Bret Baier: Romney complained that my questions were "uncalled for"

Fox News' Bret Baier discussed his contentious interview with Mitt Romney on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. Needless to say, Baier was a bit surprised at Mitt's objections to some fairly standard questions.

Politico reports:

"I think Gov. Romney didn't like the way the interview went," Baier said, adding that Romney told him he thought it was "overly aggressive" at points during their "walk-and-talk" after the interview, and that Romney emerged from his holding area to stress the point later.

Baier said Romney told him some of the questions were "uncalled for."

This isn't the first time Romney has blown his stack following an interview. The following video is of an argument Mitt had with Jan Mickelson following an interview on his radio talk show on Aug 2, 2007 on WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa. Romney asserts that he was on hidden camera.

Child labor: Is Newt right?

Newt Gingrich is a master of controversy. From throwing a tantrum over his seat at Air force one, to lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, to doing an ad with Pelosi. He's done it again: Newt Gingrich has suggested the US should again legalise child labor, and allow children to work in schools as janitors for example.

Many conservatives think this is a bold move, and clearly that's why Gingrich suggested it. He's trying to be brave and innovative, and show of his intellectuality. Or maybe he's just suffering from foot-in-mouth disease.

Either way, this raises an interesting question: Is Gingrich right? Is there a case to be made for legalising child labor?

Yes.

Just not here.

Let me explain. In developing countries, wages are very low. This is because production is low, and wages are a function of (among other things) production. In such countries, parents may find they can't provide for their kids and so they have to send their kids to work. The alternative, simply, would be starvation. You may ask yourself why parents get kids during these conditions, and the answer is typically that kids provide for you when you can no longer work yourself (ie they pay your pension), and also that with the lack of contraceptives, it's not really a choice at all. If you're a married couple, doing what married couples do, you'll end up with kids sooner or later.

Newt Gingrich: The Globalist

H/T Christina

The Newt Gingrich candidacy has spured exitement with those individuals and groups who have a Global view of a civil society and Global Governance:

Now, just how does NEWT GINGRICH, fit into the increasing momentum of the global governance agenda? He was, bluntly, an “early adopter.” In 1996 before he left Congress in scandal, he was putting together incredibly linked global governance networks. According to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s 2004 Princeton University Press book, A NEW WORLD ORDER:

“When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he was convinced that parliamentary networks would give domestic legislators a new role in foreign policy. In 1996 he sent a letter to his Russian counterpart, Gennadyy Seleznyov, to create a forum made up of members of U.S. and Russian legislatures to discuss issues of defense, foreign policy, energy, and the environment on a regular basis. The result was the U.S. Congress-Russian Duma Study Group.”

Newt Gingrich did this at the “legislative level.” His very good friend and New Age buddy, Al Gore, did likewise at the executive level. According to Anne-Slaughter, “The [Gore’s]commission created a special channel to advance not only common political objectives but also to enhance each politician’s political position at home.” (emphasis added) (Slaughter, A NEW WORLD ORDER, p. 114)

Read the whole article HERE.

Gee, with a background like this, I'm surprised President Obama hasn't seriously considered Newt as a potential running mate for his second term.

The following video, "The Real Newt Gingrich" is a chronological history of Newt Gingrich's time in Congress:

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Condescension

From my last post on the brainwashing of Fox News viewers, I received some criticism for condescending to a certain group of people. Please think with me for a moment about this.

I proposed that Fox News is brainwashing its audience. I used as one example (although there is a forest of full of low hanging fruit from which to pluck) the fact that Greta Van Sustereen was "confused" as to why Barack Obama would spend all of his campaign money attacking Romney and not Gingrich. I backed up my example by laying out a summary of the mammoth-sized assortment of empirical data that shows that Gingrich would be a terrible candidate and Romney would not. I proposed that data wasn't even necessary to understand a Gingrich candidacy. There is a general understanding of how moderates and independents think that should come into play. A person who is "confused" about Obama's campaign attacks vis-a-vis Gingrich is a person who doesn't understand the outside world. It is a person who dwells all day in an echo chamber and never gets out long enough to view the world like everybody else.

