Mitt Romney Has Been Consistent In Upholding Traditional Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage:

In the summer of 2003, when I learned the Massachusetts courts were likely to make gay marriage a reality, I quit my job and started up a think tank to work full time on the marriage issue. I traveled to Massachusetts multiple times to confer with local leaders, testify before the legislature, address grassroots gatherings, meet with policymakers.

Mitt Romney didn't just oppose court-ordered same-sex marriage with words, he fought hard, including behind the scenes.

When the people of Massachusetts mobilized the most massive signature-gathering operation in the state's history in support of a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, Romney supported the effort.

Under that state's constitution, 25 percent of the legislators must vote twice to approve a proposed amendment before it goes to a vote of the people.

The fact is, that against incredible shenanigans by many pro-gay marriage Democrats, while Romney was governor, the marriage amendment made progress. On Jan. 2, 2007, a few days before Romney left office, more than 25 percent of legislators DID approve the marriage amendment.

After he left office, the Democrats succeeded through a massive arm-twisting campaign to kill off the marriage amendment in the second vote.

If Romney had had another term as governor, the people of Massachusetts would have won the right to overrule their court and reverse gay marriage, as the people of California did.

And on the federal marriage amendment? In June of 2004, Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the federal marriage amendment, something Newt Gingrich never did. Ron Paul actively opposed a federal marriage amendment, even though it's the only way to prevent the Supreme Court from imposing gay marriage on all 50 states. Only Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann have a record of concrete deeds on marriage that exceeds Romney's.

Romney's new mailer in Iowa says he opposes same-sex marriage and supports a federal marriage amendment.

This is not a flip-flop; it's the truth. On gay marriage he's been a rock.

Maggie Gallagher claims that alot of shenanigans took place by pro-marriage democrats to make gay marriage happen in Massachusetts. What kind of stunts did the Democrats pull? Lets find out:

Here is a little back-story about how gay marriage was forced on the Mass. residents.

Most Americans know that Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. And they probably also know that Mitt Romney was governor when gay marriage was legalised. What I’m not sure many people know around the country is how this came to pass. This was not a bill that passed through the state house and senate, then on to Romney’s desk for a signature. This was a case of liberal, activist judges instituting their own personal policy preferences onto the citizens of Massachusetts, where they had no right to do so. They forced Mass. residents to accept something that polls show a vast majority of residents don’t want.

A citizen’s group gathered up more than enough signatures to have this issue go to the citizens for a vote in 2008 on this issue and have the constitution amended according to the vote. This meant that there had to be a constitutional convention,which there was, where a vote would have to be taken to put this issue on the ballet by Mass. law.

The constitutional convention, knowing Romney wasn’t running for re-election, illegally filibustered and the issue was never voted on in committee. Romney then filed a complaint with the state supreme court to have the committee reconvened and force a vote on the issue.

Unfortunately Romney was out of office before the final verdict came down. That is probably where he let Mass. residents down, if he did at all, by not running for re-election.

When gov. Patrick took office, the first thing he did was to kill the whole controversy by basically telling his law makers to ignore the law, and the wishes of the people, and not vote or send the issue to the voters.

The New York Times confirms this version of events:

With only a month before same-sex marriages are to become legal in Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney made a last-ditch effort on Thursday to keep them from taking place for at least two and a half years.

Mr. Romney said he would ask state lawmakers to pass emergency legislation allowing him to petition the state's Supreme Judicial Court to stay its ruling making gay marriage legal as of May 17. The governor wants the court to postpone same-sex marriages until a constitutional amendment banning them has a chance to be approved by voters. That would not be until November 2006, because the amendment must be passed again in the 2005-6 legislative session.

''This is the sole step that I believe can be taken, within the bounds of the law, to preserve the right of the citizens to decide whether we'll have same-sex marriage in the commonwealth,'' Mr. Romney said at a news conference.

