Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Mitt Romney Wins Florida Primary!!

Mitt Romney won the Florida primary by a huge margin: 
Lets take take a look at the results of each county in Florida: 
Let's take a look at election results to see where we were in 2008 and just how big this win was for Mitt Romney tonight.Statewide in 2008, Mitt Romney lost to John McCain by a margin of 36% to 31%, a four-point deficit. In 2012, Romney improved upon his statewide total to win 46% to 32%, a resounding 14-point victory.

With tonight's victory in Florida in which Mitt received 50 delegates, he has a huge lead over all the other candidates in getting the 1,444 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination: 
Mitt Romney's victory is significant because it was a closed primary in which it was only limited to registered Republicans. This fact is important because despite what you hear in the conservative or liberal media, blogs and magazines, Mitt Romney had a lot more conservative/Republican support than they would like you to believe. Mitt Romney received strong support in almost every demographic in Florida with the exception of the "very conservative" vote:
Mitt Romney swept to victory in the Florida primary Tuesday night by winning nearly every income, age, religious, ideological, and ethnic group – falling short only among the one third of Florida Republican voters who called themselves “very conservative” and among the 40 percent who described themselves as white evangelical Christians, although he only narrowly lost among the latter group, according to the network exit polls.
The former Massachusetts governor displayed especially strong appeal to Latino voters – winning 53 percent of them – and to married women, to self-described moderates (winning 62 percent of them), to wealthier voters, and to those who said that the ability to defeat President Obama was the quality that most mattered to them – more so than the candidate’s experience, character or true conservatism. Nearly three out of five the voters who said beating Obama is the top priority voted for Romney.
The exit poll results demonstrate that Mitt Romney has a broad support from a wide spectrum of conservatives. I believe that we see similar polling results in future primaries. 
As far as future primaries go, things are only going to get better for Mitt Romney. He's the only candidate who has the resources, finances, and organization to compete in multiple states at a time. He's also made the ballot on every state. 
The most important fact to take away from tonight's victory is that Mitt Romney demonstrated that he's a fighter and that he can bounce back from a loss in South Carolina and deliver a hard punch back to Newt in Florida. Democrats are preparing give Mitt Romney a taste of his own medicine by going after him the same way Romney has gone after Gingrich. However, Mitt Romney is excited and eager to use all of his political firepower that he possesses to blast Obama out of office. 

Monday, January 30, 2012

Mitt Romney Is Not Behind The Redistricting Of FL-22

A lot of conservative blogs are up in arms today about the current redistricting plans for Florida which must be done in order to conform to Florida's new redistricting laws. This new law, Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment, known as Amendment 6 on the on the ballot during the 2010 midterm election, was a constitutional amendment to Florida's state Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the majority of voters.
There are false rumors that Mitt Romney and/or his surrogates in Florida are trying to push Represenative Allen West out of action: 
Conservatives pointed out that a major player in the process, Florida Speaker Designate Will Weatherford, has been a surrogate for Mitt Romney in the past. Some used this fact to suggest that Romney was involved in a campaign against Allen West.
This claim is bullshit. 
I can prove it.
Let's look at the language of the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment: 
In establishing Congressional district boundaries:
(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.
(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.
(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.
Now, lets look at Representative Allen West's district:   

Lets take an ever closer look at FL-22: 

Looking at these maps, its pretty clear that FL-22 is a blatantly gerrymandered district with all those squiggly line reaching inland to very specific regions. Those stretched and distended shapes were done to make that district Republican and competitive in a region that is well known to be heavily populated by Democrats. 
Its obviously clear that under the new anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative, FL-22 cannot remain as it is and be legal. It has to change in order to comply or conform to the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment which the voters of Florida overwhelmingly supported. As a result, the GOP leadership's hands are tied. They must follow the law. 
As a result, any legal redrawing of FL-22 is going to be naturally be filled with more Democrats since the district as it currently stands is artificially a Republican district due to the obvious carve outs on the map.
Its clear that the Florida GOP did the best they could do under the law to help Representative Allen West since that area covers Palm Beach County which is not known for being a strongly conservative area, Mr. West should be greatful that his district only became 4 points more Democratic than it used to be.  Things could have turned out worse for him but it didn't.
Lets not forget that Allen West isn't the only person to be affected by the proposed redistricting plans for Florida:
Case in point are Reps. Tom Rooney and Allen West. Both of their South Florida districts got about four points more Democratic, which should make life significantly tougher for each of them. Rooney now has a more compact swing seat (the 18th) north of West Palm Beach, while West’s already Democratic-leaning 22nd district just south of Rooney’s became even more Democratic and will be tough for him to hold.

West has been a very outspoken tea party freshman and has raised huge money, but line-drawers don’t appear to have done him many favors. His district, as constructed, would have gone about 43 percent for the last two Republican presidential nominees.

Both men appear to have options, though. Rooney could run in the new 17th, which includes much of his current territory in the Everglades, while there has been some talk of West running across the state in Mack’s district. (Though West has shown no interest in this.)

Other Republicans who see their districts getting slightly less friendly include Reps. Steve Southerland , Vern Buchanan and David Rivera. Buchanan actually gains registered Republicans and retains the vast majority of his current district — both positives for him — but the performance of his district moves about a point towards Democrats.
The evidence is clear. Mitt Romney or his political allies in Florida are a part of some evil, nefarious back room deal to push out Representative Allen West. Its clear that those who were on the committee to redraw the district did as much as they could to help him out. 
Allen West is a soldier and he can fight under tough circumstances. It will make things harder for him but he can do it. Other people may whine and cry about the new district changes, but Allen West won't. He'll just suck it up and fight harder. And he'll win.

