Herman Cain: Romney's $10,000 Bet Was Not A Gaffe

Herman Cain went on Fox News the other day to explain that Mitt's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry was not a gaffe despite the media's attempt to make it into one. Watch the clip below:

People are still talking about Romney's bet. Some people think it was a simple bet made only to demonstrate how strongly Mitt Romney felt about Rick Perry's erroneous claims about the difference between his hardcover and paperback editions of his book. Some people, like me, may think that there more behind it than just a simple bet. 

Are liberals and the media manufacturing a gaffe here when there really was no gaffe on Mitt Romney's part in the first place? Personally, I think Herman Cain hits the nail on the head and is 100% accurate that Mitt's bet was not a gaffe at all. I'd go one step further and argue that the media is hypocritical and quite selective about its outrage over Romney's bet when other expensive and high profile bets have taken place on television.

How Badly Will Newt Lose To Obama And Why Republicans Should Not Vote For Newt In 2012

Ladies and Gentlemen, the time grows closer and closer to the beginning of the 2012 Republican primaries.

Before I talk about the 2012 Republicans, I want to remind people about the 2008 Republican primaries because I fear that we haven't learned from that last election.

During the 2008 election, John McCain's campaign was almost dead during months prior to the first Republican primaries. Mitt Romney was set to win the Republican nomination until Senator McCain won the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries. He made an agreement with Mike Huckabee, who was also running for President, to give his delegates to McCain's team in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning that state.

With Super Tuesday coming closer, virtually almost all of the top conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher and other conservative talk show hosts were strongly telling people on their radio show to stop McCain in his tracks and vote for Mitt Romney because McCain was not a conservative and would most likely lose to Obama in the 2008 election. Sure enough, despite heeding the warnings of talk show conservatives, conservative authors like Ann Coulter and religious authorities, Republican voters chose to give the nomination to John McCain on Super Tuesday.

Just as so many conservatives predicted and warned, Barak Obama defeated John McCain by a wide margin. Obama got 365 of the electoral college votes while McCain only got a meager 173 votes. Moreover, Obama won the popular vote by 53% to McCain's 46%.

Once again, many conservatives, such as myself, are sounding the warning bell to conservative voters to NOT vote for Newt Gingrich. Even libertarians are urging people not to vote for Newt.

Like John McCain, Newt Gingrich will lose the 2012 election against Barak Obama. I'm predicting that Newt Gingrich will lose by a bigger margin than McCain did in 2008. I'm predicting that Gingrich will be comparable to Jimmy Carter's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Walter Mondale's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Michael Dukasis' loss to George H.W. Bush in 1988. It will be that bad.

Lets review what would happen in the 2012 general election and beyond if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination. 

1.  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.

2. 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. 

 3. 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.

However, This wouldn't be the first time Newt would cause major losses in these elections. Lets not forget how the House Republicans kicked him out as Speaker after he single-handedly alienated both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, along with much of the American public, resulting in the biggest loss of Republicans seats in the House in 64 years. How bad was Newt Gingrich for the Republican party? 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.

By the time of the 1996 election, Gingrich had become a drag on the nationwide Republican brand. Consider the following chart, which tracks Gingrich’s favorable rating in the 1996 exit poll, by two metrics. First, it looks at his approval rating among all voters, and among only Bob Dole voters. Second, it looks at his approval rating nationwide and in Georgia.

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.

If Newt Gingrich is nominated in the 2012 primaries, he will cause conservative candidates running in these elections to lose. He will push the Republican wave back.

3.  Voting for Newt Gingrich will discredit and destroy social conservative which will harm them for many years to come. Social Conservatives will not be able to 

4. Newt Gingrich would perform poorly in debates against Obama. Why conservatives think a Teddy Roosevelt progressive intellectual like Newt would be a good match with the FDR progressive intellectual like Obama at the debates is beyond me. Having a debate between two intellectuals is a bad match for Conservatives. Newt might be able to handle Obama in a debate, but his personality and his past will offset whatever strengths Newt has in the debating room. 

5. 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.

Newt Gingrich is the most repulsive, toxic, controversial, and dangerous candidate for Republican party. I'm surprised that people have even given him a first or a second look in this election. Electing Newt would be the kiss of death for the Republican party. Yet, there are many who irrationally insist that conservatives vote for Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney in the 2012 primaries. They use convoluted logic to justify their reasons for why we should vote for him despite the fact that he has so much baggage and issues that he will be a major liability for Republicans in 2012. Moreover, Newt Gingrich will erase all the progress the Republicans have made and damage the Republican brand for a long time.

That is why its no surprise that talk radio show host Micheal Savage has offered $1 million dollars to Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race. If Newt wants to do something good for America, he would be wise to take that money.