Some people claim that Mitt Romney should have done more in fighting to protect traditional marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court made Gay Marriage legal in that state. However, Mitt Romney did all that he could do within his power to uphold traditional marriage:

Conservative leaders including Pat Buchanan and Mike Huckabee argue that Mitt Romney should have defied the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and refused to allow gay marriage ceremonies to take place in the state (Buchanan argues defiance: http://www.theamericancause.org/patmittromney.htm;  Huckabee says Romney could have stopped it without specifics: http://www.cnsnews.com/node/34561).  There is a problem with these views.  The people of Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney to carry out the law as interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.  Mitt Romney was not elected to take a position of conscience against the ordered society of Massachusetts, and his role as governor was to carry out the law as interpreted by the Court.

If Romney had defied the court in ways advocated by Pat Buchanan and Mike Huckabee (neither of whom is a licensed attorney in any state), Governor Romney could have been held in contempt, impeached and lost his license to practice law in the state.   The senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice shares my interpretation of Romney’s conflict:  http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2007/01/mitt-romney-chose-gay-marriage/.  Taking a position of conscience in defiance to a public administrative duty completely goes against the concept of civil society.  When a soldier refuses to serve in active duty on a position of conscience, he receives a dishonorable discharge.  Should we really expect an elected Governor to defy a court order of his own state? 

The people of Massachusetts have a legal right to overturn any ruling on individual rights in Massachusetts by the amendment process of the state constitution.  After the Court ordered civil unions to be recognized between same-sex couples, Governor Romney led an effort to amend the constitution to define a civil union to exist only between a man and a woman.    The state legislature refused bring the issue to a vote.  After Romney ran into this opposition, he didn’t sit back:  he filed suit (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/us/25marriage.html)  Romney sued the legislature as a citizen to bring the constitutional effort to a vote, but he could not succeed.  These efforts by Romney shows a man deeply troubled and offended at the concept of gay marriage. Suggesting he supported gay marriage is simply not true.

Sometimes, the best evidence doesn't come from supporters of Mitt Romney but his opponents. Below is a clip of Mitt Romeny speaking at a Pro-Traditional marraige rally:

Here's a video of Mitt Romney with Chris Matthews back in April 12, 2006 stating that he supports Pro-Traditonal marraige:

In the end, Mitt Romney has been consistent in fighting for traditional marriage. That is why he signed the a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) supporting marriage between a woman and man. As a result, Mitt Romney has been the strongest and consistent supporter of traditional marraige. That is clear from the facts and from those who served with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

Conservative Samizdat Is Among The Top 15 Pro-Mitt Romney Sites On The Web!

On December 2nd, a blog called Mitt's Momentum published a list of the top 33 pro-mitt Romney websites and blogs on the Internet. The blogger looked at the the Alexa traffic rankings of the top websites overtly promoting Mitt Romney in the United States and that a global ranking used when U.S. ranking statistics were unavailable. I was surprised to find out that my own blog, Conservative Samizdat, is number 15 on that list! 

Here's the list below:

1. MittRomney.com 8,737

2. MittRomneyCentral.com 24,742

3. EvangelicalsforMitt.org 129,303

4. PlanetRomney.org 141,275

5. UltiMitt.org 150,847

6. Article6blog.com 392,270

7. CommittedtoRomney.com 413,226

8. AmericaNeedsMitt.com 426,811

9. WhyRomney.com 434,464

10. MittTheMan.com 548,558

11. GotMitt.com 576,292

12. TheCompetentConservative.com 3,060,067 (global ranking)

13. AboutMittRomney.com 3,078,930 (global ranking)

14. MittRomneyRadio.com 3,199,118 (global ranking)

15. ConservativeSamizdat.blogspot.com 5,428,981 (global ranking)

16. MittRomney2012-BestChoice.blogspot.com 6,458,143 (global ranking)

17. MittFitts.com 6,898,540 (global ranking)

18. MichiganforMitt.net 8,030,247 (global ranking)

19. MittRomneyAndHealthcare.blogspot.com 8,864,045 (global ranking)

20. CitizensforRomney.org 8,963,761 (global ranking)

21. Moms4Mitt.com 11,969,072 (global ranking)

22. TeensforMitt.org 12,033,970 (global ranking)

23. ConservativeforMitt.wordpress.com 13,875,869 (global ranking)

24. MittRomneyRoadtotheWhiteHouse.blogspot.com 14,832,162 (global ranking)

25. IowansforRomney.blogspot.com 22,566,368 (global ranking)

26. ChristiansforMitt.blogspot.com 22,699,427 (global ranking)

27. PresidentMittRomney.blogspot.com 23,425,275 (global ranking)

28. MittsMomentum.blogspot.com 24,265,771 (global ranking)

29. TexansforRomney2012.com (no ranking available)

30. MomsforMitt.blogspot.com (no ranking available)

31. NYforMitt.blogspot.com (no ranking available)

32. MittRomney2012akhil.webs.com (no ranking available)

33. AmericansforMitt.com (no ranking available)

Thank you to fans and readers for making my blog one of the top 15 pro-Mitt Romney websites on the web! 

Newt Gingrich Has Real Big Problems

Newt Gingrich has some serious problems. Its not the approximately 84 ethical violations against him while he was Speaker of the House, or the numerous affairs he's had or that he endorsed cap and trade he has to worry about. 

Gingrich has problems getting on the ballot in some states in time for the GOP primaries which begin in 26 days: 

Newt Gingrich is surging in the presidential polls, but his campaign organization has not caught up — making it possible he’ll miss Wednesday’s deadline to file enough signatures to even appear on Ohio’s primary ballot.

Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker whose once-moribund presidential campaign has been resurrected in the polls in recent weeks, already missed the deadline for Missouri’s ballot. With several other state deadlines looming this month, his campaign is showing growing pains as it strives to meet them.

Karl Rove explains 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.

The reason why Newt Gingrich is having difficulty getting on these state ballots is for a few reasons. One of those reason is that his campaign doesn't have a real game plan for winning: 

Mr. Gingrich’s critics say a focus on the big picture at the expense of details is typical for the Georgia Republican.

“Newt said he was running a fly-by-night operation, which fits in perfectly with his operation,” said GOP strategist John Feehery, who worked for Mr. Gingrich’s successor, J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. “Fly-by-night operations rarely work in presidential campaigns.”

Mr. Feehery was referring to a comment Mr. Gingrich made earlier this week when he said of his campaign, “We certainly fly by the seat of the pants.”

Another reason why Gingrich campaign is in trouble is because they don't have organizational structure needed to follow the various state guidelines for getting on the state ballot. In other words, Newt may not have enough staff or volunteers to do the necessary steps to file in that state's primaries. 

Finally, Newt's problem is that he still struggling to pay back the debt he created in the early days of the 2012 election.

Even as he surges ahead in the polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is struggling to get out from under a mountain of debt from luxury jets and other pricey expenses racked up in the early weeks of his campaign.

Creditors say Gingrich has begun paying back nearly $1.2 million in bills he owed at the end of September, and his spokesman says most will be taken care of by the end of the year. Other debts — including $42,000 owed to Gingrich himself for the campaign’s use of a mailing list — have already been paid, ahead of those owed to other vendors, according to aides and disclosure records.

The debt puts Gingrich further behind in his ability to match opponents’ spending in early-voting states, where he has just started to pay for advertising and is scrambling to catch up on staffing. He has been forced to scrimp on even basic expenses for much of the campaign and has only recently been able to expand his office presence in Iowa and South Carolina.

Although campaigns often operate in the red, Gingrich’s debts are unusually high — he spent nearly $3 for every $2 he raised. Mitt Romney, by contrast, reported no debt last quarter.

If we want a candidate who can defeat Obama, we can't have a candidate who is playing catch up on paying his debts. If Newt gets elected, he will be no match for Obama when it comes to campaign funds because he will he will have to focusing on paying off his debts before he can go after Barak Obama. We do have the luxury of voting for a candidate who is trying to establish an organizational structure in time to get on the ballot or has a laid back, fly by the seats of their pants, approach to running a campaign. For 2012, the American people cannot afford to wait for a candidate who is scrambling at the last minute in order to take on Obama. 

We need a candidate who is ready right now to take on President Obama. America is ready to give Obama the boot in 2012 and they want a candidate who is 100% ready to do it and can do it right now. That candidate is Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has no campaign debts. He has plenty of campaign cash on hand to support his 50 state wide campaign organization and can remain competitive in against Obama who has a massive war chest of his own. 

