First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about.

Rick Santorum replied Friday that Mitt Romney’s health care record is “a big, big liability” and “something to get mad about.”

“Yeah, Gov. Romney, there is something to get mad about,” Santorum said on Fox News, referring to Romney’s statement at Thursday night’s debate in Jacksonville that his health care record was nothing to get “angry about.” “People — you and Barack Obama and others and Newt Gingrich want to tell Americans that as a condition of breathing in America, you have to go out and buy private sector insurance so the government will fine you, is something that people get angry about.”

Santorum noted Friday that he had addressed the issue not with anger but with passion, and repeated that the eventual GOP nominee must be able to draw a stark contrast to Obamacare.

“And what Gov. Romney did last night was stand up and forcefully defend government controlling the health care system at the state level,” Santorum said. “The bottom line is, he’s for government control of health care, which is not a conservative principle, which does not differentiate himself between President Obama, and that is a big, big liability for us going into this general election.”

I did a little research (as I am wont to do), and found out that Romneycare is indeed “something to be angry about”:

On June 22, 2010, Michael F. Cannon wrote the following article, Study  Romneycare Increased Health Premiums By 6 Percent, found at cato-at-liberty.org:

One of the main arguments for both RomneyCare (the health care law Massachusetts enacted in 2006) and ObamaCare (the federal law enacted in March of this year) is that once the government mandates that everyone purchase health insurance, premiums will fall due to broader pooling. A new study published by the Forum for Health Economics & Policy suggests the opposite.

Supporters of those laws, like MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber, point to data showing that premiums for individually purchased health insurance policies in Massachusetts fell after 2006. Yet that was expected, and is not evidence that RomneyCare reduced health insurance costs. RomneyCare merged Massachusetts’ “individual” health insurance market with the market for small employers. The individual market accounts for just 4 percent of the private market, and premiums in that market were higher than for employment-based coverage. When the two markets merged, the price controls that Massachusetts imposes on health insurance led to an averaging of premiums: premiums for individual purchasers fell, and premiums for small-business employees increased to pick up the slack. That is, RomneyCare shifted costs from people who purchase their own coverage to workers who obtain coverage on the job.

Economists John Cogan, Glenn Hubbard, and Daniel Kessler compared premiums for job-based coverage in Massachusetts, before and after RomneyCare, to job-based premiums nationwide. They found evidence that RomneyCare increased employer-sponsored insurance premiums, particularly at small firms:

We find that health reform in Massachusetts increased single-coverage employer-sponsored insurance premiums by about 6 percent in aggregate, and by about 7 percent for firms with fewer than 50 employees. The effect of reform on family premiums is less uniform. If Massachusetts is compared to the nation as a whole, reform had a modest 1.5 percent effect on family premiums. However, in the Boston MSA, and among employees of small firms, the effect of reform on family premiums was much greater. Family premiums grew by about 8 percent more in Boston than in the 19 largest other MSAs from 2006-08, as compared to 2004-06. For small employers, the differential Massachusetts/US growth in small-group premiums from 2006-08, over and above the growth from 2004-06, was 14.4 percent.

Their study is subject to important limitations. But it is getting harder and harder to claim that RomneyCare — and ObamaCare, which is just RomneyCare 2.0 — are going to reduce costs.

And then, I found this little tidbit at National Review Online, published on September 15, 2011, which is a summary of information culled from the Boston Herald:

The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:

•    cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;

•    drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;

•    slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and

•    reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.

The method used:

The institute analyzed trends in health-care costs before and after the state law was passed. Researchers compared the Bay State’s numbers to national health-care cost trends. They found that instead of reducing health-care expenses as advocates had promised, Romneycare actually increased costs by $4.3 billion. Using computer modeling to determine the effect of those increased costs on businesses and Bay State residents, the institute concluded that the law has cost Massachusetts an average of 18,313 jobs.

If I was one of those that lost their jobs, I would be pretty angry, Governor.

As they always say on the late-night Ronco Info-mercials,

But wait!  There’s more!

“Let me tell you, there’s a big difference between what we did and what President Obama is doing,” Romney said in a Mar. 7, 2010 Fox News Sunday interview.

“What we did, I think, is the ultimate conservative plan. We said people have to take responsibility for getting insurance, if they can afford it, or paying their own way. No more free- riders. And we solved this at the state level – not a federal plan, but a state plan.”

Romney went on to describe the mandate as the “biggest pro” of his health care plan.

“It’s a plan that has pros and cons,” he said. “The biggest pro, in my view, is that we don’t have free riders now expecting other people to pay for their health care costs. And we’re also able to have individuals, who otherwise would not have the kind of specialty care they need, receiving treatment.”

Two weeks later Romney said during an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live, “right now in this country, people that don’t have health insurance go to the hospital if they get a serious illness, and they get treated for free by government. My plan says no, they can’t do that. No more free riders. People have to take personal responsibility. I consider it a conservative plan.”

