Among some of the potential flashpoints is the continuing possibility that Israel could strike Iranian nuclear production facilities, the U.N. considering its options in Syria despite Russian warnings to stay out, and more outbreaks of violence in Egypt.

Which of the remaining Republican candidates is best equipped to handle these potential issues and why?

Am I the only one who doesn’t understand the media’s fixation with Donald Trump? This morning Drudge looks like this:

VEGAS SURPRISE: TRUMP TO ENDORSE…
KLAS: IT’S NEWT…
AP, NYT, POLITICO: IT’S NEWT…
DRUDGE: WAIT, IT’S MITT!
BUT WILL HE CHANGE HIS MIND BY NOON?

Why is the media covering a Trump endorsement with such interest? Better yet, why are they covering it at all? Is anyone interested who other reality TV hosts are endorsing? (Seriously, I’m just dying to know who Jeff Probst, Ryan Seacrest and Tom Bergeron are backing.)

How influential are endorsements outside of the political world? Where is the line between genuinely valuable (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, etc.) and worthless?

If either Romney or Gingrich appears at this fiasco press conference, they deserve to drop 5 points automatically in the PD Composite.

One thing anyone can respect about Ron Paul regardless of where they are on Rossiter’s spectrum is his stubborn devotion to integrity and consistency. An example: Ron Paul is against both gay marriage and abortion. No surprise there, these are among the pet issues of the American right. But Paul’s treatment of the issue is different. When he says abortion or gay marriage should be left up to the states, it’s not because he wants to dodge the question, it’s because he really believes that, and has voted as such before.

He’s also very consistent on the national debt. While I disagree with his efforts to end National Parks and many social services, I can understand where he’s coming from in a Constitutional sense. And yet, I think that his common sense approach to foreign policy is the one that America needs to get us out of the debt crisis. It is incredible that all 3 other Republican candidates, and Obama for that matter, can mention the words “balanced budget” and yet still claim that we should consider a war against Iran based on the supposition that they might be thinking about wanting to have, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or a stick with poo on it. And let me tell you, that’s a scary thought – with the advanced propulsion systems they don’t have, Iran could lob their entire stockpile of zero nuclear warheads at parts of the United States that aren’t there.

If this scenario sounds familiar, it’s because it happened ten years ago just slightly to the left. And, of course, ten years ago, Ron Paul was against that war too. Again with the consistency! Ron Paul’s main issue keeping him from the nomination is that the media makes a conscious effort to ignore him. There is the fallacious idea that he is only supported by college kids in favor of his legalization policies – which are completely reasonable and compatible with a balanced budget – but who cares who his support base is? No electoral constituency deserves to be disenfranchised. Would the media ignore a Presidential candidate and then attempt to justify it by claiming that their support base consisted of blacks or Latinos? Of course not!

I have to stop short of an endorsement here though. Ron Paul may espouse the very best of conservative ideology, but a lot of the extreme libertarian views he espouses are anathema to me. And, while I’d love to have enough cash to pay him to change those views for me, I don’t think he’d take it. And that just makes me that much more grateful to have a man like Ron Paul in Washington.

But I digress. Where was I? Oh, yeah. Football.

One type of trash talk that is not permitted on the gridiron is anything resembling whining. While there may be no crying in baseball, there is certainly absolutely no whining permitted on the football field. Even the referees won’t tolerate it.

I remember one game where an offensive lineman was violating this doctrine repeatedly. After every play he would get up off the pile and find the line judge, get in his face and complain about his treatment by the defensive squad.

Ref! Ref! He head-slapped me!!

Ref! Ref! He clipped me!!

Ref! Ref! He grabbed my facemask!!

This went on for the better part of the first half until the line judge had finally reached his breaking point. He called an “officials time out” and grabbed the offensive lineman by the shoulder pads, shook him a bit, and said loud enough for both teams to hear:

“Son, he’s not cheap-shotting you. He’s kicking your [expletive deleted]. And frankly, it’s starting to be embarrassing. Now shut up and play football or get off the field.”

I tell this story only to illustrate a political point. Newt Gingrich has been getting his kicked in Florida by a very capable and focused Team Romney. They’ve been to this game before and know a few things about how it’s played. So yes, Mitt is carpet bombing the airwaves and outspending Mr. Newt by a ratio of 5-1. Nobody ever said this was fair fight or that the Marquess of Queensbury Rules (Reagan’s 11th Commandment) were going to be observed or applied.