Don't wait for Newt to get his act together so that he can take on Obama. If he's not ready to take Obama at this very moment, he's not ready or fit to win the GOP nomination or be President. 

America needs Mitt Romney. Right now.  

Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul Is Not A Conservative Or A Tea Partier

Today, Rush Limbaugh recieved a call from a caller who thinks people will not support Newt Gingrich but rally around Ron Paul who will  win the 2012 Republican nomination: Here's Rush Limbaugh's response:

All right, once again, let me bring some reason and sanity to all this. We just heard that the Tea Party is gonna support Ron Paul, Santorum, Bachmann, or bust. And this guy is not a Tea Party caller. This guy's a Ron Paul caller. I just went to the Gallup poll, dug deep inside the Gallup poll, the one I just told you that shows Gingrich over Romney 37-22. Ron Paul is at 7% among Tea Party supporters. But there's more than that. The Tea Party is not the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul has nothing to do with the Tea Party, zilch, zero, nada. There is no way that you can back Ron Paul and also back Bachmann and Santorum. The reason is that Ron Paul's foreign policy has nothing in common with Tea Party foreign policy, nothing in common with Bachmann or Santorum foreign policy. Ron Paul did not start the Tea Party. Ron Paul is not the Tea Party.

Now, that caller also said -- and all this is so predictable, it happens every four years. "That two-party system, two party madness, we're not gonna put up with anymore, Rush, and you're part of it. You're part of the two party establishment, we know you." Let me tell you something. If two party madness is the issue, why did Ron Paul leave the Libertarian party to run as a Republican? Ron Paul's not running as a third party; he's not running as a Libertarian; he's running as a Republican. He's involved himself in the two-party system. And Ron Paul has led the way with tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. Ron Paul blames America for 9/11. That's not what the Tea Party thinks. It's not what conservatives think.

Now, there's some Tea Party activists that support Ron Paul, but most don't, as is evidenced by the Gallup polls at 7%. But Ron Paul's foreign policy, there's nobody, no other Republican running on that nomination dais up there in any of these debates that has a foreign policy that's anywhere near Ron Paul's. Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, none of them blame the United States for Iran nuking up. None of them blame the United States for 9/11. I love the way these Ron Paul supporters try to tell us who is or who isn't conservative, when Paul is a Libertarian. Ron Paul's a Libertarian, used to belong to that party but knows he can't win as a Libertarian so he comes over and joins the Republican Party. He says he could relate to and understand the Occupiers. The Tea Party doesn't think that.

"Boy, Rush, now you've really done it. Now you've run around and attacked Ron Paul." I didn't attack Ron Paul. I'm simply telling you what is. There's a big difference here. I was the one who was attacked. My callers are gunning for me today, folks. I am a shaken host here. Not stirred, but shaken. Hanging tough. But none of the GOP, apart from Ron Paul, blames Wall Street for the recession. Ron Paul does. Where is this common ground between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum and Bachmann? Have you seen Santorum's face when Ron Paul's describing his foreign policy? Santorum's waving his arms trying to get in there and respond to it. Who's next? I can't believe what Snerdley is finding out there today.

I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh anymore but he's exactly 100% correct on Ron Paul. This man's political views does not square with either the TEA Party or conservatism. Ron Paul was never a conservative in the first place and he will never be. The kind of people that Ron Paul surrounds himself with and receives support from are not the kind of people the TEA Party want to associate with. Moreover, Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy is not a position that conservatives or TEA party supports nor has it ever been. His foreign policy views are what the far left supports and as such he's well liked by some ant-war organizations and people. If you don't believe me, look at the foreign policy views of his son, Rand Paul. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  

The point is that Ron Paul will never win the GOP nomination or the Presidency. He's run for President twice before and failed miserably at it. He will lose again and then fade into political obscurity after that.