Governor Romney, I do not think that you know what that word means.

Those who favor Mitt as the greatest thing since sliced bread, are saying he won, hands down.   And, those who like Newt, give him kudos for last night.

Supporters of Dr. Paul were too busy adjusting their tin foil hats to comment.

However, it does appear that Rick Santorum, winner of the Hawkeye Cauci, made up a lot of ground last night.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparred Thursday with Mitt Romney over immigration policies race as tempers flared in the opening minutes of the CNN/Republican Party of Florida debate in Jacksonville.

Gingrich charged Romney’s immigration policy would result in the deportation of grandmothers who are in the country illegally. Romney has advocated for “self-deportation,” a policy that involves making economic conditions so difficult for undocumented workers that they choose to leave the country to find better opportunities.

The former House speaker said Romney was the most anti-immigrant candidate on the debate stage, which prompted outrage from Romney.

“I’m not going to go find grandmothers and take them out of them homes and deport them,” Romney said, accusing Gingrich of using “highly-charged epithets” irresponsibly. “Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers.”

Ron Paul ready to be oldest president Gingrich questions Romney’s investments Romney defends his extreme wealth Gingrich: This is a nonsense question

However, Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum did agree with Romney that at least some illegal immigrants would be likely to “self-deport” if the government were to crack down on employers who hired illegal immigrants. All three men advocated a system of identification for immigrants that would help employers verify an employee’s legal status.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul said some of the measures proposed by his opponents were difficult to implement, and called for American dollars to be used on the United States-Mexico border instead of in the Middle East.

The debate audience roared back to life on Thursday after a Monday matchup in which attendees were asked to hold their applause. Romney drew frequent applause early in the debate when he took on attacks by Gingrich over immigration.

…For his turn, Santorum launched into a screed against the personal turn the campaign has taken of late, asking that the debate shift back to the issues facing the country rather than the financial dealings of two candidates.

“The bigger issue here is, these two gentlemen, who are out distracting from the most important issues — we have been playing petty personal politics, can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills that he developed as a member of Congress to go out and advise companies — and that’s not the worst thing in the world — and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because worked hard and he’s going out and working hard? And you guys should leave that alone and focus on the issues.”

The Florida Republican Primary is still anybody’s to win.

According to a CNN/Time/ORC International survey released Wednesday, 36% of people likely to vote in Tuesday’s Republican primary in Florida say they are backing Romney as the party’s nominee, with 34% supporting Gingrich. Romney’s 2-point margin over Gingrich is well within the survey’s sampling error.

All day Thursday, the Republican Establishment and its minions tried their darnedest to eliminate Newt Gingrich from the race.  From Matt Drudge to Bob Dole, negative naysayers against Newt’s nomination (trying saying that real fast) turned up the heat, weaving a fascinating falsification (that’s two) of Newt’s relationship with President Ronald Reagan, that moved his sane son Michael to issue this statement:

I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue, when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.

Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.

Mike Reagan concluded: I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.

In a 1995 speech at a dinner honoring Ronald Reagan, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan said:

The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.

I predict that the interminable bashing of Newt Gingrich, by Republicans and Democrats alike, will continue until the citizens of Florida step into the voting booths on Tuesday, January 31, 2012.

It’s all about maintaining control.

Who is this “insider”?  I’m glad you asked. 

Elliot Abrams was born on January 24, 1948. In 1973 he earned a master’s in international relations from the London School of Economics and received his J.D. from Harvard Law School. At Harvard, Abrams considered himself a socialist and was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League.  He practiced in New York and Washington, D.C., and spent four years in the 1970s working for the U.S. Senate as special counsel and then as chief of staff to Senator Daniel Moynihan.

In 1980, Abrams first came to national prominence when he served as Ronald Reagan’s assistant secretary of state for human rights in the early 1980s and later as assistant secretary for inter-American affairs.

So, KJ, what did he say?  A lot.  Read this:

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

…Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”

…There are two things to be said about these remarks. The first is that as a visionary, Gingrich does not have a very impressive record. The Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, just as Reagan had believed it must. The expansion of its empire had been thwarted. The policies Gingrich thought so weak and indeed “pathetic” worked, and Ronald Reagan turned out to be a far better student of history and politics than Gingrich.

The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration.

It is very interesting how, now that Newt Gingrich is running neck and neck with the GOP Elite’s favorite, Mitt “the Legacy” Romney, an article is published concerning how shabbily (supposedly) he treated the greatest Republican President in our lifetime.  Where was Abram when Mitt was the “inevitable victor” in the Republican Primary race?

As I highlighted earlier, Abram worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democratic Senator representing New York, who served from 1977-2001, and, before that, held cabinet or sub-cabinet positions under Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford from 1961-1976.

Reaching across the aisle, indeed.

So, what is Abram’s purpose in writing this article so many years after the incidents took place?

And, if Newt had so much contempt for President Reagan and treated him so badly, why would his sane son, Conservative Radio Talk Show Host and Author, Michael Reagan, release this statement 6 days ago?