My Predictions For Who Will Win The 2012 Florida Primary

With the Florida Primary election taking place tomorrow, I will make my prediction as to who will win. Here they are: 
Mitt Romney: 44
Newt Gingrich:`29
Rick Santorum: 16
Ron Paul: 11
Mitt Romney will most likely win Florida by a huge margin. Many people have said that if Mitt Romney wins Florida, he will most likely have the GOP nomination all wrapped up. The race isn't over yet..I don't foresee Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul dropping out anytime soon. Rick Santorum will probably stay in the race but it really depends on how his daughter is doing.   
However, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have an uphill battle after Florida because the primary elections will becoming fast and hard. Except for Romney, none of the other candidates, with the exception of maybe Ron Paul, have the staff, resources and organization to keep up with the increase in pace of elections.
Let me share with you what the race looks like up until Super Tuesday. The next primary race is in Nevada on February 4th and Mitt Romney will definitely win in that state. After that, on February 7th in which three states will be holding elections: Colorado (caucus), Minnesota (caucus) and Missouri Missouri. A few weeks later on February 28th, Arizona and Michigan will hold their primary Washington will hold their primary on March 3rd and then a few days later will be Super Tuesday in which 10 states will be holding their primaries or caucuses. Those states are: Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary) and Virginia (primary). 
Its hard to predict how well each of the candidates will do after Florida but I can tell you that Mitt Romney will win most of the primaries up until Super Tuesday. I expect all of the candidates to stay in until Super Tuesday.  I do think Rick Santorum will drop out after that and it will be down to Romney, Paul and Gingrich after Super Tuesday. 

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Is Ron Paul A Racist Or Not?

I get a lot of e-mails and comments on my blog from Ron Paul supporters who argue that Ron Paul is not a racist and provide me YouTube clips and news articles to prove it. 
However, Ron Paul's newsletters raise some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist. First, lets review the facts.
Its been established by witnesses and public records that Ron Paul was heavily involved in his newsletter published under his own name: 
"...the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul's wife Carol, Paul's daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001."
Its clear that he was intimately and deeply involved with the magazine in terms of editing, publishing, financing, advertising, and staffing his newsletter.We don't know exactly how much money Ron Paul made from these newsletters but from all the available evidence, he profited nicely from it. We also know that Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write many of these racist articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. We know that Ron Paul started publishing these articles in the 1990s. 
Now that we've established the basic facts, lets review why his newsletters raises some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist.
First, if Ron Paul isn't a racist, why publish the trash in his newsletter in the first place? Yet, those articles are there for all to see. 
Initially, Ron Paul absolutely denied he penned those newsletters. Then we get a half admission that he did write articles but we're to believe he only focused on economic issues. But given all the lies Ron Paul has said about his own newsletters, its difficult to believe that he only wrote the economic articles. Can we really believe Ron Paul didn't write them?
Even we are to believe that he's being honest that he only wrote the economic articles, he allows well known racists to write the articles. Why hire these men in the first place? Why didn't he reject the articles when these men submitted it for publication? Why didn't he issue a retraction and apology after they were published? Why didn't he fire these men after the article were published? The fact that he let racist men write racist articles with his approval and never once objected to it before or after these articles were published is troubling. 
There's the additional question of why even try to use racism as a strategy to increase his business? Its such a horrible business and public relations idea unless you know your articles are being read by the racists in America who have no qualms or objections with the content of the newsletters. Then there is no problem. 
If a magazine or newsletter was found to have published racist material, they would have issued an apology and retraction immediately. Moreover, they would not have purposely used racism as business strategy to increase circulation and profits.
Ron Paul never did this. Instead, the let these articles stand as they for more than a full decade since the 1990s without any corrections, retractions or apologies. Only when he's running for President in 2008 and 2012 does he try to distance himself from his own newsletters that were published under his name. 
How convenient. 
I think the evidence is overwhelming that raises serious questions about Ron Paul's bigoted views towards minorities. I don't like accusing people of racism and I don't do it lightly. 
Yet, its very clear that there's strong evidence that he is. There's no denying that there are serious questions about Ron Paul's bigotry. Even if we are to view all the evidence in a way that is most favorable to Ron Paul, his actions and words strongly raises doubts that's not a racist.
Whether Ron Paul is a racist or not is a matter of legitimate debate since we're deciding which man we want to live in the White House and be President. With all the available evidence and the troubling questions they raise before you, I'll let you decide if Ron Paul is a racist or not. 

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Herman Cain Finally Endorses Newt Gingrich

When Herman Cain dropped out of the 2012 race about a month ago, there were rumors that he would be endorsing Newt Gingrich. Now, Herman Cain has given his endorsement to Newt Gingrich which he has wanted to do for quite sometime now: 
Just over a week ago, Cain addressed a gathering of Republicans in South Carolina and said he had held off from endorsing a candidate because he didn’t want an endorsement to “split my support.”
He said Saturday that the decision to back Gingrich had been in his heart for some time.
“There are several reasons, many reasons as to why I have reached this public decision,” he said. “I had it in my heart and mind a long time ago.”
“One of the biggest reasons is the fact that I know that speaker Gingrich is a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas. And I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president, and going through this sausage grinder -- I know what this sausage grinder is all about -- I know that he’s going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America. We all do.”
The endorsement isn't surprising given that one lying adulterer is endorsing another adulterer. I don't think his endorsement will help Newt Gingrich at all.