In the midst of this bruising primary campaign, Newt is busy running to anyone with a microphone to whine about his treatment at the hands of Team Romney. Thus complains Newt the Angry Little Attack Muffin:

He has a basic policy of carpet-bombing his opponent.

Goldman-Sachs is “rigging the game”.

Romney is a “fundamentally dishonest man”.

Memo to Mr. Newt: He’s not cheap-shotting you, Son. He’s kicking your [expletive deleted] and frankly your homage to John “Lurch” Kerry is starting to become embarrassing. End Memo.

I’ll plainly admit my pro-Romney bias. I think he’s the best possible choice in the current field . I also believe him to be the best possible candidate to change this nation’s current trajectory and hopefully undo that which Barry and Company have wrought. While Mr. Newt may be an able debater and a credentialed historian, I haven’t seen anything yet that makes me believe he can top Obama in November.

With an estimated campaign war chest of just under 600 large (a little Soprano lingo), Mr. Newt can rail all he likes about fighting this all the way to the convention. That kind of cash only guarantees the only thing he’ll be able to do up to the convention is whine to any MSM outlet willing to put his mug on the tube. Forgive me if I don’t see that as a path to victory.

You see, in the end, I’m all about winning. I don’t want another four years of watching my country go down the tubes whilst an empty suit lectures me on paying my fair share.

Additionally, Gallup’s recent poll of 14 swing states, the key areas for winning the general election, show Romney in a statistical tie–up 1 point–Paul and Santorum down 7 points, and Gingrich down 14 points.

The electability polling will likely change somewhat each time the Republican choices are reduced, as those polled do tend to have a bias toward their preferred candidate and against the other candidates. However, based on what we know today, the data is clear. If ensuring Barack Obama does not have a second term is your primary goal, the most likely candidate to defeat him is Mitt Romney. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are close enough that arguments certainly could be made in their favor as well, especially in the case of Dr. Paul who has consistently trended near the President as far back as January 1. A Newt Gingrich, nomination, on the other hand, would be by far the most likely to guarantee a second Obama term.

Methodology: For comparison purposes, the data points are plotted on a time series plot, expressed by a 10 day rolling average. This was necessary due to polls not necessarily taken on the same day and far fewer data points available for Rick Santorum.

Sources: ABC News/Washington Post, Associated Press/GfK, CBS News/NY Times, CNN/Opinion Research, FOX News, McClatchy/Marist, NBC News/Wall Street Jounral, Pew Research, PPP, Quinnipiac, Rasmussen Reports, Reuters/Ipsos, USA Today/Gallup.

Meanwhile, both Gingrich and Ron Paul have indicated they are in the primary race for the long haul.

Florida is Tuesday, and the latest polls show Mitt Romney expanding his lead in the land of Mickey Mouse and orange juice. With no more debates scheduled until late February, a decisive Florida win could give Romney the momentum for several weeks and five contests – Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, campaigning in Florida detailed his plans to, among other things, colonize the moon and declare the celestial body the 51st state after building, and I believe this is the exact quote, “a sweet-awesome moon fort”. He then challenged the other candidates in the Florida debate by boldly declaring “Everything but the podium is lava.”

In all seriousness, this is a needless provocation towards another space race with infinitely higher stakes at a time when the U.S. can absolutely not afford to fund such an outlandish competition. Could we make it to the moon, and have a sustainable colony there by 2020? Absolutely! If we work together with our allies and, I’m not afraid to suggest this as a Socialist, share. Yes, it might seem tempting to point up at the sky and declare “Dibs” but it’s both childish and insane.

Let me spell out why this is dangerous. First of all, it’s the moon. An object about the size of some other planets, or non-planets, in our solar system. What country has the right to declare ownership of an entire celestial body? It seems arrogant to even claim the moon for humanity, yet alone a small segment thereof. More important than the obvious ethical quandary are the material and political consequences: how would this doctrine affect international cooperation on space exploration, for instance, the fact that the Russians are currently letting our astronauts carpool with them?

And can we really expect that Russia, China and the EU will simply agree that we have called it, and therefore they must take their space-balls and go home? Christopher Columbus famously claimed America for Spain, and we’ve all seen how well that went after a century or two of colonial wars. Do we really want to do that again? Granted, there are no natives to enslave and eliminate this time, but you can still have the French and Indian war without the Indians.