“I am endorsing Newt Gingrich for President and here’s why:

Newt understands that we must reject and fundamentally change the course that Barack Obama has set for America.

Newt is our only chance in 2012 to contrast a Reagan conservative with Obama’s European’ styled socialism.

Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed.

Strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government.

In the 90’s Newt’s leadership brought us the Contract with America which changed Washington.

I’m confident Newt can do it again.

We cannot afford a candidate backed by the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.

It’s time to choose.

Do we go forward with bold ideas or continue with failed policies?

So I ask my fellow Republicans and conservatives to join me in supporting Newt Gingrich for president.”

Those same Washington Insiders who tried so desperately to block The Reagan Revolution are now trying to sabotage America’s current “vox populi”, Newt Gingrich.

Now, I have no illusions.  Newt’s not a perfect candidate, nor is he  Conservative on every single issue.  

However, right now, he’s speaking what average Americans are thinking.  And, at least he has a spine.

Coming off like the campaign speech it was, the president sang the same ol’ song, trying desperately to convince Americans that his failed policies are actually what’s best for the greatest country on God’s green Earth.

Here are some excerpts, straight from whitehouse.gov:

Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

By increasing the tax rate on those Americans who have succeeded?  Gimme a Break, Scooter.  Schools operating within your idea of a Socialist Utopia would brainwash, not educate, our children and your dream of “sharing the wealth” would take away any incentive to work hard and succeed.  

And, how can we be “in control of our own energy”, when you won’t let us drill for oil where we need to?  All your Green Energy Initiative has done is line the pockets of Jeffery Immelt, Terry McAuliffe, and a bunch of other “close advisers” of yours.  As far as the average American is concerned, Green Energy hasn’t done anything except give us something to laugh at:  The Chevy Volt.

….The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. - Karl Marx

As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

In 2011, Obama issued 34 Executive Orders and made 32 Recess Appointments.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

Look for the Union Label.

Here’s a few facts about the wonders of Obamanomics:

So far, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 83 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

During the same period, the price of ground beef has gone up 24 percent and price of bacon has gone up 22 percent.

When Obama entered the White House in January 2009, the city average price for one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.79, according to the BLS. (The figures are in nominal dollars: not adjusted for inflation.) Five months later in June, unleaded gasoline was $2.26 per gallon, an increase of 26 percent. By December 2011, the price of regular unleaded gas per gallon was $3.28, an 83 percent increase from January 2009.

The price of unleaded gasoline never reached the 10-year high of $4.09 back in July 2008 under George W. Bush’s administration, but it did get close.

By May 2011, gas prices hit a high under the Obama administration at $3.93, about four percentage points away from the July 2008 high.

Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

To quote Rep. Joe Wilson, 

You lie!

Under President Obama more people are on Medicaid, another welfare program, than under any other president. And an estimated 16 million more will be added beginning in 2014—and Democrats boast about that.

The food stamp program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has grown from 26.3 million people in 2007 to 44.7 million last year, an increase of nearly 70 percent.

On January 11, 1989, President Ronald Wilson Reagan spoke the following words at the conclusion of his Farewell Address to the American people.  His words still ring true today.  It’s a vision, not of a Marxist Utopia, but of a nation where every man and woman have the opportunity to work hard and, through the sweat of their brow, achieve the American Dream:

The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the shining “city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important, because he was an early Pilgrim – an early “Freedom Man.” He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat, and, like the other pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind swept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace – a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

That’s how I saw it, and see it still. How Stands the City?

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm.

And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the Pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

Now, it’s up to us, Americans.  Do we want to live in a Socialist Utopia?  Or, do we want to continue to live in the greatest country on God’s green Earth, the “shining city  upon a hill?

I know what my choice is…and it involves a moving van pulling up to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington , D.C. on January 21, 2013.

Newt Gingrich’s consulting firm tonight [last night] released a copy of its 2006 contract with Freddie Mac (FMCC), which covers just one year of his multiple years of service and documents only $300,000 of the $1.6 million he received from the mortgage company.

The Republican hopeful’s first contract, spanning 1999 to 2002 and worth between $1 million and $1.2 million, according to two people familiar with the agreement, wasn’t released because officials at the Center for Health Transformation can’t find it, said Susan Meyers, a center spokeswoman who also works for the Gingrich campaign. The 2006 contract also applied to 2007, she said, which means the total value of that contract was $600,000.

“We’re not even sure we signed anything for 2007,” said Meyers.

Gingrich and his allies have come under increasing pressure from chief rival Mitt Romney to release the records, and his association with Freddie Mac is emerging as major theme in the race. Many Republicans have criticized Freddie Mac because the company invested in risky mortgages and then required billions of dollars in taxpayer money for a bailout after the housing market meltdown. Since September 2008, Freddie Mac and sister company Fannie Mae, both now operating under U.S. conservatorship, have cost a total $153 billion in taxpayer aid.