Actor Jon Voight Endorses Mitt Romney

To be honest, I almost fell out of my chair when I found out that Jon Voight endorsed Mitt Romney at a rally at the Fish House in Pensacola, Florida today:
Academy Award winning actor Jon Voight threw his support behind Mitt Romney today, telling a crowd of hundreds at a local restaurant that Newt Gingrich “falls short” of having the characteristics needed to run the White House.
“Governor Romney is a man of faith, honor, love, and truth,” said Voight. “These are the first very important qualities a president must have. He is strong, honest, and wants to bring the country back to its exceptional place, where we have been for hundreds and hundreds of years, until President Obama decided to follow his father’s footsteps and take us to socialism.”
“I’m sorry to say Speaker Gingrich may fall short in many ways,” said Voight. “Please join me to bring in Gov. Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.”
The reason why I am surprised by this endorsement is because Jon Voight acted in the controversial cinematic disaster called, September Dawn, in which he played the role of fictional bishop Jacob Samuelson. The movie was released during the midst of the 2008 Presidential primary when Mitt Romney was making his first attempt to become President of the United States.
The film was not a success because it received strong negative reviews from movie critics like Roger Ebert and Eric Snider. The movie also flopped because the film mixed too much fiction for it to be called a historical movie. It was a horribly written script with bad acting, bad dialogue and shoddy filming. Some people called the film massacre porn. Many Mormons and non-Mormons were upset with the film since it viciously attacked the LDS Church by falsely conflating the Mountain Meadows Massacre with modern day Islamic terrorism
Jon Voight defended the film by describing it as a warning against religious fanaticism and denied that the film was not intended as a direct criticism of Mitt Romney.
I understand that Jon Voight was just doing his job as an actor. Its good to see that he can separate his work from reality and politics.  I am surprised but happy to hear that he had endorsed Mitt Romney.

2012: What The GOP Race Looks Like Right Now

When the 2012 campaign first started, there were a lot of Republicans that were thinking about throwing thier hat into the ring. As time went on, the field started to shape up as candidates were announcing that they were either in the race or not.
This is what the 2012 GOP race looks like right now:
Currently Running
Mitt Rommey, former Governor of Massachusetts 
Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania 
Newt Gingrich, former Reprsenative of Georgia's 6th district
Ron Paul, current Reprsenative of Texas' 14th district
Buddy Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana 
Fred Karger, Gay Rights activist

Dropped Out 
Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico
Herman Cain, business executive and talk radio show host
Michelle Bachmann, U.S. Representative Minnesota's 6th district
Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China
Rick Perry, current Governor of Texas 

Decided Not To Run
Donald Trump, real estate magnate
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor
Haley Barbour, current Governor of Mississippi.
Mitch Daniels, current Indiana Governor
Chris Christie, current New Jersey Governor
Paul Ryan, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district
Mike Pence, U.S. Representative for Indiana's 6th district
John Thune,  U.S. Senator, South Dakota
Jim DeMint,  U.S. Senator, South Carolina
Sarah Palin, Former Governor of Alaska
Donald Trump, business executive

Friday, January 27, 2012

Fact Check: Newt Gingrich And Rick Santorum Endorsed RomneyCare

During CNN's Florida Republican GOP debate, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum attacked Mitt Romney over his health care plan. However, both candidates supported RomneyCare before they were against it. 
Newt Gingrich & RomneyCare
USA Today fact checked Newt's claim during the CNN debate that that he never endorsed RomneyCare and found out that Gingrich's claim is FALSE:
Former House speaker Gingrich claimed he had never favored a federal mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance — only a state requirement.
Gingrich: I didn't advocate federal mandates. I talked about it at a state level …
Not true. Gingrich said "Congress" must require high-income persons to have insurance, not state legislatures. He did so explicitly in a 2007 opinion piece:
Gingrich, June 25, 2007: In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to [among other things] require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.
His support for a federal mandate is of long standing. In 1993, on NBC's Meet the Press, he said:
Gingrich, 1993: I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
Gingrich was proposing an individual mandate as an alternative to the Clinton administration's ill-fated health care plan, which was centered on an employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide insurance for their workers. And he held to a similar position as recently as last May, also on Meet the Press:
Gingrich, May 15, 2011: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.
NBC's David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
Gingrich: It's a variation on it.
If Gingrich was thinking about a state-only mandate, he never said so at the time. And he clearly said "all of us" would be subject to his "variant" of the mandate just last May. We judge that Gingrich is falsifying his own history on this matter.
Rick Santorum, Individual Mandate & RomneyCare
During the CNN debate, Rick Santorum went after both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for supporting the RomneyCare and individual mandate. The New Republican found that Rick Santorum is being dishonest in his attacks since he supported the individual mandate: 
PolitiFact verified several days ago that Santorum's claim that Gingrich has supported some version of the mandate for 20 years was "mostly true." But it didn't think to ask whether Santorum, too, has supported the individual mandate in the past. And as it happens, he has. He supported it in 1994, according to this April 7, 1994 article in the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call, and this May 2, 1994 article in the same newspaper. It's possible that the newspaper would have gotten this wrong once, but in the heat of a primary campaign it's highly unlikely Santorum's campaign would have allowed it to get this wrong twice
Moreover, Rick Santorum has flipped flopped on RomneyCare. He endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2008 Presidential elections yet Santorum had issues with it now:  
“I feel we need someone who is a strong, principled conservative who believes not in government mandates, not in government control of the health care system, but in a patient-centered approach to health care,” Santorum said.
Santorum added that both the state and federal laws "tend to drive employers out of the private sector plans because they’re expensive and more people end up on the government plan."
“Ultimately, it’s a failure," Santorum said.
Apparently, the phrase, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" has no meaning to Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. They can't hide from their past and are hoping voters won't notice the glass shattering every time they try to attack the individual mandate or RomneyCare. But the voters do notice it. 
These two men also don't realize why Mitt Romney is bullet proof when it comes to attacks on RomneyCare. They'e in no position to be throwing blows at Romney since they've both supported the individual mandate and RomneyCare. As as result, every time they attack Mitt, they get weaker and weaker while Mitt Romney gets stronger and stronger. 