Now there are two possibilities. Either Greta is dumb in that she doesn't reads polls and doesn't understand the outside world or she is deliberately trying to misinform/gratify her audience. I don't think that Greta is dumb. The latter option we call brainwashing.

Now if this were an isolated incidence, then it would not justify me making broad generalizations about an entire news network. However, it is not an isolated incidence. I do not have the time or energy to link all of the research that shows that Fox News misinforms its audience. The evidence is breathtaking in both scope and detail. However, here is the latest poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind Poll (with links to some of that other research) that shows that Fox News viewers are more misinformed than people who watch no news at all.

This is not a surprise to me. Every time I watch Fox News I feel condescended to myself. It's like they really believe their audience is stupid and they can just say whatever they want to say. Fox News has managed to portray Barack Obama as some naive nobody who can't speak without the aid of a teleprompter. Their audience genuinely believes that Newt Gingrich would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. What Fox's audience will see in those debates will be something completely different than what the rest of America will see. Fox News has managed to create an alternative reality, not based upon data and reason (or polls), but based upon the cultural resentment of its target audience. Within the conservative movement, Fox News is the ruling class, where media pundits define the parameters of conservatism and seek to destroy the deviant.

So do I condescend? Not sure, but I am going to be blunt when I am describing the conservative media establishment. Conservatives existed long before there was a Fox and Friends in the morning. We will exist long after. But America needs a credible conservative movement now. Government is just not working. Unfortunately, if responsible Republicans are to lead our country toward necessary reform, they will have to do so despite the significant obstacle of Fox News.

----Update----

Right Wingnut has posted a Rasmussen poll (with an emphasis on the Rasmussen) that shows Gingrich with a two point lead over Obama. Rasmussen has a proven record of skewing to the right, but regardless. I will be more than happy to delete this entire post if I can see a credible trend. And which one poll out of the past 100 do you think that Fox News is going to use to bolster their claim that Obama should be more worried about Newt?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

GOP Immigration Chairman rips Gingrich's Amnesty Plan

The Republican chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus blasted GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for calling to allow some illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

Speaking on CNN’s “John King, USA,” Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) likened the former House Speaker’s plan to drilling a hole in the bottom of a sinking boat to let the water out.

“Newt, I don’t care who you are,” Bilbray said. “Quit sending the mixed message that we are going to somehow reward or accommodate you if you broke the law while there are those waiting patiently and playing by the rules, waiting to come into this country legally.”

The full story is here.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Rasmussen: Gingrich Leads Obama Nationally

There goes Romney's 'electability' argument.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Pollman has more data HERE

Allen West: It's time for Cain to 'move on'

He's right. Cain is proving to be a huge distraction, and needs to get out now while he still has a shred of dignity.

It sounds like West may be leaning toward Newt, based on his commentary.

Gingrich/West 2012?

The Hill reports:

...."Beyond reassessing his campaign, he probably needs to understand that he is a distracter for what's going on right now and we should move on," West told WMAL’s radio show “Morning Majority.”.....

....West said Romney, who has polled at around 24 percent nationally for months, has “hit a plateau” and called Gingrich, who came up from well behind to become a front-runner within the last few weeks, “very viable” as a candidate.....

....Gingrich reportedly mentioned West, along with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), earlier this week as possible vice presidential candidates on his hypothetical ticket.

West said he would have to pray about and discuss the opportunity with his family, but he promised: “If I can make a difference, then I'll answer that call."

Read it all HERE

GINGRICH, the HIGHEST PAID LOBBYIST in WASHINGTON

In the rapidly accelerating world of Gingrich revelations, it is increasingly obvious to all that Newt Gingrich is not marketing his acquired history acumen acquired as a Professor at West Georgia College to dozens of major American companies. The $ 100 million in fees reported by the NY Times was certainly not paid for an insight into Grant's winning strategy in the Civil War. So what was it paid for?