“Why isn’t Speaker Gingrich disclosing the full extent of his relationship with Freddie Mac?” said Brian Jones, a Romney spokesman for the campaign. “Ultimately this disclosure raises more questions than it actually does answer.”

Romney may also be vulnerable on the issue. His most recent financial-disclosure report, which he filed in August 2011, shows he had a financial interest in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. (FNMA)

The disclosure said he held assets in both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae valued at between $100,000 to $250,000. He received between $5,001 and $15,000 in interest income from his Freddie Mac assets and another $5,001 to $15,000 in interest income from his Fannie Mae assets.

That’s not all.  Andrew Kacynski of buzzfeed.com reports that

A Mitt Romney campaign fundraiser has previously served as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae records show. Drew Maloney, who fundraised for Romney during both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns lobbied for Fannie Mae from 2004-2008.

According to a 2011 article by Roll Call, Maloney also coordinated early efforts by the Romney campaign to round up endorsements from Members of Congress in early 2011.

A June 29th Romney for President fundraiser, hosted at the DLA Piper in Washington DC, features Maloney as a member of the host committee. Tickets for that events sold for as much as as $25,000.

In 2008, Maloney was one of the Romney campaign’s official co-chairs of Young Professionals for Mitt. In a press release from the Romney campaign in 2008, Maloney said “We are looking forward to helping Governor Romney raise the resources he needs to continue building his strong national organization.”

Romney has gone on the attack in Florida, pressing Gingrich to release records from his time at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. FEC records show that Maloney is not currently on the Romney campaign payroll.

Financial-disclosure reports allow candidates to report assets in broad ranges.

Jones said Romney’s assets are in a blind trust, and the trustee makes all the decisions about how they are invested. Romney “has no input or oversight” over the investments, he said.

Today’s the day that Romney is supposed to publish his Tax Returns, after being forced to, by the public’ reaction to his mystifying reticence to do so.

The former Massachusetts governor has revealed in financial disclosure forms in the past that he is worth as much as $250 million, but he has never released tax returns that reveal how much money he makes each year – or how much he pays in taxes.

He agreed to make public his 2010 federal tax returns, and his estimates for 2011, after opponents on both the left and right charged that he was hiding his income and assets. The issue has dogged his campaign in recent weeks and contributed to his loss to Newt Gingrich in Saturday’s South Carolina primary.

“Tomorrow you will learn that Governor Romney pays millions in taxes each year, that he gives millions in charitable contributions and that his investments are reported and taxed in full compliance with U.S. tax law,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “Governor Romney has paid 100% of what he has owed.”

The longtime private-equity chieftain has already said he pays an effective tax rate of about 15% — substantially lower than the top 35% marginal tax rate on wages and salaries. Experts say he benefits from a tax code that allows investors to keep more of their income than wage earners, particularly investors in the rarefied world of private equity.

The intense focus on Romney’s tax returns underscores how the very core of his candidacy – his experience leading a private equity firm – is also proving to be a liability in a political climate in which class issues have taken center stage.

Why class issues have taken center stage is the subject of a whole ‘nother blog.

So, what can we expect next?  I think Donald Trump answered that question yesterday, when he said:

Nobody knows when it comes to this race. This race is beyond what anyone has ever seen or witnessed before.

No kiddin’.  Pass the popcorn.

None more so than Conservative Authoress and Cable News Pundit Ann Coulter.  She has an explanation as to why Romney lost though, as Jeff Poor of  The Daily Caller reports:

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” Coulter, the author of “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” said. “We saw it in the debates when Gingrich would say things that didn’t really make sense. That is what you usually associate with Democrats, which I described in my last book, ‘Demonic,’ how mobs behave.”

“Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense. It is just like what you get from liberals most of the time and the cheers and yahoos, and that is what we kept getting from this audience.”

Coulter, who has been a Romney supporter since New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he would not be seeking the Republican nomination, was asked if Romney should change his strategy now that he suffered a defeat in South Carolina, and perhaps go on the offensive with “fire in the belly.”

“No, he’s doing fine,” Coulter said. “This is not going be the electorate in the fall. I am pretty sure we’ll get everyone who voted for McCain — since no one voted for McCain because we liked McCain — it was to stop Obama. We have those voters. Now you have to get people who voted for Obama and having a candidate who goes out and calls Obama a ‘Kenyan colonialist,’ that is not what you need. And at the same time, with Newt Gingrich you get the name calling for the president — very popular with the tea party crowd in South Carolina, not so popular with independents. He won’t put a fence on the border and wants amnesty for illegals. He took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac. But you know, he attacked Paul Ryan’s plan on Social Security. So with Newt Gingrich, you throw out the baby and keep the bath water.”

Coulter suggested that South Carolina voters ignoring Gingrich’s marriage baggage was the product of the state perhaps “going back to its Democratic roots.”