Ron Paul Was Intimately Involved With His Racist Newsletter

The more we find out about Ron Paul's involvement in his own racist newsletter, the less credible his denials of knowing about the bigoted content of his newsletters become. Initially, Ron Paul said that he contributed absolutely nothing to his own newsletter: 
Now, Paul says he had nothing to do with the contents of the newsletters published in his name.
"Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I've said for 20-something years, 22 years ago?" Paul said on CNN Wednesday. "I didn't write them. I disavow them. That's it." Paul then removed his microphone and abruptly ended the interview.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and "did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them."
A few days later, in an interview with Dave Wiegel for Slate.com, admitted that he did contribute articles to his own bigoted newsletter but that he only wrote articles focusing on economic issues:
CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear? How confident were you that the newsletter accurately portrayed your views on those things?
PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.
CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.
PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.
Recently, several close associates have come forward saying that Ron Paul was intimately involved in his own newsletter. 
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
There is additional evidence that demonstrates how close Ron Paul was with his bigoted newsletter: 
Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001.
The company shared offices with his campaigns and foundation at various points, according to those familiar with the operation. Public records show Paul’s wife and daughter were officers of the newsletter company and foundation; his daughter also served as his campaign treasurer.
Another person close to Ron Paul claimed that Ron Paul started adding racist material in his newsletter in a way to increase their profit in their magazine: 
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.
“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.
The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.
The Washington Post obtained dozens of copies of the newsletters from the Wisconsin Historical Society. Texas news outlets wrote about them in 1996, and the New Republic published extensive excerpts in 2008. The issue resurfaced late last year, when Paul’s presidential campaign picked up momentum. The extent of Paul’s involvement and his business strategy had not been known.
Paul’s publishing operation began through a nonprofit organization he created in 1976, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, which advocates for limited government and a free market. The group, founded the year Paul entered Congress, published Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, mostly a collection of his congressional speeches and commentaries.
In 1984, just before losing a Senate bid and leaving Congress, Paul formed Ron Paul & Associates. He soon began publishing the Ron Paul Investment Letter, initially offering mostly economic and monetary information. Texas tax records listed Paul as president of the business, his wife as secretary, his daughter, Lori Paul Pyeatt, as treasurer, and a longtime Paul associate, Lew Rockwell, as vice president.
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.
Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.
The evidence keeps piling up. We know that Ron Paul Paul wrote a letter to his subscribers promoting his racist magazine.We know that Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write many of these racist articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. We also know that Ron Paul has some association with known racists.  As a result of the growing evidence of Ron Paul's racism, its gets difficult to believe his denials that he is not a racist
Its clear that conservatives, Tea Partiers and Independents should not vote for or support Ron Paul.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Is Newt Gingrich Playing Passive-Agressive With Romney's Faith

Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne, the Pentecoastal pastor who runs the The River at Tampa Bay church, held a Newt Gingrich rally on church grounds. After the completion of that pro-Newt rally, Dr. Rodney-Brown explained to Florida voters that they can overlook Newt's affairs but they cannot accept Romney's faith:
After the event, Howard-Browne said that the marital infidelities of Gingrich, like all sinners, could be left in the past. 
'We've got to hold people accountable. But if they say they've asked for forgiveness then we have to go with what the word of God said - we have to forgive.'
He expressed grave reservations, however, about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. 
'Mormonism is a cult and that's the problem,' he said. 
'Mormonism, if you study the whole history of it, and I'm not trying to create a problem, but they had death squads that would go around kill everybody that wasn't a Mormon.'
Mormons, he said, were 'very honourable people, very clean-married, godly, family' and their faith had 'been doctored up and painted nicely.' But the 'problem is the additon to the scripture, which is the book of Mormon, and all the other additives that Joseph Smith brought to the table.'
Howard-Browne said he was not aligned with any candidate, though he left the church grounds in Gingrich's bus afterwards. Gingrich was not present for his prayer.
Dennis Prager, a well known Los Angeles conservative talk show host has this to say about those who believe Romney's faith is a cult or a bizzare religion:

This kind of rhetoric about a candidate's religion has no place in any political campaign. Pastors like Robert Jeffress and Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne are preaching a dangerous, false and dark idea that a candidate's faith is more important than his values. 
The good news is that other religious leaders have publicly stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. Influential Christians like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen , Richard J. Mouw, Reverend Franklin Graham and Reverend Rob Schenck have all stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. The truth is that a candidate's values is more important than his faith. 
I recommend my readers to watch a debate between attorney Jay Sekulow and Pastor Robert Jeffress on Mitt Romney's religion because they discuss whether or not a candidate's faith or values is the primary issue voters should be using when deciding to vote for a candidate. Its a powerful and educational debate that every voter should watch.
Newt Gingrich is trying to play the same old tired strategy of playing passive-aggressive with Mitt Romney's faith. This strategy started with Mike Huckabee who employed this trick during the 2008 Presidential election. Other candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry have attempted to employ this tactic in this election before dropping out of this race.
What is so interesting is that Newt Gingrich, along with other 2012 candidates, denounced Pastor Robert Jeffress who supported Rick Perry and called Mormonism a cult. When Craig Bergman, who used to be the Iowa campaign director for Newt Gingrich's campaign called the LDS religion a cult,  the Gingrich team quickly dispatched a spokesman to repudiate Craig Bergman's statement: 
"He made a comment to a focus group prior to becoming an employee that is inconsistent with Newt 2012's pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign," said R.C. Hammond, press secretary for Gingrich.
Another Iowa Gingrich campaign staffer emphasized that Newt did not agree with Mr. Bergman's statement: 
Linda Upmeyer, the chairwoman for Gingrich’s Iowa campaign, reached by telephone for reaction this afternoon, said she’s never heard Gingrich himself say anything negative about Mormonism.
“I’ve never had any discussion that resembled that with Speaker Gingrich,” Upmeyer said. “I have no doubt there are people that reject Mormonism but I’ve never engaged in a conversation regarding that, ever.”
Is this part of a new desperate strategy to defeat Romney by employing a passive-aggressive strategy against Mitt's religion? So far, there has been no response from Newt Gringrich's campaign. They haven't rushed out to repudiate Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne's statements about Romney's faith like they have with Pastor Jeffress or Craig Bergman. I hope and expect that the Gingrich campaign issue a statement distancing themselves from Rodney-Browne's statements about the LDS faith very soon.

Monday, January 23, 2012

WSJ: Bain Saved America In The 1980s

The Wall Street Journal has an article explaining how private equity firms like Bain helped saved America during the 1980s:
Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney's political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney's lifetime contributions to the nation's economic well-being. If only he'd tell the story.
We are of course putting forth "Bain Capital" as not merely the Romney private-equity house but as the stand-in for the period of American economic history that ran from 1980 to 1989. Back then it was called the Greed Decade, with asset-stripping barbarians at the gate. Virtually everything about this popular stereotype is wrong. Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been. 
Arguably, the primary force that set off the 1980s upheaval in U.S. corporate restructuring was the deregulation begun by Jimmy Carter and continued by Ronald Reagan. Airlines, ground transportation, cable and broadcasting, oil and gas, banking and financial services all experienced regulatory rollback. Meanwhile, a competitive, globalized marketplace was rising. Management at some of America's biggest companies, confused by these rapid changes, found themselves sitting on huge piles of unused or poorly deployed cash and assets.
Thousands of Mitt Romneys allied with huge pension funds representing colleges, unions and the like, plus a rising cadre of institutional money managers, to force corporate America to reboot. In the 1980s almost half of major U.S. corporations got takeover offers.
Singling out this or that Bain case study amid the jostling and bumping is pointless. This was a historic and necessary cleansing of the Augean stables of the American economy. It caused a positive revolution in U.S. management, financial analysis, incentives, governance and market-based discipline. It led directly to the 1990s boom years. And it gave the U.S. two decades of breathing room while Europe, with some exceptions, choked. 
Obviously, Bain didn't single handedly save America but the private equity firms did of which Romney's company was among many firms that helped America revitalize its businesses by forcing them to reform, restructure, evolve and slim down. 
We need a candidate who will reduce the size and scope of government and create an atmosphere were businesses can grow or reform and revitalize itself. If you want to return to another economic boom of prosperity similar to the one America experienced in the 1980s, then Mitt Romney is your candidate.

Judicial Watch: Newt Gingrich Is Corrupt

Judicial Watch just released its top 10 corrupt politicians of 2011. While Newt Gingrich is not on the top 10 list, he does get an honorable mention. Judicial Watch explains why
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a career plagued by scandal and corruption.
Perhaps most notably, on January 22, 1997, by a vote of 395 to 28, the House of Representatives voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich for “intentional…or reckless” disregard for House rules and ordered him to pay an unprecedented penalty of $300,000 for ethical wrongdoing.  It was the first time in the 208-year history of the House that such a step against a Speaker had been taken.  (Gingrich had faced a raft of charges for alleged ethics violations during his tenure in the House.)
Following a scathing special counsel report to the House Ethics Committee detailing the charges against Gingrich, the former Speaker admitted to providing “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable” statements to congressional investigators.  In a written statement, Gingrich stated that his actions ''brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.” 
During the current presidential campaign, Gingrich has continuously misled the American people about how he, like many retired politicians, participated in DC’s lucrative influence-peddling industry.
Gingrich insinuated during one presidential debate that some members of Congress who took money from Fannie and Freddie should go to jail.  And yet, over a span of eight years, according to Bloomberg News, The Gingrich Group was paid between $1.6 and $1.8 million by the home mortgage company.  At the same time, Freddie Mac was engaged in massive fraud.   Gingrich suggested he was a “historian” for Freddie Mac.  But the evidence clearly shows he was “throwing his weight” behind the two Government Sponsored Enterprises to prop them up, saying in one interview that Fannie and Freddie provided a more “liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have” without them.  Ironically, President Obama, the man who Gingrich is seeking to oust from office, is keeping secret each and every Freddie Mac (and Fannie Mae) document, including those that could shed light on Gingrich’s relationship with Freddie.
Gingrich also has claimed, “I have never done lobbying of any kind.”  However, as documented by the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney, Gingrich was a hired gun for the drug lobby who “worked hard to persuade Republican congressmen to vote for the Medicare drug subsidy that the industry favored.”  Carney reports that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America confirmed that they paid Gingrich.  Bloomberg News “cited sources from leading drug companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.”
Gingrich has also sustained heavy criticism for his troubled personal life, including the admission by Gingrich that he cheated on his second wife while serving as Speaker of the House with then-House employee and current wife, Callista Bisek.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The Unelectability Of Newt Gingrich