Of course, there is a counter argument here, and that counter argument is this: Gundam Wing was a really great anime. We get a moon colony going, start fighting for territory there, then eventually the moon colony rebels against Earth, declares independence, and lasers are getting shot all over the place while a group of androgynousyoungsters pilots massive flying robots in order to… well, the plot is all rather sordid, but the point is, if Newt can claim dibs on the moon, I claim dibs on a giant robot fighting to either liberate or conquer the moon. Good luck, Mr. Gingrich, you’re going to need it.

Recent data shows that ‘America hates Newt Gingrich’. This is not the profile of an electable candidate.

Jake Tapper discusses how the Republican race could very well continue until June. The debate is whether the candidates brutally beating each other for several months will lead to a stronger candidate or simply write the script for President Obama’s campaign team.

CNN’s Roland Martin says: ‘So long to the party of family values‘. The sentiment is correct. Not long after South Carolina threw Mark Sanford to the curb, it picks Newt Gingrich in a landslide when it had three other options without the same type of ‘values’ baggage.

On the other hand, FOX News’ Dr. Keith Ablow writes that Gingrich’s three marriages could make him a stronger President.

CNS News reports that: ‘Under Obama, [the] price of gas has jumped 83%, ground beef 24%, and bacon 22%‘. My family and I have really felt these increases. I have detailed spreadsheets with all of our expenditures over the past several years. Our overall food and fuel spending and, necessarily the budgets for each, have skyrocketed. Most Americans are feeling this pain to some degree.

Nancy Pelosi, in an interview with John King, says Gingrich Will ‘Never’ Be President, ‘There Is Something I Know’. It is unbelievable that the former Speaker of the House is practically blackmailing Gingrich. Pelosi is taking an entirely unethical stance on the issue of inside knowledge of Gingrich’s ethics. However, this might just backfire on her and serve to fire up the Republican base when (or if) the supposed information is released.

We will also discuss the Republican rebuttal here as well.

Iowa couldn’t figure out who won its caucus, now South Carolina has found out that more than 950 ballots cast in its primary were cast by persons known to be dead. Unfortunately, this does not surprise me. When my wife was voting at our local polling station, the person in front of her approached the election official to sign in. This person was not on the list of registered voters at our polling place. The official asked him if he had recently changed his address but not changed his voter registration. The man said he thought he had changed his registration, but was not sure. The official looked over the man’s driver license, comparing the photo to the man and and said “we can see that he is who he says he is”, then let him vote.

Finally, Politico says to expect tomorrow’s state of the union address, which is anticipated to have around 50 million viewers, to be all political rhetoric. Expect it to be the speech that unofficially launches President Obama’s full-time reelection campaign.

Romney’s people will say it’s a “long slog” and they never expected to wrap it up early.

Newt’s people will say SC has always picked the nominee and 2012 will be no different.

Paul’s people will say, who cares?

Santorum’s people will tell the former Senator to pack it up, but he probably won’t. Not right away, anyway.

Since key elements of the GOP base are aligned against Romney there is opportunity for a reliable conservative with stamina for the long haul. Thus far no one has fit the bill.

Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry launched their campaigns with a flourish only to disappear like ice on an August sidewalk. Herman Cain briefly overtook Romney until the “9-9-9 Train” derailed amid a concocted sex scandal or Cain’s own wandering eye, whichever you prefer to believe. The sometimes Reaganesque Newt Gingrich has more lives than a cat. But political and personal baggage has rendered him thoroughly inconsistent. Newt’s campaign charged Iowa with swelling poll numbers, fell flat, and limped toward New Hampshire. He’s ascending again, and yet another personal storm looms on the horizon. Rick Santorum, it turns out, won Iowa. However, the social conservative champion lags woefully behind Romney in ultraconservative South Carolina. Only Ron Paul has managed consistent numbers relative to Romney’s. But Paul’s polling numbers don’t suggest he can overtake Mitt.

Each Republican challenger has charged the Romney beast and each has limped away licking their wounds. Why? You might point to pro-Romney attack ads or recite the media talking point about Romney being the only electable Republican. Another factor is Romney’s universal support among the GOP establishment. But there’s another reason Mitt Romney gained and maintains his apparent advantage, a reason having as much to do with his opponents as with him.

Romney’s competition treats him like the favorite therefore he is the favorite. Each candidate is so determined to be the anti-Romney that their own message is being lost in the shuffle. Republicans are wasting their time, and ours, in labeling Mitt as an unreliable conservative; conservatives already see Mitt in that light.