“I think South Carolina is going back to its Democratic roots,” she said. “I mean, to not care about that, that’s the position of the Democratic Party. The arguments I hear on behalf of Gingrich on this is we heard for two solid years about Bill Clinton. I never thought I would hear conservative make those arguments. I promise you, if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum have cheated on two wives — that we know, the open marriage thing is the only thing he contests, we know he cheated on two wives — I wouldn’t supporting Mitt Romney. I wouldn’t support Rick Santorum.”

Not to be presumptive, because I know, as an ig’nant Southerner, living in a NW Mississippi suburb of Memphis, TN, I’m not even near intelligent enough to be analyzing the brilliant words of a Beltway Darling like Ms. Coulter.

But I’ll give it a shot, anyway:

How dare you bunch of inbred hicks not vote for The Legacy.  Don’t you cousin-marrying imbeciles know that it’s his turn?  Sure, Newt actually stands up and speaks his mind, but Thurston B. Howell, err, I mean, Willard Mitt Romney, has bearing and eloquence.  Something you relatives of Larry the Cable Guy will never have.

And the Tea Party is a bunch of hicks, also.  Sure, the Republican Party owes its overwhelming victory in the Mid-terms to you, but we Elites up here in the Northeast Corridor will never acknowledge it.  And, by the way, keep your mouths shut concerning the president.  

How dare Newt speak what everybody else in the country is thinking!

You idiots are acting like a bunch of Democrats.  That’s what the GOP Establishment does!  

Err…I mean…how can you Christians possibly vote for somebody who has been divorced twice?  It’s like Christ preached forgiveness, or something.

Why can’t you be smart, like we are, in the Beltway?  Don’t you know that Reagan Conservatism is passe?  We need to pick a candidate for president who can reach across the aisle, a Moderate, err, I mean a “real” Republican who knows his place.  Umm, I mean, one who will sit in the Oval Office with grace and dignity.

Now, shuddup you stupid rednecks and let us geniuses up here in the Beltway tell you who to vote for.

Unfortunately, Miz Ann, it doesn’t work that way.  

You see, we average  Americans, here in Dixie, and folks in the rest of the Heartland, are fed up with you Vichy Republicans treating us like the hired help.  We stood by and watched you nominate the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, the squishiest of squishes, then held our noses and dutifully voted for them.

Then, we watched you and your buddies, the Democrats, and their lackeys, the Main Stream Media, trash a good Christian American like Sarah Palin, to the point where she and her family said, “Enough of this mess”, which led to her dropping out of the Primary race.

Miz Ann, you need to go on Wheel of Fortune, buy a vowel and get a clue.  The South and rest of the Heartland will vote for whomever we want to, so go get your skinny self a sammich and stuff it.

Besides, why should we trust the judgment of someone who used to date Bill Maher, anyway?

Well, that’s just too bad.

The Washington Post covered the story:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich has surged to a stunning win over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in South Carolina’s first-in-the-South presidential primary, a come-from-behind victory that signals the GOP White House race – which as recently as a week ago seemed to be Romney’s to lose — is now far from over.

Gingrich’s strong showing is a major upset over Romney, the GOP frontrunner who had been looking to a solid win in South Carolina as a key step toward sealing the nomination. It’s a win that appears to be fueled in large part by what voters perceived as the former speaker’s strong performance in recent debates, according to Saturday’s exit polls – even as Gingrich faced a tumultuous recent few days in the race.

Since 1980, the winner of the South Carolina primary has gone on to win the GOP presidential nomination. That means Gingrich’s primary win is a significant one — and the conventional wisdom that Romney is his party’s inevitable nominee could well be shattered.

The final tally was :

Newt Gingrich    41%    229,639    17 Delegates

Mitt Romney      27%    152,777

Rick Santorum   17%      97,282

Ron Paul               13%      75,274

Rick Perry              1%         2,336

“It’s not that I am a good debater,” Newt Gingrich said, speaking in South Carolina. “It’s that I articulate the deepest felt values of the American people.”“You know, Rick Santorum showed enormous courage in Iowa, when he had no money, nobody covered him, and he just kept campaigning,” said Gingrich — which led to the audience chanting “V.P.!” He continued: “I rest my case — I mean, he has made an impact, right. I mean, here’s a guy who articulates the values of social conservatism, who articulates the importance of manufacturing, and who may have been as right about the dangers of iran as anybody in this country in the last ten years.

“And then as a further example of how wide open our system is, you have Dr. Ron Paul — who on the issue of money and the Federal Reserve has been right for 25 years. And while I disagree with him on many other things, there’s no doubt that a lot of his critique of fiat money, and of the Federal Reserve, is in fact absolutely the right direction and something I can support strongly.

“And finally, Governor Romney, with whom I disagree on many issues, is nonetheless a good example of America. He is hard working, he has been very successful, he has organized large systems, he did a terrific job at the Winter Olympics.”