The definition of a lobbyist is " a person who tries to influence legislators ". This is from the academic Foresman Advanced Dictionary that Gingrich would be familiar with at West Georgia.

After resigning from the Congress upon his fine and condemnation in 1998, Newt began a process of enriching himself by trading on his resume.........not the experience and contacts of a tenured history professor, but the 10 terms in Washington as a " tenured " Congressman. There are an almost limitless number of instances of personal benefit by trading access but lets speak of Newt's role withing the think tank he set up in 2003 called The Center for Health Transformation ( CHT ). This is a For Profit Consultancy with three levels of membership:

1. Charter Members ( 19 ) including:
Astra Zeneca, Blue Cross, Gallup , Glaxo Smith, United Healthcare
These premium members paid an annual dues of $ 200,000 and were promised
" ACCESS to Newt Gingrich on your company's strategy "
Note: The speaker is not noted as a business strategist, having never run a
business. What Gingrich does have is a congressional Rolodex of political
and legislative contacts of obvious value to these clients.

2. Platinum Members ( 7 ) including Barr Laboratories, Integris Health, etc.
These platinum members paid annual dues between $ 20,000 and $ 200,000 and were
promised " LIMITED Access to Newt Gingrich on your companies strategy"

3. Premium Members ( 35 ) including ALL medical companies . These members paid as little
as $ 20,000 annually, but, importantly , were promised no access to Newt Gingrich

So, we have an assortment of major companies paying significant annual fees to a FOR PROFIT company for access to:
a. One another
b. Newt Gingrich

It is important to point out that CHT states that " it does NOT provide lobbying services nor directly or indirectly participate in lobbying activities of any kind " That is NOT to say that such activities are not provided by Newt Gingrich. Certainly, a $ 55 million dollars in pharmaceutical industry " dues" to CHT was not paid for strategic advice from a history professor. let's see what Gingrich really did:

Gingrich arranged meetings between healthcare executives and government officials. I multiple presentations to lawmakers Gingrich constantly pitced the services and wares of CHT's clients . for example

In March of 2006, at a Health Transformation Summit in Tallahassee, after listening to a speech by CHT founder, Newt Gingrich, lawmakers got booklets promoting the services of two dozen of CHT's clients and client executives sat on panels with Florida lawmakers. Clearwave, paying CHT $ 50,000 pitched their medical data system
In March of 2004, Gingrich made a presentation to Georgia lawmakers promoting the goods and services of CHT's clients by citing benefits with comments like " Vita Spring could save the State Employee Program $ 20 million per year ."

Gingrich constantly arranged joint meetings with clients and lawmakers . He set up a meeting with top Federal officials so clients could present information on their electronic health records products. Gingrich subsequently reported that there was " very positive feedback overall from the meetings "

In addition to CHT, Gingrich had direct consulting contracts with clients. Millenium Plastics paid Gingrich $ 7500 per month plus stock options to " direct them to the right places and people in Washington "

Gingrich even lobbied directly with Congressmen for legislature. He pressed for passage of a Federal IT healthcare bill with co sponsors, Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy, telling Fox News " we're launching a bill."

No matter your definition of lobbying.........Gingrich, the consummate insider, was and is a world class practitioner of this art of paid access. Gingrich said he wasn't pushing individual mandates in his interview with the Manchester Union Leader. This, as is the case with dozens of other Gingrich statements ....is just not true.

In a healthcare debate with Hillary Clinton in 2005, Gingrich called for a transfer of finances.

Gingrich said, on tape " Some aspect of the working poor has to involve a transfer of finances. To ask people in the lowest paying jobs to bear the full burden of their own health care is just irrational. Unless you have 100 % coverage, you can't have a rational health care system. We have no room in this society to have a free rider approach if you're well off economically. You shouldn't cheat your neighbor. If I see someone who's earning over $ 50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I'm looking at someone who's absolutely irresponsible as anyone who is ever on welfare. Whatever the appropriate income is , you ought to have health insurance or post a bond .