In contrast, Romney behaves like a frontrunner. He portrays himself as the anti-Obama, as a candidate who has moved beyond his Republican challengers. Romney’s camp realizes that a majority of the Republican base defines a successful 2012 as sending Obama home in time for the White Sox’s 2013 home opener. While Romney capitalizes on the desire to defeat Obama the rest of the candidates are focused on beating him.

Republican candidates must develop a message other than “I’m not Romney” if they’re to affect the race. With each solid primary finish, whether or not it’s a victory, Romney solidifies his status as the nominee-in-waiting. Thus the odds increase that the Republican Party will counter Obama with a candidate in the vein of McCain, Bush, and Dole. Regardless of November’s result, the ensuing four years could prove wholly unsatisfying.

You can read more about the pipeline here.

The Obama administration is blaming the GOP for not giving the State Department enough time to evaluate the pipeline proposal. Let’s not forget, however, that it was the Obama administration along with Senate Democrats that pushed for a short 60 days extension of payroll tax cuts and decision on the pipeline instead of a full year long extension that the House GOP wanted. Also, it should be noted that Obama is complaining about not having enough time when he delayed a decision on this very same pipeline over a year ago. Times up and the GOP is blasting Obama over his decision.

Now a prominent Republican has a plan of the same ilk. Rick Santorum would, like Barack Obama, create most favored industries. Any company that claims to “manufacture” would pay no income tax. Much like the current President’s policy of “stimulating”, Santorum’s plan is a de facto stimulus for manufacturing that would cause the limited amount of capital in the market to be used in a less efficient manner as it would be if all businesses were treated equally.

The President has championed welfare, extending unemployment payments for up to 99 weeks. Santorum’s plan is also a model of welfare for a select group that he prefers. Santorum, who chose to have seven children, would triple the child tax credit, greatly subsidizing those who choose to have children because he wants to encourage population growth. Rather than providing more government handouts, this goal would be much, much easier to accomplish with real, fast tracked, simplified immigration reform. Rather than creating welfare dependents from birth, make it quick and easy for people to immigrate the US who are ready to work, grow the economy, and pay taxes, rather than receive handouts.

What is perhaps most amazing is that Santorum’s plan has not received anywhere near the same level of scrutiny that former candidate Herman Cain’s plan did. The 9-9-9 plan was widely assailed when it essentially equated to a 20% flat tax for individuals, 9% for corporations, and the assumption that competitive pressures would drive prices down further. However, Cain’s plan was far, far superior to Santorum’s in that it treated corporations and individuals equally, which would allow markets to decide the most efficient use of their limited capital in contrast to the government steering the economy and family size in the way its current leadership thinks is best.

History has proven, planned economies simply do not work as well as free economies. Rick Santorum would introduce a Barack Obama-style planning to the economy that would ensure the current economic malaise will continue for beyond 2013.

The Unemployment Rate was well over 10% not long ago; now it’s down to 8.5%. That’s a pretty significant drop.

In a February 2nd 2009 interview with the very liberal Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today morning program, President Obama was asked what would happen if he wasn’t able to turn the economy around:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about — the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And —
MATT LAUER: You’re gonna know quickly how people feel —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — and — and —
MATT LAUER: — about what —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: that’s exactly right. And — and, you know, a year from now I think people — are gonna see that — we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still gonna be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s gonna be a one-term proposition.

Many Republican strategists are salivating over this bit of video, saying it amounts to “smoking gun” evidence of President Obama’s unambiguous, unequivocal failure on the economy. “If I don’t have this done in three years….”

Three years from February 2nd 2009 is February 2nd of this year.

The Republican strategists who think this is d*mning evidence against President Obama that the electorate will grab onto and run with are wrong. Dead wrong. Completely wrong. Utterly wrong.

The standard that Reagan so convincingly skewered President Carter on to wrest the Presidency away from him—“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”—does not apply this year.

Instead, it’s “Are you feeling a bit more comfortable, just a little, about the country’s future prospects than you were three years ago?”

That’s a far different—and lower—standard than Reagan’s and it’s quite a bit more vague, as well. “Well, you may be making less money in your new job than you used to, but at least you’re relieved to have a job, aren’t you? Now you can look forward to getting your life somewhat back on track. Maybe you don’t aspire to the new BMW and the two weeks in Aruba, but a week at the Cape and a four-year-old Buick sure do seem a lot better than nothing, especially when a year ago you thought you were going to lose the house.”