“And the fact is, if you look at the four of us, we are proof that you can come from a wide range of backgrounds, and in America you have a chance to try to make your case — no matter what the elites think in New York and Washington.”

Newt continued his campaign theme of paychecks versus food stamps, saying “Obama has been the most effective food stamp president in American history.”  He then said that he wants to be the most effective pay check president.

Newt also stated that America needs an “American energy project” so effective “that no President ever has to bow a Saudi king ever again.”

He also added this gem:

Barack Obama is so weak, he makes Jimmy Carter look strong.

The fallout from Newt’s victory has been very interesting.  Romney supporters were all over the internet last night, berating Conservative Christians for being hypocrites in voting for a serial adulterer.  An anonymous poster quipped that

Yankee RINOs have been all over Southerners for allowing Social Issues to influence our votes.  We didn’t this time and now they’re mad.

Actually, Conservative Christians who voted for Newt did so because he’s

1.  Not Romney

2.  The most Conservative candidate left who has a chance of beating Obama.

3.  Not Romney

Why is Romney’s campaign in freefall?

One reason is his performance in the second SC debate where he seemed to have a real issue with releasing his income tax returns, to the point of causing Conservative Talk Show host Michael Reagan to nickname him “Muttering Mitt”.

However, I believe that the main reason that he was defeated last night is something Rush Limbaugh said on 10/12/11:

Romney is not a conservative. He’s not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn’t. What he has going for him is that he’s not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he’s done it a long time. He’s very seasoned. He never makes a mistake, and he’s going to keep winning these things if he never makes a mistake. It’s that simple. But I’m not personally ready to settle on anybody yet — and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we’ve even had a single primary! All we’ve had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment’s trying to nail this down and end it. You know that that’s happening, and I know that you don’t want that to happen, and neither do I.

Now, as for Romney — and you should know, by the way, that I’ve met Romney. I’ve not played golf with him but I’ve met him, and I like all of these people. This isn’t personal, not with what country faces and so forth. I like him very much. I’ve spent some social time with him. He’s a fine guy. He’s very nice gentleman. He is a gentleman. But he’s not a conservative.

South Carolina Conservatives stood up en masse yesterday and said with their votes

No way,  GOP Elite.  Not again.

Now, the only question is how many of the other Republican Primary States will join them?

Ingraham pointed out that the President and Treasury Secretary have said the economy is getting better, with more job being created on a monthly basis. Romney himself, she added, has said there are signs improvement on the horizon. So, “how do you answer the President’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying that it’s getting better?”

“Well, of course it’s getting better,” said Romney. “The economy always gets better after a recession.” The question, he continued, is whether it’s getting better because of something the President has done, or whether he’s delaying that inevitable recovery. You can guess which side of the fence Romney falls on.

“Isn’t that a hard argument to make?” asked Ingraham.

Romney didn’t flinch: “Do you have a better one, Laura?”

Romney appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace back on 12/18/11:

Romney said when is on the campaign trail talking to business leaders, he asks whether the current administration has helped them hire more people or be more successful. He said he never sees a single hand raised in the audience in response.

“His policies have hurt, not helped,” he said.

Romney said part of the problem may be Obama’s leadership style. Obama has not met with Republicans in five months, but has instead gone on “constant attack either against Republicans or against people in the business world or whatever group he somehow feels is opposed to his agenda.”

“Leaders actually spend time meeting with people on the other side of the aisle, understand their needs, understand their concerns, get their input and look for some way to find common ground,” he said. “We need a leader who understands not just the words of unity but the practice of building unity.”

On Saturday after much back-and-forth with Congress, Obama said he was pleased with the move by Senate Democrats to compromise on a payroll tax cut bill that funded a tax break for 160 million Americans without raising taxes on millionaires and with the inclusion of provisions regarding Keystone XL pipeline. The legislation passed 89-10, but House Republicans say they oppose the plan because they want the tax cut to last 12 months and be paid for.

Romney said he doesn’t want to criticize everything the president has done, but his economic policies have made it “more difficult for this economy to reboot.”

He added that while the president gets the credit for killing Usama bin Laden and claims to have stopped another Great Depression, most of his rhetoric is “hollow.”

So, the economy is getting better and we’re coming out of a recession, huh?

Per Rasmussenreports.com, 65% of the country believes that we’re still in a Recession.

The standard newspaper definition of a recession is a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters.

This definition is unpopular with most economists for two main reasons. First, this definition does not take into consideration changes in other variables. For example this definition ignores any changes in the unemployment rate or consumer confidence. Second, by using quarterly data this definition makes it difficult to pinpoint when a recession begins or ends. This means that a recession that lasts ten months or less may go undetected.

It’s hard not to notice that this recession is still going on.  Go out to a restaurant in the middle of the week.  Go to the movies.  Go to the ballgame.

The empty seats speak volumes.

In a related story…

…House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio predicted that the election this fall will be a referendum on the president’s economic policies and the divided Congress provides his Republican colleagues an opportunity to draw a stark distinction with Democrats in the next 10 months.