If Gingrich wins the Republican nomination and loses to Barak Obama in 2012, I will repost this article on the day to remind conservatives and Republicans that many of us sounded the warning bell against Newt but you refused to listen to our warnings just as you did in 2008. Those of you who have supported and will vote for Newt Gingrich will have no one but to blame but yourselves.

However, it is not too late to stop Newt Gingrich. The best way to do that is that everyone should ignore whatever Newt says in debates and interviews.  Moreover, not a single penny should be donated to his campaign, not a single person in any state should show up at his any of his campaign stops, no one should ever buy his books and most importantly, do not vote for him in any of the Republican primaries. You, the Republican voter in New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Florida have the power to stop Newt in his tracks by voting for Mitt Romney. 

As I said before, the goal of 2012 is to defeat Obama in 2012. The best way to do that is to unite around Mitt Romney who can not only beat Obama, but lead the country after he's elected in 2012.

There May Be Something More To Romney's $10,000 Bet With Rick Perry

A lot of people are still making a fuss about Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry during the Iowa Debates. It has been brought to my attention that Romney was intentionally making subtle reference to some recent high profile bets that have been taking place. 

It may have been a reference to a bet was made between Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling for $10,000 that President Obama could beat either Romney or Gingrich in the 2012 general election. 

Mitt Romney could have also been referring to a bet that was placed between US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Ted Balestreri, a co-owner of the Sardine Factory restaurant in Mr Panetta's home town of Monterey. They made a bet that if Leon Panetta tracked down Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Balestri would open his oldest wine bottle in his collection. The bottle, a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild from 1870, is worth $10,000.

Romney might have also been referring to a bet that took place on Bill O'Reily's Fox News television show, The Factor. A few years ago, The Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen was on Bill O’Reilly’s show and demanded that CNN fire Lou Dobbs​ because he believed that he was giving in accurate reports on the issue of immigration. In response, O’Reilly was absolutely confident that CNN would not respond to Mr. Cohen's request to fire Lou Dobbs that he was willing to bet Cohen $10,000.

Mitt Romney may have had another high profile bet in mind that I have not mentioned. However, it doesn't matter what event Mitt Romney was alluding to when he made that bet with Rick Perry. 

What does matter is that $10,000 bet was not a spontaneous offer by Mitt Romney but appears to have been planned before hand. Romney could have offered Rick Perry a $10 or a $500,000 bet, yet he chose the $10,000 amount. 

Why did he choose that amount?  The Romney team probably expected the media and liberals to jump on Mitt Romney for making a huge bet in a time when our country's economy isn't doing well. With this in mind, they laid out a trap that would expose the media and liberal hypocrisy over the outrage that would surely come once he made that bet because they didn't express any outrage at any of the high profile, public and expensive bets that have been placed since the housing market collapsed in 2008.  

Please note that Bob Beckel is a well known liberal who makes a frequent appearance on Fox News and there was no outrage by liberals or the media when he made that bet. Likewise, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen is a liberal who attempted to collect on Bill O'Reilly's bet.

It appears that that this bet was designed to highlight two things: (1) Rick Perry was not being truthful about the changes made in Romney's hardback and paperback editions of his book, No Apology and (2) to highlight the hypocrisy behind the media's outrage towards the bet that would have surely come as soon as that bet was offered. 

Regardless if Mitt Romney was just making a bet with Rick Perry that he knew Rick Perry would lose or if he also did it to intentionally highlight the expected hypocrisy from liberal commentators and news reporters, the hypocrisy exist. And the media may deny that the hypocrisy exists but America will see it.

Rick Perry Would Have Lost Mitt Romney's $10,000 Bet

Much is being made of Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet on last night's Iowa Republican debate. Many people are focusing on the amount Romney put up for the bet and blasting him for being wealthy enough to put up that kind of money while others are criticizing him for making a childish bet. 

The point of the bet was to prove that Rick Perry was being dishonest in his false claim that there are with differences between hardcover and paperback editions of Romney's book regarding Mitt's position about his own health health care plan. Had Rick Perry accepted that bet, he would have lost. 

The Washington Post fact checked Perry's claim and found that Rick Perry would have lost that bet:

This is when Romney offered to make a $10,000 bet and Perry declined to take it. Smart man, because he would have lost the money.

We explored this issue before when Perry made this claim in a television ad, giving Perry Three Pinocchios. And here is a PDF of the paperback edition showing the pages in question.

Perry is making a phony claim.

It is clear that the hardcover edition was written when Obama’s health-care plan was still a work in progress. For instance, Romney spends some time denouncing the idea of a public option as “government-supplied insurance.” The paperback was published after the health-care law was passed, so the paragraphs on the public option — which had been abandoned by Obama — are dropped.