The Impressive Mental Gymnastics Of The Anybody But Mitt Crowd

Republicans appear to have two choices for the upcoming 2012 Presidential Primaries: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. To me, right  choice for conservatives is pretty clear and obvious. However, the anybody but Mitt Romney crowd will go to great lengths to avoid making obvious choice and will use the most amazing mental gymnastics to justify their support for Newt Gingrich:

He’s a former Speaker of the House, a well-connected ex-congressman who came to Washington in the late 1970s and never left.

Yet at a time when the GOP grassroots seethes with resentment of the D.C. political establishment and venerates outsiders, they love Newt Gingrich for it.

The disconnect is so obvious that at event after campaign event, many of his supporters freely admit their opinions are hard to square. 

Here's a good example of the kind of mental gymnastics a "conservative" voter has to perform in order to justify his support for Newt:

In Iowa, Jim Carley, an Altoona tea party leader and state legislative candidate, doesn’t see Gingrich as the type of insider who causes problems. He’s still weighing his options, but has narrowed his choices down to Gingrich and Santorum.

“He’s been a Washington man and he knows where the bodies are. He knows how to get through the minefield,” Carley said. “Basically, he is an outsider. His inside-ness was years ago.”

How many years ago did Newt Gingrich lose his inside-ness and became an outsider of Washington D.C? 

Was it his time serving as Georgia’s 6th District Congressman from 1979 to 1999? Is the various different advocacy and for-profit groups he has created? Was it in 2001 when he began his first consulting lobbying contract with a  plastics company? Was it in 2003 when he was working as lobbyist for drug companies on Capitol Hill? Was it in the eight years between 1999 to 2007 when he was a paid lobbyist who made between $1.6 and $1.8 million in consulting Fannie and Freedie Mac just before the housing bubble burst due to by buying or guaranteeing sub-prime mortgages and other risky mortgages? Was it when Newt Gingrich made $300,000 consulting to a major ethanol lobbying group in 2009?

Please, I'd like to know when Newt lost his inside-ness and became an Washtington outsider. 

Unlike Newt Gingrich who is the ultimate D.C. insider and is a career politician,  Mitt Romney is the ultimate outsider since he's never served in Washington D.C. despite failing to get elected to Congress in. Moreover, Mitt Romney is not a career politician. He's only served four years as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. Yet, despite his one term as a politician, he was able to do amazing things in office. He's got a great economic record when it comes to job creation, taxes and fees, and getting the state of Massachusetts out of a $3 billion deficit to a $2 billion surplus. Prior to those four years, Mitt Romney has been a successful business man for over 27 years.

Another example of the extraordinary mental gymnastics the anybody but Mitt crowd uses comes from a Public Policy Poll released today:

“One reason Gingrich is moving ahead of Romney in Iowa? 42% of voters say they would have major concerns about a candidate who supported an individual mandate for health care to just 34% who say they’d have major concerns about a candidate who cheated on his spouse.”

The cognitive dissonance is jaw dropping. These Iowa voters, I am assuming, are unhappy with RomneyCare yet they're willing to support Newt Gingrich despite the fact that he supported the idea of individual mandates long before Mitt Romney implemented it in his health care plan. Many years later when Mitt Romney adopted the Heritage Foundation's proposal to implement the individual mandate at the state level, Newt Gingrich became a fan of RomneyCare.

The facts are clear. Newt Gingrich was for individual mandates long and promoted it long before Mitt Romney, did. 

Yet, voters are somehow angry with Mitt Romney over the individual mandates. Amazing. 

Many of the anybody but Romney crowd are strong social conservatives. Once again, they have to employ some gold medal mental contortions to justify opposition to Mitt Romney. First they rallied around Herman Cain until they quickly abandoned him due to unproven claims infidelity only to quickly embrace Newt Gingrich who has led a life of infidelity. He also lived a life of hypocrisy by going after President Clinton's infidelities while at the same time, secretly carrying on his own infidelities. Even more astounding, his excuse for  unfaithfulness as a husband was the result of working too hard for America.

Its obvious that the anybody but Mitt crowd, social conservatives and Gingrich supporters going to great lengths to avoid making obvious choice of supporting Mitt Romney in this election since he's the dream candidate for social conservatives. He is the most appealing candidate since he's been a strong family man since he's been married once to the same woman for 42 years. No sexual harassment charges against him. No accusations of adultery. Romney has been able to create the ideal family: stable marriage, stable family, stable job, great home and lots of grandchildren. He's pro-life, opposes gay marriage and is a strong supporter of the family.