Note: this language is IDENTICAL to the Massachusetts HealthCare rationale that Mitt Romney has been criticized repeatedly for......but Gingrich argued for its NATIONAL adoption.

So......what do we have. According to the dictionary , we have a highly paid lobbyist, trading access in Washington for millions of dollars in client fees and dues. We have an ethically challenged, life time politician who has become far more successful than any of his former colleagues , by doing exactly what sent Jack Abramoff to jail........only doing it better.

Now.........he wants to be President, and many conservatives agree with him

" Core beliefs" according to Joe McQuaid of the Union leader
Care to guess what he had in mind with Gingrich ???

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

CraigS

Newt Gingrich on Health Care Mandates

Newt Gingrich has attacked Mitt Romney on the issue of the individual health insurance mandate, while chalking up his own past support for the idea as an indiscretion in the 1990’s. But as it turns out, those 1990’s stretch all the way to 2005 — and beyond, to 2008 — when Gingrich gave as passionate an explanation of the mandate idea as any current supporter could ever muster.

On his own web site, Gingrich’s campaign explains: “In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.”

The full story is HERE.

In the 1990's huh? What about the middle of the first decade of the 2000's?

Here he is in 2005:



I know, I know, the serial adulterer's, I mean apologist's mea culpa is in the mail.

Now I wouldn't want to be accused of taking his statement out of context, so here is the entire video, if interested:

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Rasmussen Poll: Romney by 10 in New Hampshire

GOP Nomination: (results from October)

Mitt Romney – 34% (41)
Newt Gingrich – 24% (8)
Ron Paul – 14% (11)
John Huntsman – 11% (7)
Herman Cain – 5% (17)
Michele Bachmann – 2% (3)
Rick Perry – 2% (4)
Rick Santorum – 1% (1)

A survey of 762 likely Republican voters was conducted Nov 28. The MOE is +/-4%.

The full story is HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Behind Romney's change of heart on abortion

I came across this article today. I saw it first mentioned at Evangelicals For Mitt, and I went to the original article in the Washington Post. In it the author, Kathleen Parker, talks about what lead to Mitt Romney's change of heart regarding the issue of abortion. I thought I would share a part of it here.

Romney’s own change of heart evolved not from personal experience but rather from a purposeful course of study. I know this because I know the man who instructed him in 2005 on the basics of embryonic life during the stem-cell research debate then taking place in Massachusetts. As governor at the time, Romney was under intense pressure to help flip a state law that protected embryos from stem-cell research. Some of that pressure came from Harvard University, Romney’s alma mater, where scientists hoped to assume a leading role in stem-cell research.
The politically expedient choice was obvious, but Romney took a more thoughtful approach and sought to educate himself before staking out a position. Enter William Hurlbut, a physician and professor of biomedical ethics at Stanford University Medical School. For several hours, Hurlbut and Romney met in the governor’s office and went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and the repercussions of research that targets nascent human life. It was not a light lunch.
The result of that conversation and others was a pro-life Romney, who kept his campaign promise to honor the state’s democratically asserted preference for abortion choice but also began a personal path that happened to serve him well, at least theoretically, among social conservatives. Was his conversion sincere? No one can know another’s heart, but Hurlbut is convinced that it was.
“Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind,” Hurlbut told me. “First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future.
“Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. . . . He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”
Whether one agrees with Hurlbut’s appraisal or Romney’s conclusions, this was at least a flip-flop of a higher order. Would that all our politics were so painstakingly crafted.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

The Irrationality Of The Anybody But Romney Crowd

The goal isn’t to defeat Romney. Its to defeat Obama. However, that isn't the goal of the anti-Romney crew. They want to defeat Romney so badly that they don't care if America gets another four years of President Obama.

It never ceases to amaze me of how irrational the anybody but Mitt crowd is.