A few weeks ago, I thought the race would boil down to a competition between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. However, Newt Gingrich has bounced back from Romney's SuperPac on him in Iowa. He's won the endorsement of Rick Perry and won the South Carolina primary yesterday.
If Newt Gingrich thinks he can win the Republican nominations, he's got a lot of hurdles to overcome. Those hurdles are listed below:
1. Rick Perry's big campaign donors are supporting Romney, Not Newt:
While many of Perry's evangelical Christian donors in Texas could find Gingrich appealing, fundraisers from the establishment wing of the GOP are more likely to gravitate to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Indeed, two top Perry fundraisers—Mississippi-based political strategist Henry Barbour and Dirk Van Dongen, a lobbyist who co-chaired the governor's fundraising efforts in Washington--signed on to the Romney camp Thursday.
"Most people I'm talking to seem to be ready to go to Romney," Barbour said. "Newt's impressive, but I don't think he can win the White House. Look, this is about winning in November and I think Gov. Romney has the best chance to win. If we don't win in November, we're wasting our time."
Barry D. Wynn, a South Carolina fundraiser who left Perry's campaign to raise money for Romney two weeks ago, said he and other members of the finance team were turned off by Perry's attacks on Romney's business record. He noted that Gingrich has been even more vehement in his criticism of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that Romney led.
2. Not only does Newt Gingrich have fundraising problems, he's got campaign organizational problems. Newt Gingrich doesn't have the organizational stamina or financial resources to go head to head with Obama. As a result, Newt Gingrich will gas out early in the campaign because he doesn't have the resources to last long against Obama.
3. Newt is still struggling to pay back the debt he created in the early days of the 2012 election because he spent alot of money on his wife when he should have been spending it on his campaign. Perhaps with Newt's victory in South Carolina, he might be able to pay it off. I doubt it given that major donors are lining Mitt Romney because they know he manages people's money very well. 
4.  Newt Gingrich is not on the ballot in may of the primary states:
Karl Rove explained why getting on each of the state ballots matters: 
Organization truly matters, especially in low-turnout caucuses. Four years ago, for example, 118,917 Republicans turned out in Iowa—and only 424 votes separated the third- and fourth-place finishers. The total turnout was considerably less than the 229,732 Iowans who voted in the GOP primary for governor two years later. Being organized in all 99 Iowa counties means more people can be dragged to caucus meetings who might otherwise stay home on a wintery eve, believing their vote doesn't matter.
5. Newt Gingrich as has a freight train of baggage:
He was accused of approximately 84 ethical violations while he was Speaker of the House. It is an established fact that Newt Gingrich has had to pay back $300,000 in ethics fine back in the 1990s after The House Committee on Ethics released its report on Gingrich.
6. Newt's adultery reveals he is a morally challenged man:
During the South Carolina Primary debate, Newt Gingrich deflected the question about his second wife's accusation that he requested an open marriage. However, the audience rose to its feet not because the accusation was false but that he did a masterful job in avoiding the question:
The substance of the answer was preposterous, of course. This is the man who was calling Clinton to resign because of lying over his sexual indiscretions. He also accused the Clinton administration of lacking moral standing and gravitas. I bet every one of those audience members screaming for Newt mostly likely called for Clinton’s resignation even before it was known he lied under oath.
Why was his terrible answer widely and uncritically received as “hitting it out of the ballpark”?
Because the answer was not about whether he asked his wife for an “open marriage,” it was about managing the political fallout from the accusation. 
As David Frum tweeted: “It’s manifestly true that Gingrich wanted open marriage. He had one! Only dispute is whether he told his wife about it.”
Newt Gingrich cannot deny the fact that he divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer so that he could marry the woman that he was having an affair with while he was married to his first wife. Shortly after marrying his second wife, he began cheating on her by having an affair with a congressional staffer. Then he decided to divorced his second wife shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis so that he could marry his current wife who he was having an affair with during his second marriage. 
The sad question for voters all across America is whether or not Newt's second wife, Marianne, was telling the truth about Gingrich's request for an open marriage?  
I believe Marrianne is telling the truth. However, even if she isn't telling the truth, we have to understand that the difference between an open marriage and adultery is that in adultery, a man is sleeping with someone other than his wife without the wife’s permission. When Newt didn’t get his wife’s permission to carry on a relationship that he was already having, he just continued on with out her permission. What is equally shocking about Newt's multipe affairs is his excuse for his unfaithfulness as a husband was that it was the result of working too hard for America.
7. As a result of his multiple affairs, Newt Gingrich will definitely lose the female vote. He will push female voters into voting for Obama and will cause women vote against the GOP for years to come in the future.
8. With Newt Gingrich's multiple affairs, he is a poor spokesman for issues that are important to values voters. He has no credibility when it comes to issues like traditional marriag. He will discredit and destroy the social conservative movement. He will harm them for many years to come because not an asset but a liability to them.  If Social Conservatives back newt, they will lose credibility with rest of America. 
9. Newt Gingrich is possess traits that they don't like about Bill Clinton and Obama:
10. Newt Gingrich cannot win the general election against Obama. Conservatives, for whatever bizzare or irrational reason, like Newt but the rest of America doesn't. He has high unfavorability ratings in 1996 very bad
And yet, his approval numbers while he was in charge of the House were dreadful. Gallup found his net favorable rating in negative territory by the early spring of 1995 (33 percent approve to 47 percent disapprove, or a 14 point net negative), and at the end of 1995 his net negatives would exceed 25 points, where they would remain for the rest of his tenure.