“President Obama’s policies have not helped our economy,” Boehner said. “As a matter of fact, his policies have made our economy worse. It’s pretty clear to the American people that these policies are not working and when you look at this election that’s coming up, it’s pretty clear it’s going to be a referendum on the president’s policies regarding our economy.”

To paint a clearer picture of what Republicans consider the failed policies of the White House, Boehner said he has asked all House Republicans to examine the effect of the administration’s policies in order to make sure Americans “understand the devastating impact of these policies on our economy.”

“When it comes to oversight, it’s pretty clear to me that there are a lot of members of Congress who really don’t have a good understanding of how our economy works,” Boehner said.

The speaker added that with “more extensive oversight focused on these policies, we’d be able to educate members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, which, frankly, would be the best path forward in order to get any of that changed.

“Maybe we can convince some of our colleagues across the aisle, maybe we can even convince the president of the United States that these policies are not only not helping, but they’re hurting the ability of small businesses to create jobs in our country,” Boehner said. “Our focus over the course of this year will be on the economy and on jobs and making sure that hard-working taxpayers have a real opportunity at a good job in our country.”

Evidently, not only is Mitt out of touch with the economic reality you and I face every day as we try to pay our bills and eat at the same time, he’s not even in sync with his own political party leaders.

And this guy wants to be president?

Last night at the CNN Debate, featuring the Republican Candidates for their party’s Presidential Nomination, Newt Gingrich nailed his bully right between the eyes, also.  And he did it with his opening remarks:

Newt Gingrich slammed CNN’s John King for opening Thursday’s debate with a question about the former speaker’s ex-wife’s claim that he wanted an “open marriage.”

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich said.

“Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”

Gingrich was not finished, yet:

After King noted that the report had not been on his own network, Gingrich said, pointing his finger, “John, it was repeated on your network, you chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else for it.”

Gingrich received a standing ovation for smacking the bully between the eyes with his drumsticks.

On a day which saw Texas Governor Rick Perry drop out of the race and endorse the Former Speaker of the House, Gingrich showed no signs of slowing down, or conceding anything.

In fact, as the debate was going on, he even released his Income Tax Returns:

The income tax return shows that for 2010, Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich owed federal taxes of $994,708 on an adjusted gross income of $3,142,066. $613,517 of the tax amount owed had been previously withheld or otherwise paid, and the couple paid the remaining balance due of $382,734 (which included an estimated $1,543 tax penalty) with their filing.

Included in the wage and salary income reported on Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich’s tax return is $450,245 in combined wages; $41,625 in income from speaking and board of directors fees; $6,853 in rental income from real estate holdings; $11,892 in ordinary dividends; $5,990 in qualified dividends; and $2,525,683 in income from partnerships and S corporations, including the Lubbers Agency Inc. and Gingrich Holdings, Inc.

For the year 2010, the Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich reported $4,184 in net short-term capital gains and $32,541 in net long-term capital losses. Over the course of the year, the couple also contributed $81,133 to various charities, including the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

As opposed to Mitt Romney, who estimates that he paid an Income Tax Rate of 15%.  Romney was asked about whether he will release his Income Tax Returns during the CNN Debate:

Seconds after saying he’ll “probably” release more than one year’s taxes, Mitt Romney got asked about his father setting a standard for releasing several years worth of returns and, would he follow that example, didn’t repeat that statement.

“Maybe,” Romney said, smiling tightly. He got booed as he went on.

“I’ll release multiple years. I don’t know how many years,” Mitt said, which is what earned him boos.

He said he would not apologize for being successful, a line that then earned him cheers, and helped him close the answer strong. He said he’d earned his money himself, and didn’t inherit it from his parents.

But it was the second time he has struggled with the tax question in a debate in the past week.

Earlier he said he didn’t want to release his taxes “drip by drip” because it would give the Democrats something to attack on, and he would do the last year’s in April “and probably for other years as well.”

“I obviously pay all full taxes, I’m honest in my dealings with people, people understand that,” Romney said.

Newt Gingrich, who’s been pressing the issue, said, “If there’s anything in there that’s gonna help us lose the election then we should know it before the nomination.”

Per politico.com:

Newtmentum is back, per Public Policy Polling: the company’s second of three daily tracking polls, released tonight, shows Newt Gingrich in first place in South Carolina with 35 percent, with Mitt Romney 6 points behind at 29 percent. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were tied for third with 15 percent each.

The first tracking poll, released last night, also showed a two-man race with Gingrich over Romney by 6 points: yesterday, Gingrich took 34 percent and Romney had 28 percent.

Though many other polls have shown a tightening race between Romney and Gingrich, the two PPP polls are the first ones to show Gingrich edging Romney for the lead. PPP is a Democratic polling firm, but its results generally tend to track with other public polling.

Perhaps Gingrich is leading in the polls, because the public has figured out that, while Newt is smacking the bully right between the eyes with his drumsticks, Mitt is still deciding what size drumsticks he needs to buy.