They’re willing to accept Newt Gingrich who supported Cap and Trade, medicare plan D prescription medication coverage, and the creation of the TSA. Additionally, he's had approximately 84 ethical violations against him while he was Speaker of the House, cheated on his wives and was a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie who was paid $1.8 million in “consulting fees." Moreover, Newt Gingrich doesn't have the kind of character that conservatives want in the White House.  Finally, if Newt has the opportunity to go against Obama in the general election, he would be most likely to lose the Presidential election in 2012 much like John McCain did in 2008.

They’re willing to accept Herman Cain who has private sector experience but no public sector experiences, cannot articulate a serious foreign policy position on Cuba, Libya  and has accusations (unproven yet) of sexual harassment and adultery. Moreover, his "999" plan would be a disaster for the economy.

They were excited about Rick Perry who supported a force mandate of immunizing young girls against sexually transmitted diseases, cannot debate to save his life and has very little to offer in terms of domestic or foreign policy.

Moreover, the anybody but Mitt crowd was excited about Michelle Bachmann until they realized she has no leadership experience and hasn’t made any major accomplishments in Congress other than being on the Intelligence committee.

Then there’s Rick Santorum whose campaign is barely breathing. He’s a great guy but he has nothing to offer either. For the anybody but Mitt crowd, he’s a great choice. The problem is…he can’t defeat Obama.

It amazes me that these so called "conservatives" have been flip flopping on all these candidates when the best choice is obvious to the rest of us:

Despite President Obama’s horrendous policies and governing record, he nevertheless has a pretty good chance of winning re-election in November 2012, not only because the U.S. economy may be showing some improvement by then, compared to this year, and not only because he will have killed more Al Qaeda leaders than did Mr. Bush, but because the GOP isn’t sufficiently rallying behind the only worthy candidate: Governor Romney. Never underestimate the GOP’s willingness to shoot itself in the foot electorally.
GOP conservatives falsely accuse Romney of “flip-flopping,” even though his character is stellar and his campaign themes have been both good and steady, and even though fickle conservatives themselves have flip-flopped almost weekly, dashing about promiscuously and desperately seeking “anyone but Romney” – first Sarah Palin, then Donald Trump, then Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, and now – the worst of all possible speed dates – Newt Gingrich.

What is so delusional about the anybody but Mitt crowd is that they're willing to support all other severely flawed candidates just to ensure Romney loses this election regardless of the fact that he broad spectrum of appeal democrats, independents, moderates, tea party and conservatives. Jennifer Rubin, in her column for the Washington Post, points out that this unhingedcrowd wants a pure candidate rather than a candidate who is appealing to a wide spectrum of the American people:

The point, you see, is not to advance (incrementally or otherwise) the conservative ball but to remain forever aggrieved. Whatever deal is attainable and whichever candidate is acceptable to a broad cross-section of Americans are almost by definition unacceptable to those voices.

Jennifer Rubin also out that the anybody but Romney has a different yet irrational agenda than the rest of America:

Notice how their interests now diverge from the interests of the party in gaining governing majorities and the White House? They’re only happy if the most flawed candidates survive? Something is amiss. Indeed it is. You’ll hear plenty more of it, and some weird defenses of candidates, any candidate other than Romney, any candidate who couldn’t possibly win. The far right echo chamber is going to be screeching at fever pitch. The rest of the party, and the country at large, will be just fine. 

Lets look at Mitt Romney to see how irrational they are in opposing Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is a fiscal conservative. He's had a long and successful career in business. 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. With his wealth of experience and success in the public and private sector, Mitt Romney has an excellent jobs plan that will help get America on track if he's elected President in 2012.

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 harrassment 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.

For legal conservatives such as myself, Mitt Romney is the most ideal candidate. He has assembled an amazing team of legal advisors for his 2012 campaign. He has vowed to appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench and who will follow the Constitution.