That’s The New Standard. The fear of even losing what modest gains we’ve made—even if not anywhere near back to the level things were in 2006—is what Obama will parlay as his greatest strength going into the 2012 election.

“If I don’t have this done in three years….”

What is “this?” “This” is anything President Obama deems it to be. Anything. Far from being evidence against him, he’ll use it as proof that he’s accomplished what he said he would. He’ll define “this” in 2012 terms and then show that that’s where we are—exactly as he said we’d be. It’s not arguable or able to be disproved, because 2012’s “this” is anything President Obama says it is.

What can the Republican nominee do? Not much, especially if the UER is down to 8.3% by September 2012 and gasoline is $3.22.gallon.

What they can do—in addition to running a media-savvy campaign, with clarity, well-articulated differences/advantages, and quick, memorable soundbites that can pierce convincingly through even the densest liberal media distortion—is to get across to the electorate that things haven’t improved, that 8.x% UER and $3.xx/gallon gasoline are not acceptable and that you shouldn’t be satisfied with living like that, with that kind of fear and uncertainty, day to day.

What the Republican nominee has to do is ask if these are the questions that are hanging over your head:

- Do you fear that you could still lose your job and that your company might not survive?
- Do you feel that you’re ‘just getting by’ and that you should be grateful for even the smallest stretch of time that goes by without a personal/family financial crisis?
- Do you feel a sense of resignation over high energy costs, that “things have changed,” such that gasoline, heating oil and natural gas will continue their skyward leap without interruption?
- Are you in fear that the next economic disaster is just a blink of an eye away, and that you’re living under the constant threat that any day the ‘other shoe will drop’?

Talking to people in everyday life, this is a pretty common way to characterize many people’s feelings. The Republican nominee needs to tap into this very strong undercurrent of voter sentiment with concrete, reassuring explanations of why it doesn’t need to be this way, how they (the R) can make it better, and the Republican’s media strategy has to be better than it’s ever been.

President Obama: “I’ve accomplished ‘this,’ just like I said I would.”
Republican nominee: “Are you scared and uncertain? That’s President Obama’s fault. You don’t have to live like that.”

Those are the communications themes around which the outcome of the 2012 election will revolve. Absent some wildly unforeseen and uncontrollable outside event or factor, the side that executes their task more effectively will win.

President Obama’s task seems more easily attainable at this juncture, given his lower bar and built-in liberal MSM help. A few more Matt Lauer-like interviews and Obama is in, pretty easily.

Let’s begin by level-setting what the ‘establishment’ is: “An order of society as [in] a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation)”, or “a controlling group”.

As there has recently been significant banter around amongst the candidates as to who is an ‘establishment candidate’, let’s examine this by quantifying the time each candidate spent as part of the elected political ruling class, particularly of the nation, to see who is truly ‘establishment’ and if the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party supports this ideal.

Ron Paul: 21.8 years, US House Representatives 1976-1977, 1979-1985, 1997-Present

In what is likely a surprise to many, other than his most ardent supporters, the man perhaps considered the most anti-establishment of them all, Ron Paul, has held federal office longer than any of the other candidates. Paul’s stances are generally acknowledged to be based upon his principles rather than following with the party line. He also seemingly has attempted to keep himself grounded, refusing to sign up for the federal pension plan and in his earlier days, returning to Texas to continue working as a doctor when not required in Washington. So despite Paul’s length of time in Washington, it is difficult to argue that he is part of the establishment. However, his long tenure in the House of Representatives is undeniable. Certainly many career Democratic politicians also believe they must stay in office for over two decades to continue fighting for what they believe in as well.

Newt Gingrich: 20 years, US House of Representatives 1979-1999

There is no better example of the “establishment” than Newt Gingrich. His role in bringing together the Republican Party as the ruling class through the Contract with America and in his role as Speaker of the House is legendary. Perhaps no other politician has ever made the individual races for the House of Representatives–don’t forget that all 435 seats are up for re-election every two years–a common, national cause, or an “order of society” created to “form the ruling class”. However, his entire tenure in federal office was also marked by what at the time was the largest expansion of spending and deficits in federal government history, from 1979-1999. Additionally, recall that per the US Constitution, all spending bills must start in the House of Representatives. Therefore, as Speaker, Gingrich certainly had a significant impact on the federal government’s spending.