Romney also must have sensed that GOP anger at Obama’s health-care law might make his own signature legislative achievement less attractive to Republican voters, so he added a few paragraphs emphasizing how the Democratic governor who followed him made changes in the law that he did not approve of. But otherwise the changes are minimal — the standard updating that takes place in paperback nonfiction books.

The non-partisan website PolitiFact.com says Rick Perry's claim is mostly false:

Perry's grievance is with differences between hardcover and paperback editions of Romney's book. We've combed through Chapter 7 of both.

Romney's changes to the book have been explored before, by Boston political journalist David S. Bernstein. He noted in February 2011 that Romney had added harsher language on the national health care law as passed: "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and, "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."

Romney more clearly explained ways that he disagreed with implementation of the Massachusetts law.

He also changed this line, which came after a paragraph touting the success of the Massachusetts health plan:

Hardcover: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

To:

Paperback: "And it was done without government taking over health care."

The deleted 11 words, "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country" are the crux of Perry's argument. His campaign sent e-mail the day after the debate with a link highlighting precisely that change.

It looks suspicious, right? Perhaps Romney did extol every piece of his Massachusetts plan, individual mandate and all, for every state in the union.

But here's the original quote with full context from Page 177 of the hardcover: 

"My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state 'laboratories of democracy' could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition.

"What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It's portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

Romney's not really saying the Massachusetts law "should be the model for the country," the way that Perry describes it. He's in fact presenting a defense of state-level choice. It's like a shout-out to other state leaders: Hey, you can have what Massachusetts has!

And it's consistent with what Romney fired back at Perry in the Sept. 22, 2011 debate: "This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan." And with how he characterized his own book in the most recent debate: "I say, in my view, each state should be able to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens."
Romney did support Massachusetts' individual mandate. But we don't see evidence in his hardcover book that he supported a federal one, much less that he removed such a reference from later editions.

Other news outlets have fact checked Perry's claim and have found that Rick Perry would have lost that bet. However, too many people are focusing on Romney's bet rather than on the fact that Rick Perry has repeatedly made a claim that can be factually to be proven false. The good news is that despite the fact that Rick Perry declined to take that bet, he lost in that exchange because he keeps pushing a claim against Romney that has been debunked before. Rick Perry doesn't care about the truth, he only wants to hurt Mitt Romney. 

This plan will backfire on Rick Perry because voters care more about the truth rather than scoring political points or scaring voters into not voting for that candidate.

21 Reasons Why Newt Gingrich Won't Be President

The Washington Post has an article out listing 21 Reasons why Newt Gingrich Will not become President in 2012. Here's their list of reasons:

1. Previously supported a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions, and even filmed a commercial alongside Nancy Pelosi to that effect;

2. Previously supported a health-care plan with an individual mandate;

3. Proposed blasting North Korea with -- wait for it -- lasers;

4. Took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac;

5. Began the campaign with six figures in debt to Tiffany’s;

6. Carried on an extramarital affair with a House staffer 20-years his junior during the Clinton impeachment trial (they’re now married);

7. Tried to explain away said extramarital affair by saying, “There’s no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate”;

8. Sribbled a note describing himself as an “Advocate of civilization, defender of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who form civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, and leader ‘possibly’ of the civilizing forces”;

9. Worked for ethanol and pharmaceutical interests;

10. Supported the TARP bailout;

11. Is loathed by almost every conservative thought leader writing today;

12. and by most every member of the Republican and libertarian/conservative political establishments;

13. Called Paul Ryan’s budget “right-wing social engineering” and then, two days later, said, “The budget vote is one that I’m happy to say I would have voted for...So, let me say on the record: Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood”;

14. Called for “a massive new program to build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the Moon’s resources”;

15. Called child labor laws “truly stupid”;

16. Suggested that “a mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways”;

17. Said that “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama” is that “[Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]”;

18. Was fined $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee for offering “incomplete, unreliable, and inaccurate” information during an investigation of a for-profit college course he developed while serving in Congress;

19. Helped the GOP lose the 1995 government-shutdown showdown by saying that “part of why you ended up with us sending down a tougher continuing resolution” was that he didn’t get good enough seats on Air Force One;

20. Was a dues-paying member of the Sierra Club;

21.  Supported the 1989 Global Warming Prevention Act, which included a provision encouraging the U.N. to work to control population growth through, among other methods, family-planning services

I'll add my own reasons why conservatives should not allow Newt Gingrich to win the GOP nomination tomorrow. But keep these 21 reasons in mind when watching the Republican debate tonight at Drake University, which will take place at 9 pm ET tonight on ABC.

Why Independent or Republican Voters Should Not Support Ron Paul In 2012

I have invited a fellow blogger Aaron F. Park, who writes articles for the blog Right On Daily, to be a guest blogger on my blog today.  