When it comes to the issue of health care, Mitt Romney has been a strong conservative. Mitt Romney was opposed to the idea of a nationalizing our health care system as early as 1993 or 1994 as President Clinton was pushing to pass HillaryCare. He was opposed to opposed HillaryCare 2.0 in 2007.

Moreover, Mitt Romney adopted the Heritage Foundation's proposal to implement the individual mandate at the state level. Once he implemented RomneyCare, he received a lot of support from conservatives. One of the reasons why they liked it is because the cost of RomneyCare was less than 1% of the state budget. RomneyCare was not a big issue for Romney during the 2008 Presidential election.

However, conservatives have unjustifiably and unreasonably became angry at Mitt Romney when President Obama became President and passed ObamaCare. Its important to remember that Obama flip flopped on RomneyCare by opposing it during the 2008 campaign before supporting it in his presidency. A close look at the facts reveal that there is no possible way that Obama modeled ObamaCare after RomneyCare. There are too many differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Despite these facts, too many conservatives think that RomneyCare is a socialist program simply because of Obama's false claims that he used RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare. However, RomneyCare is not a socialist health care program. Moreover, RomneyCare is constitutional and ObamaCare isn't.

Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised to repeal ObamaCare and that he would do so on the first day of his Presidency. In fact, Paul Ryan, the conservative Congressman from Minnesota, has stated that he is very confident Mitt Romney will honor his promise if he is elected President. In addition to repealing ObamaCare, Mitt Romney unveiled a new health care plan for America that is not based on his health care plan in Massachusetts.

The facts are clear. Mitt Romney is a great leader. He was an major player in getting Republicans elected in the 2010 midterm election. He's also the most electable candidate who can defeat President Obama in this election. He's also the only candidate who can remain competitive with Obama when it comes to raising campaign funds.

Its clear that the anybody but Mitt Romney crowd is irrational given that each of the 2012 candidates is not the candidate conservatives of all stripes are looking for. Mitt Romney is the right candidate for this election and they refuse to accept it despite Romney's experience, qualification and character. 

This article has been cross posted from Conservative Samizdat.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Romney to Bret Baier: "This is an unusual interview"

The Mittster was rather testy today. Newt's strong poll numbers coupled with the snub by the New Hampshire Union Leader must have him on edge. Question for Mittheads...are you sure this is the guy you want walking in to the lion's den against a community organizer armed a complicit media and $1 billion war chest?

Mr. Gingrich increases his lead as we close out November

We have not had many polls this week, but the few we did have suggests that Mr. Gingrich has cracked the 30% mark. We need for polls to confirm this trend, so for now, I peg him at 28 and a half per cent. Well on his way to 30% and an increase of almost 4% from last week. He has at least 25% of the vote in every region of the country and as many former Cain states go to Mr. Gingrich, he leads in 2 out of every three states. Mr. Romney cracks the 23% mark by adding a half per cent to his total. Mr. Cain slips almost another 3% and falls under the 17% mark. Mr. Perry and Dr. Paul also lose over a full point to sit at about seven a half per cent each. Mrs. Bachmann inches up another half point to sit at 5.6%. Finally, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huntsman are threatening to crack the 3% mark, but we will see what happens.

Now for the delegate math, as most know, each state and District of Columbia receives 3 bonus delegates in addition to all their other delegates that they receive. I have previously ignored these 153 delegates in my analysis because they are traditionally super delegates as opposed to elected delegates. First because some states are being punished, the 153 number is now reduced to 147. Some states lost 1.5 delegates of these delegates and some lost 1 delegate due to rounding. And yes, I too would like to know how 3 delegates become 1.5 delegates in a given state that lost half their delegates. The state that received punishment in the form of losing delegates, have decided (perhaps ironically) to elect bonus delegates. Other states have also chosen to do this. Thus 55 delegates across the country will be elected by Republican voters. Of course, if the election were held today in all 50 states, a good chuck of these delegates would go to Mr. Gingrich. However, Mr. Romney would disproportionately get the largest share of these newly elected delegates. So at least Mr. Romney partially making up for previously lost delegates.