These are very weak numbers indeed. Obviously, his 32 percent national favorable rating shows that only the core GOP base was behind him, but even then Gingrich was viewed favorably by just 61 percent of Dole voters nationwide. And in Georgia – his home state where people knew him best – he could not even pull in three quarters from Dole voters.
Right now, favorability is low and his unfavorability is high. Newt Gingrich is simply unelectable and it would take a miracle for him to reverse that trend. In fact, Newt will probably not win the Florida primary but if he does, there will be a major effort to take him down before he does any more damage to the Republican party.
11. Due to Newt's high unfavorability ratings, he will also most definitely lose the crucial independent voter. The more independents learn about him or are reminded of who this man is, the less they will like him. Independent voters will not like the choices of choosing between Obama and Newt but they will select Obama over Gingrich at the end of the day. 
12. Another byproduct of his high unfavorability ratings is that Newt Gingrich will reverse all our gains in the 2010 midterm elections. He will hurt the local, state and national Republican candidates who are seeking to ride a second wave the against the Democrats in public offices across this nation.

The facts are clear. Newt Gingrich may have won South Carolina and he may go on to win the Republican nomination. But he will never, ever be able to defeat Barak Obama. 

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Mitt Romney's South Carolina Speech

Mitt Romney gave one of the best speeches I've seen after he won the New Hampshire and he's given Americans another great speech tonight after coming in second in the South Carlina Primaries. Watch Mitt's speech below:

Reverend Rob Schenck Endorses Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is the candidate that voters who are concerned about values are looking for. Romney has received support from two separate letters of endorsement from activist who were on the front lines of fighting for traditional marriage in Massachusetts. Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage. Mitt also had a broad array of conservative activist to publish a letter on explaining that Mitt Romney was a politician who fought for traditional marriage and abortion. 
Now, a prominent pro-life and abortion activist named Reverend Rob Schenck, who is the president of the National Clergy Council, a nationwide network of conservative pastors from all Christian traditions, including Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox, and Protestant, has endorsed Mitt Romney:
Schenck, who has met all of the Republican candidates, said today about his endorsement, “I’ve talked face-to-face, at length, to Governor Romney about the issues of concern to Christian voters. When I asked Governor Romney pointedly about his personal view on abortion, he told me he believes every intentional abortion is an immoral end to a human life. He is clearly pro-life. He also unequivocally denounced same-sex marriage. When I asked, ‘Who is Jesus Christ to you?’ He said, ‘My personal Lord and Savior.’ There was nothing ambiguous about any of these things.”
Rev. Schenck said he believes Governor Romney is the best organized and the best financed to win a national election.
“Mitt Romney has the experience, the integrity, the intellect, and the leadership skills to go up against President Obama. No candidate will ever be perfect, but he must be as good as possible and he must be able to win. That’s why I support Mitt Romney.”
The evidence is clear. There is no stronger pro-life, pro-marriage candidate than Mitt Romney.  

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Rick Perry To Suspend His Campaign Soon

The GOP race is getting very small very quickly. Jon Huntsman dropped out a couple of days ago and now Rick Perry is dropping out too: 
Rick Perry is telling supporters that he will drop his bid Thursday for the Republican presidential nomination, two sources familiar with his plans told CNN.
The Texas governor will make the announcement before the CNN debate in South Carolina, the sources said.
The official announcement is expected to be aired on television within the next hour. However, the big question is who will he endorse? Will it be Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich? Apparently he's set to endorse Newt:
Perry will also endorse former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who appears to be gaining momentum in South Carolina. The endorsement could give Gingrich a critical boost just two days ahead of the Palmetto state primary. 
Rick Perry's suspending his campaign will affect the race. Newt Gingrich will get a bump in the polls but it will not be enough to catch up to Mitt Romney who has a significant lead in South Carolina. 

