poll match ups, Newt Gingrich trails far behind President Obama in every survey. But just how bad are Gingrich’s unfavorable among the general public compared to Obama and Romney?

Not every poll releases their full results, so here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt.”

Political pollsters and analysts have long observed that an important factor on which U.S. presidential elections hinge is the likeability factor: Americans have to like a presidential candidate to vote for him or her.

As Lowman Henry put it, writing in March 2007:

“We like to think Presidential campaigns are fought over issues, but in the final analysis the deciding factor is often the personality of the candidate. Voters have a basic need to feel comfortable with their President therefore the likeability factor of the candidates often trumps other considerations.

Ronald Reagan had the highest likeability factor of any recent President, and in some quarters the same can be said for Bill Clinton. Both attracted votes from people who disagreed with their policies — sometimes strongly — but who simply felt more at ease with them personally.”

Given that, I am curious what’s the main reason why some FOTM readers support Newt Gingrich. Is it his debating skills? His intellect? His repentance and conversion to Catholicism? His personality?