So here would be the score: Mr. Gingrich climbs to 937 (a total rise of close to two hundred. Mr. Romney climbs to 603 (an increase of over 40.) Mr. Cain slips 339 (losing more than 150.) Mr. Perry sits at 102 and Dr. Paul goes down to 77 and Mrs. Bachmann goes up to a total of 45. Now it becomes an expectation game, as we watch who does better than expected in early states and who does not. Eventually, we will see who drops out. It will be interesting to see how the delegate math shakes out, but with only a month to go before voting, unless we have another serious shift in the political landscape, it will be a Gingrich-Romney contest. The Somebody Other than Romney camp appears to be settling for Mr. Gingrich and of course the Nobody But Romney camp is looking for a few people to join their ranks. This is not a good choice for many Conservatives, but it is what is. Even if somebody like Mr. Santorum cracks the 3% mark or even the beyond, at best he’ll be a King-Maker and not the King. It is fun to a degree to watch both Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich wave the Conservative flag, but I flag waving alone is not enough. So some of us will just pass the popcorn and watch things unfold. It is always fun to watch political events unfold, but this time the results will likely be far from fun.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Time To Stand Up To The Brainwashed Fox News Viewers

I am always amazed talking to the ABR voter. You know, the kind of person that only consumes Fox News and therefore is uninformed. The ABR voter really does believe that Gingrich would eat Obama's lunch. Thankfully, those of us who dip our noses into reality have a great smattering of empirical proof to back up our claims. The most recent polling shows an electoral vote that would look something like this.

• Romney – 256
• Obama – 256
• Tie – 26

• Obama – 451
• Gingrich – 76
• Tie – 11

Nobody needed to see these polls to believe that Newt is unelectable (except for the Fox News viewer). For anybody who follows political events closely, the average swing voter's antipathy to Newt Gingrich is well understood. Yet, Fox News has a way of insulating their viewers from the outside world, mainly by claiming that their cable news channel is the only fair and balanced sheriff in town (well, and Joe Arpaio). Here is Greta Van Sustereen, doing some fine political analysis on why Obama is attacking Romney only.

"It's funny because I think that they should be more worried about Gingrich in a general than Romney.

I actually was suspicious about whether or not this anti-Romney web ad was payback for something that Governor Romney did to President Obama about a week ago in an web in which there was a misstatement in the ad.

They played an ad in which they said President Obama did something, but if you dig deep, it as President Obama quoting John McCain. So it was a little bit dirty, so I thought it was just payback."

This is why I hammer Fox News and talk radio all the time! They are literally brainwashing 1/2 of the Republican Party. Literally. Let me explain what is at play here.

1. Fox News wants ratings. It is a reality TV show fixated on maximizing their intended market. They are certainly not any sort of journalistic outfit.

2. Their audience is loud and angry and are gearing to fight. They believe that socialism is upon us and we need to get back to the 1950s. They are not the kinds of people who want a Mitt Romney, who has been accused of working with Democrats in the past.

3. Greta cannot rationally analyze what a general election would likely look like. This would offend her audience. So she goes with the exact opposite. In fact, she probably got orders from the top to make sure she pushes Newt, a former Fox News contributor. After all, her audience will eat it up.

4. And this is how so many Republicans can be so clueless. Fox News brainwashes them into thinking that Newt Gingrich is brilliant, Obama is a socialist, the poor need to have their taxes raised and middle American is doing just fine.

What the non-Fox News voter in the Republican Party will need to assess is how to fight back. We are the minority and we are being taken over by the crazies. Even if Romney slips through the primaries and wins the general election, it will only be because the Fox News crowd sent Newt Gingrich after him. Even if Romney wins, we will still be the minority.

And if he loses...

Rombots and rational Republicans, if you do not stand up and fight the Republican establishment (Fox News and talk radio), then you will lose the Republican Party. If you haven't already.

Occupy Fox News?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.