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Why The Attacks On Bain Have Backfired on Perry and Gingrich

Sometime in the future when Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry will suspend their campaign, they will have no one to blame but themselves for losing to Mitt Romney and failing to win the Republican nomination. They could have turned their campaigns around but they didn't. Instead, they chose to attack Romney for his work in Bain with the hopes of hurting him but instead they have damaged themselves beyond repair.
Below are several reasons why their ship is sinking and will continue to sink until they bow out of the race:
How The Attacks Have Hurt Them
1. The biggest reason why Gingrich and Perry's attacks on Bain have blown up in their faces is because these candidates who are willing to break Reagan's 11th commandment of attacking another conservative and going on to commit the ultimate unpardonable sin of disparaging Capitalism. For many conservatives, their is no atonement that is sufficient to redeem them from their mistake of launching an assult on capitalism. 
That's why  a big supporter of Rick Perry has backed off from supporting him and is now supporting Romney precisely because of his leftist attacks on Mitt Romney's work with Bain. Another Rick Perry supporter named Roger Simon has also abandoned Rick Perry for his assault on capitalism. 
2. It is impossible to believe their claims that they are not attacking capitalism but just attacking his record. Either they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how creative destruction works or that their knowledge of how free market economies work is getting in the way of their attempts to take Mitt down. These men are claiming that Romney's business was not capitalism but but a destructive, profit-driven perversion of it. Thanks to them, this is no longer a left-wing argument. They have now legitimized Obama's attacks on the free market which makes it harder for them to defeat Obama. Businesses know this and that's why they're rallying around Mitt. They know that they need someone who can defend capitalism and defeat Obama. Mitt's got both. 
3. If Gingrich or Perry become President, their attacks on Romney will come to haunt them. Obama will essentially argue that their attacks on Romney is an agreement with Obama's perspective on wall street, free markets and capitalism.  It will be hard for them to switch from being attackers of capitalism to defenders of capitalism. If they try to defend it, Obama will run attack ads against them using their own words. Mitt Romney has perfectly summed up the core issue of the 2012 election by saying that "Capitalism is on trial."
4. As a result of their attacks on Romney and his businesses, many businesses are choosing to rally around Mitt instead of the other GOP candidates. They've already had four years of Obama villifying businesses, they're not excited for enduring another four years from Obama. They're not excited to have a Republican in office who may or may not vilify them while in they're in office either. Hence, Mitt Romney is the smart choice for them. That's why it is no surprise that the chamber of commerce has told the two Republican candidates to shut up about their assault on capitalism. 
5. Not only are business not lining up behind Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich but the assault on Mitt Romney's career as a venture capitalist makes the Occupy Wall Streeters happy because it plays right into their argument that the 99% deserve to attack are being taken advantage of by the wealthy 1%. However, this argument doesn't make the 53% of Americans happy. They're tired of class warfare. They're tired of anti-capitalism. They're extremely unhappy at Perry and Gingrich because they've been vilified by the President and they don't want another four years of attacks on them from Democrat or Republican. That's why they're rallying around Mitt. At least he defends the American economic way of life.
6. The attack on Bain are far left tactics. It doesn't matter that the attacks on Bain have are not true, they will still press the attack hoping that it will hurt Romney. That's what liberals do. They will attack even if its factually not true because they think the attack works or that it actually does work. That's what Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman are doing. That's why Gingrich is airing segments of an anti-capitalist movie he's purchased in his false attack ads on Mitt. He's now desperate enough that he's now willing to buy a movie that uses every trick in the liberal play book in order to take down Romney. Even Michael Moore admires this movie.
7. When people are desperate they either show their true colors or their weakness. This is true for both Perry and Gingrich in that they have shown both at the same time as they continue to attack Mitt. They have shown themselves to be disloyal to conservative principles and they demonstrate how they really feel about the free market. As a result, Mitt Romney will most likely win South Carolina
 How The Attacks Have Helped Mitt
8. The Bain Attacks has had the opposite effect of uniting conservatives of all stripes into defending and supporting Mitt Romney. Conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others are appalled at the leftist attacks from so-called conservatives. 
9. Politicians like Rudy Guiliani, Jim DeMint, Tim Pawlenty, and others are disturbed by these class warfare attacks from these so-called conservatives. Conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and The Club for Growth have come to Mitt's defense. 
10. These attacks have even got Mitt Romney's old Republican rivals like John McCain and Mike Huckabee to defend him. Moreover, they have gotten conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and Philip Klein, who are well known for their dislike of Romney,  are now defending him.
11. Lets not overlook the fact that other GOP candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have refused to join in on these attacks on Romney. They're actually defending Romney.
12. They are helping Mitt Romney in the general election by inoculating the public against attacks on Romney that will surely come from Obama:
Tony Fratto, a former Bush official who now operates his own consulting and communications firm told me, “It’s best for Gov. Romney and the party that . . . [Gingrich] chose New Hampshire to blow up, so there’s no chance of the GOP being saddled with with a Gingrich candidacy. The additional benefit to Romney is that we’ll have the Bain/private equity debate now in January instead of in the late-summer and fall. By the time the Obama campaign tries to raise it, voters will wonder why the president is raising an old issue.”
13. They're helping Mitt Romney make the case that he's the you go to in order to save an organization from economic failure. After all, he's saved many businesses from going under. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics. He's turned Massachusetts around. America needs a president who knows how to reduce the size of government by consolidating, restructuring, or eliminating government programs and firing government employees. 
As a result, the attacks on Romney's experience in the private sector has been a total flop. It may not even have any effect on the upcoming South Carolina Republican primary. It is pretty clear that these attacks on Mitt have backfired on them and it will lead to their demise in the South Carolina primaries or beyond if they choose to limp on to the next primary.