Not only is Mitt Romney a family man but he's an ethical man. Unlike Newt Gingrich,  who is a corrupt politician who has had approximately 84 ethical violations against him while he was Speaker of the House, Mitt Romney has never been found to violate any ethical rules as a businessman or as govenor of Massachusetts. 

Finally, the last example of world class mental gymanstics the anybody but Mitt crowd uses to justify their support for Newt is that he is the most electable candidate who can defeat President Obama. Once again, Public Policy Poling has the stats to prove how irrational these people are: 

Electability is not usually a trait you would associate with Newt Gingrich but 33% of Republicans think he would be the candidate with the best chance to defeat Barack Obama with Mitt Romney at 23% and no one else hitting double digits. 57% of voters say they're most concerned with a candidate's stand on the issues to 34% who are most concerned about getting the candidate who can beat Obama.

Those who think Newt Gingrich can defeat Obama are only fooling themselves.

Given Newt Gingrich numerous adulterous affairs, a mountain of ethical violations, flip flops, long career in D.C., relentless lobbying, its no wonder that the attack ads the Democratic party are planning if Newt wins the Republican nomination can easily be written on their own. Moreover, Newt Gingrich has served such as long career in Washington D.C. that Nancy Pelosi is eager to leak the information to the media: 

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich," Pelosi told TPM. "I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

According to the TPM story, Pelosi "joked" the information would come out "when the time's right."

Despite the fact that leaking such information is against House Rules, this information will come out in such a way that it cannot be traced back to Nancy Pelosi. 

Its clear that Newt Gingrich will have no chance against Obama once the public gets educated by the media and the Democrats on the specifics of Gingrich's baggage. Thus, they are seriously deluding themselves if they think Newt Gingrich has a chance of defeating Obama in 2012.

Dick Morris explains on the Hannity Show why Newt Gingrich will be unable to defeati Obama:

"Let's analyze this race: ... The other two factors that are wild cards are popularity and electability. The Fox News Poll had two pieces of information that are potentially dangerous for Newt: 1) Who is the most likable of the candidates? Romney 26%, Cain 25%, and Gingrich 9%. 2) Who do you think has the best chance of beating Obama? Romney 37% and Gingrich 18%. In the current environment where Obama is considered way down and easily beatable, voters can say I'll vote for either of them. But if the general election race tightens up, that could impel people to move toward Romney."
~ Dick Morris, the Hannity Show, Dec. 5th

Given the mental pretzles that Gingrich supporters undergo to convince themselves into supporting Newt Gingrich, Public Policy Polling shows that this comes at a price of not being strongly loytal to him: 

66% of Romney's remaining supporters in Iowa are strongly committed to him.  62% of Paul's supporters are strongly committed to him. But only 49% of Gingrich's supporters say they'll definitely vote for him. Newt's support is comparatively weak.  And the second choice of Gingrich voters? For 26% of them it's none other than Mitt Romney to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and 13% for Paul. So if Gingrich's campaign does fade over the course of December we could end up with Romney back at the top, just like was expected all along.

Its clear that the anybody but Mitt Crowd is irrational given the diversity of somersaults and cartwheels they  have to perform in order to tolerate the cognitive dissonance between their conservative views and their support of Newt Gingrich.

Presdential Elections Are Not American Idol Contests

With the first Republican primary only weeks away, many people are complaining that candidates like Mitt Romney aren't just "exciting" enough: 

Talk to any Republican leaders or strategists and they will quickly point to the enthusiasm gap between their voters and President Obama’s as one reason they believe they will prevail next November. Listen to any Republican voters and a different enthusiasm gap appears. They are not truly excited about any of their likeliest nominees, least of all Mitt Romney.

The former Massachusetts governor is rapidly becoming a one-man political experiment, testing the theory that empathy and the ability to connect with voters are prerequisites for a winning campaign. He has many attributes, but firing up a Republican crowd isn’t one of them.