On a day which showed him gaining in the polls, heading into the South Carolina Republican Primary, ABC News announced that it would air a brutally bombastic interview with one of his ex-wives, Marianne.

Last night, around dinner time, drudgereport.com ran the following story:

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.

Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.

But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.

Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter.

“He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,” Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year.

Then, later in the evening, Breitbart.com reported:

An ABC News executive tells The Associated Press that the network has interviewed Newt Gingrich’s second wife and is likely to air the segment Thursday on “Nightline.”

That’s two days before the South Carolina primary, where the Republican presidential candidate is trying to topple GOP front-runner Mitt Romney.

The ABC News executive did not indicate what the ex-wife, Marianne, said in the interview and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans for airing the interview were tentative.

The ex-wife has said Gingrich proposed to her before the divorce from his first wife was final in 1981. Her marriage to Gingrich ended in divorce in 2000. Gingrich admitted he’d already taken up with Callista Bisek, his third wife.

Gingrich has said he has no relationship with his second wife.

Can you say, “Dan Rather”?

Concerning the original placement of the interview after the SC Primary, Fox News Host Greta Van Susteren was thinking the same thing that ABC initially announced:

There is often no perfect answer…you just have to use your best judgment and hope in the end it is the right thing to do.

I have no idea what this ABC interview is other than the limited stuff I am reading on DrudgeReport at this hour. I am flying blind in this posting and my opinion is only based on what little I know now.

What I DO know is that we are only 2 days out from the South Carolina primary and there is a high risk from the Drudge Report description of an explosive interview of unfair poisoning of those going to the polls. There simply is not enough time for a candidate to respond to the explosive report and fairness also includes fairness to the candidate.

This is not to say that news should be suppressed (it should not) but news should also not be used to ambush. Thus…in light of the close time to the South Carolina primary…if I were ABC, I would hold this interview until after the polls close on Saturday (or I would have showed it a week ago.)

Yesterday, Newt told a crowd in SC that he expected an attack.  However, he was expecting a different culprit:

Newt Gingrich warned a crowd of about 350 in Warrenville, S.C., he expects Mitt Romney to attack him for the remainder of the week.

“I fully expect the Romney campaign to be unendingly dirty and dishonest,” Gingrich said. “They thought they could buy this. They’re discovering they can’t buy this.”

He concluded his 40-minute town hall by encouraging attendees to help him combat attacks.

“I think they have internal polls showing them losing,” he said. “I think they will do anything at any level.”

Gosh.   Could ABC’s decision to air part of the interview before the SC Primary have anything to do with the Democrats’ wish to face Mitt Romney in the General Election?

Mmmmm.  It’s a possibility.

This just in…Mitt Romney receives an endorsement from a Former President:

Former President Jimmy Carter wants to see Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination and run against President Obama next November.

“I hope he wins,” Carter said of the former Massachusetts governor in a Thursday night interview with MSNBC. “I’m not taking a position, but I would be very pleased to see him win the Republican nomination.”

Carter, a Democrat, added that he thinks Romney would lose in a match up against Obama, and that he supports the president’s re-election.

I alluded to Dan Rather earlier.  Remember him?  The former anchor of the CBS Evening News had a long, distinguished career.  And then, he got just a wee bit overzealous, leading to the incident now affectionately known as “Rathergate”:

CBS News, owned by Sumner Redstone’s Viacom multimedia conglomerate, announced January 10, 2005, that it had fired four CBS News employees, “including three executives, ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story” about George W. Bush’s military service, which aired September 8, 2004, on 60 Minutes.

The story relied on four documents which suggested that, first, Bush had “disobeyed an order to appear for a physical exam,” and second, that “friends of the Bush family tried to ‘sugar coat’ his Guard service.”

The authenticity of the documents allegedly written by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, “one of Mr. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard commanders in the early 1970, … were raised almost immediately.”

“Some critics said the documents were most probably forgeries prepared on a modern word processor. Other critics questioned whether Killian would have – or could have – written them.”

“After a stubborn 12-day defense of the story, CBS News conceded that it could not confirm the authenticity of the documents and asked former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi to conduct an independent investigation into the matter.”

CBS said that its personnel “action was prompted” by the independent panel’s 234-page report. The panel concluded that CBS News “failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece” and that CBS News “compounded that failure with a ‘rigid and blind’ defense” of the 60 Minutes segment.

As a result, “Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy” were asked to resign. Mary Mapes, the producer of the piece, was terminated.

CBS also reported that CBS News anchor Dan Rather had announced in November 2004 that, in March 2005, he would be “stepping down as anchor of The CBS Evening News on the 24th anniversary of his first broadcast as anchor,” but would “remain with CBS News as a correspondent for 60 Minutes Sunday and 60 Minutes Wednesday.”

So, now one of Newt’s ex-wives wants to “end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview”?

I not only question the timing…I’m sure of it.