Below are his thoughts on why no Republican or Independent voter should ever vote for Ron Paul:

I have a lot of Conservative friends that love Ron Paul – I get railed on with the “Constitution” every time I dare speak up against Ron Paul. I get sick, and it is disturbing to me that many good conservatives are getting led down the garden path by a charlatan like Ron Paul.

Before I even get in to his blatant hypocrisy and double-spoken lies I start with Ron Paul’s contempt for the greatest Republican of recent history – in 1987 Ron Paul said that the Reagan Administration was a “Dramatic Failure”. Now, Paul attempts to invoke Ronald Reagan in his ads!

Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in 2008 – stating that he could find nothing in common with McCain. John McCain scored 90% and 100% from the American Conservative Union in 2009/2010. Ron Paul preferred instead to endorse Cynthia McKinney – the Green Party Nominee and Ralph Nader, the far-left Attorney that was the Independent Nominee.

Ron Paul is one of the largest contradictions in political history – all the while piously pointing a finger of judgment at Mitt Romney.

The Congressman says he supports a strong national defense and emphasizes his military service, but he was an Air Force doctor. Today he wants to cut $1 trillion out of the Pentagon budget which would end all modernization and readiness programs. He would abandon NATO and abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

He would give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel – under the guise of stopping foreign aid. 85% of the money given to Israel is military support.

Ron Paul claims to be pro life – and attacks Mitt Romney for his record on the life issue. Problem – it was Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney that scored 65%, 75%, 65% from NARAL from 2004-2006. Romney was given a perfect 0 by Naral in his 2007-2008 Presidential bid.

While accusing other Republicans of being liars – here is part of Ron Paul’s record on the truth: Paul falsely claims - Palestinians are starving and confined to a “concentration camp”; the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the first Afghan War; the CIA is behind the sale of illegal drugs; there is an “international conspiracy” focused on the non-existent North American Union.

… and this idiot wants to be President!?

I’m not done.

Anti-Iran Resolution? – No.
Unborn Victims of Violence Act? – No
Welfare Reform in 1996? – No
Congressional Earmarks – YES! One of only 4 Republicans in 2011 to request Earmarks!
Free Trade? – No
Open Borders? – YES! Received an “F” rating from Numbers USA in 2012  - only one Republican scored worse than Ron Paul
Legalize Drugs – YES! (state’s rights, you know)
Defense of Marriage Act? – No (State’s Rights, once again)
Taxpayer Funded Abortion? – Yes! (State’s Rights)

Ron Paul believes that the 10^th amendment gives him the right to vote Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Pro-Narcotics and grandstand as Pro-Life, Pro-family and Pro-Health!

Ron Paul is a colossal fraud. The claims that he is insane derive from the conspiracy theories he espouses from the lectern – and only a small part are relayed here.

The Coup’d’etat??? Ron Paul received an 80% rating from the ACLU in 2011.

Mr. Paul’s record is so far out of the AMERICAN mainstream that no one in the Center, Center-Right or on the Right should ever take him seriously.

Glenn Beck: Do Your Research On Newt Gingrich

After Glenn Beck had Newt Gingrich on his radio show a few days ago, Judge Andrew Napolitano had Beck come on to his Fox News television show to give his thoughts about some of the 2012 candidates. Glenn Beck was not thrilled with the idea of having Newt Gingrich become the Republican nominee and challenged Tea Party people everywhere to really examine Newt's record and ideas. 

Watch Glenn Beck talk about Newt below: 

Glenn Beck is absolutely correct that Newt Gingrich is a Progressive. He's not a liberal progressive but a conservative one. I absolutely disagree with Beck when he says that "Gingrich and Obama are the same - progressives - if you like Gingrich, but don't like Obama, it must be about race." They are not exactly the same enough and one can like Gingrich but not like Obama for reasons other than race.

However, despite that both of these men are different politically and philosophically, they are on the same page when it comes to big government getting involved in people's lives in a profound way. Both of them want big government to implement their conservative progressive or liberal progressive vision.

I also disagree with Beck in his assessment that Romney "loves government." Mitt Romney isn't a conservative progressive like Newt. Unlike Newt, Mitt really does favor a smaller, smarter government, likes to run a government that is not in debt and that can provide a strong military to protect our country. 

However, I agree that the everyone, not just the TEA party people, should really be examining, researching and learning all they can about Newt because once they find out about Newt, they won't vote for him. They will not want Newt to be the President. Ever. 

In contrast, if people do their due diligence in learning about Mitt Romney, people will find that he's the candidate that America needs. Glenn Beck clearly hasn't done his homework on Mitt Romney. If he did, he wouldn't be saying that it will kill him to vote for Romney but he he'd be happy to do it.