When it comes to selecting a person who will hold the most powerful office in the world, excitability should be on the bottom of the list of list qualities we want in a President. Yet, everyone, including conservatives, think that "excitability" should be top quality a candidate should posses. 

John Schroeder, in an article for Article IV blog, writes that the conservative desire for an exciting candidate is a serious problem for the GOP party and America:

There are a couple of troubling aspects to this trend.  Firstly, it seems to say that we are not impressed with ourselves.  We are the party of competence, not “sex appeal” – the grown-ups in the room.  When we go chasing stuff like this we seem to forget that fundamental aspect of what it means to be a conservative Republican.  There is no question that image and media matter in electoral politics, but it is up to us to shape them to our goals, not to be shaped by them.

Which brings me to the second and more troubling issue.  There simply is no greater evidence of where chasing image gets you than the current administration.  Incompetent and petulant on levels previously incomprehensible for the office of POTUS, we are witnessing a triumph of charisma over substance.  Charisma may help get you elected, but it is not worth the electrons it is transmitted by when it comes to actually governing. 

There is a huge difference between a candidate and a president. People seem to forget that being a candidate is not a job or a position. Yet, the Presidency is. 

A candidate is just a temporary label we use for someone who is seeking the office of President. Some candidates drop out of the race. Many don't get the job. Only a few men have been successful in becoming President of the United States. 

Its important to remember that there are skills and qualifications that may make a person an exciting candidate but they're not necessary for being a President. In fact, many of those skills are not in the job description for being a President.

It is a tough and very demanding job that requires a extremely high level of experience and competency.   Presidents have to make tough decisions on a wide variety of subjects, both domestic and foreign, such as the economy, national security, immigration and education. The President is also the Commander In Chief who oversees the armed forces.

Does America really want an exciting yet incompetent President? That’s what we got with Obama and look how that is going. Do we really want another four years of Obama as President? 

I want a candidate with experience and ideas, not a rock star politician. Yet, we're looking for the "American Idol" President. We’re a fickle society with a very short attention span. Look at current crop of conservative candidates. Bachmann, Perry and Cain were all flashes in the pan. They were the Republican flavor of the month. Newt is the current pick of these American idol conservatives.

Mitt Romney may be boring but he's extremely qualified for the job of President. He's not a rock star candidate. He's the serious and mature candidate America needs.

I don’t want the Republican party to nominate someone based on their rock star appeal and not on substance, ideas or positions. Yet, that is what the Republican party appears to have become. The only consistency that the American idol conservatives, also known as the Anybody But Romney crowd, is how quickly they betray and flip flop on the core issues and values they claim to cherish and hold dear.

I don't want an exciting President. If a president is boring, I'm ok with that just as long as he is extremely qualified and competent to be the President of the United States. 

America needs to grow up and take the election seriously by focusing on the candidate's resume rather how exciting he is.

Presidential elections are NOT American Idol contest. Lets not turn it into one.

Herman Cain To Endorse Newt Gingrirch

I'm not surprised since its one lying adulterer endorsing another adulterer. Do you know who this benefits?  The non-lying and non-adulterer Romney.

UPDATE 12/4/11: Huffington Post has reported that Can advisors are denying these rumors of him endorsing Newt Gingrich: 

Conflicting reports surfaced Sunday evening regarding a possible endorsement by embattled GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, in favor of current front-runner Newt Gingrich.

Fox 5 Atlanta tweeted Sunday evening that Cain was set to endorse Gingrich on Monday for the GOP nomination. Minutes later, National Journal's Lindsey Boerma had word from the Cain campaign that "there's nothing to report he'll endorse someone tomorrow."

Cain announced on Saturday afternoon that he was suspending his presidential run, in light of being accused of having an extramarital affair and facing a slew of sexual harassment charges. Cain has actively denied any wrongdoing.

Politico adds that Gingrich has added media availability to his schedule, suggesting that the event could be held in New York.

If these rumors are true, it would destroy any credibility that Herman Cain had because in yesterday's speech when he announced that he was suspending his campaign, Cain blasted corrupt politicians who've been in Washington too long and yet he might be endorsing one.