Rick Santorum: 16 years, US House Representatives, US Senate 1991-2007

Compared to Gingrich, Rick Santorum was much less heralded in office. That being the case, it likely surprises many that he spent 16 years in Washington, usually going along with the big spending Republicans, as the annual government expansion continued after Gingrich left office. Santorum could fairly be classified as a typical career politician, as he started in the House of Representatives in 1991 at the age of 32 then “moved up” to the Senate in 1996. In 2006 he lost his third Senate reelection bid by a whopping 17.4 percent, or about 700,000 votes. He also endorsed fellow Republican Arlen Specter in his short-lived candidacy for the Presidency in 1996, move that certainly shows he put party over principle.

Rick Perry: 0 years federal office, 27 years, Texas House of Representatives, Texas Commissioner of Agriculture, Texas Lt. Governor, Texas Governor 1985-Present

Despite not having held federal office, Rick Perry is a definition of a career politician, at one time switching parties and having spent the past 27 years of his life in one elected office or another. He seems to be political opportunist who appears to have entered the presidential race only upon the urging of several evangelical leaders who did not see a prominent evangelical Christian in the field, as they had with George W. Bush.

Jon Huntsman: 0 years federal office, 4.6 years Utah Governor 2005-2009

Jon Huntsman was Ambassador to Singapore and China, but that is closer to working for the state department than being in elected office. He was not making policy decisions to please the masses in these roles, which often leads to bad policy. He has never been elected to or run for a federal office. He won the governorship of Utah by a convincing 58 percent margin the first time and was reelected by a dominating 77.7 percent of the vote, in arguably one of the most conservative states in the union despite being an avowed moderate.

Mitt Romney: 0 years federal office, 4 years Massachusetts Governor 2003-2007

Gingrich has recently enjoyed taking shots at Romney, claiming he would have been a career politician had he beaten Teddy Kennedy in 1994. Sure, he could have been. He could have also owned a monkey farm. We just don’t know. At the same time, he might have only remained for one term, as he did in the governorship. Romney could have also moved to a state where he could more easily be elected as a Republican, certainly he could have afforded to do, but did not. It is simply impossible to read someone’s mind, which is also why so many people wonder what Romney truly believes due to his public shifting of positions through the years, but what we do know as fact is Mitt Romney has spent less time in elected office than any other Presidential candidate, including no time whatsoever in a federal office.

From a quantitative perspective, it is clear who is not part of the establishment: Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney. Each has the least time spent in elected office, including not one day in national office. However, they, like all the other candidates have positions or past positions that will not resonate with Republicans or the Tea Party faction. Furthermore, the two non-establishment candidates are widely considered to be the most moderate of the field, which only causes further consternation for the Tea Party. Unfortunately, it is rare to find a candidate that matches all of a voter’s positions. Rather, the electorate is left to choose who they trust most and who most closely aligns with their opinions, assuming, of course, they actually believe what the candidates say. But when it comes to who is “establishment” and who is not, by definition, it is clear. Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney are the only non-establishment candidates. If such candidates truly one of the most important issues to the Tea Party, we would see more support from it. However, it seems the Tea Party does not know what it stands for and may be dead.

He may have found some help.

This article is certainly worth a read about Sheldon Adelson, the man who has donated 5 million to Gingrich’s Super PAC and may donate up to $20 million, before it is all said and done.

It’s very disappointing that Newt Gingrich spent weeks complaining about Romney’s Super PAC instead of focusing on his message. After losing badly in Iowa, he is doing the very same thing he complained about. Now Newt is the one with the millionaire friends airing negative ads. These ads are brutal and unfair. In every primary there is a line of negativity that the candidates can’t cross so that they do not hurt their party’s chance in the general election; Newt has crossed that line. He has lost all discipline with his campaign. I’m just wondering why a so called “Reagan conservative” is sounding more and more like Occupy Wall Street with attacks like this one below.

Newt Gingrich slams Mitt Romney over Bain Business.

Meanwhile, another day, another article on Bad Newt. This time Politico weighs in on Newt’s pithy, angry post-Iowa speech, quoting a Republican strategist who said:

He was ‘the ideas guy’ until three weeks ago, when he became a process guy. Now all he talks about is process, polling, negative ads, gross ratings points. He has no campaign. He has a moving think tank. The psychology that’s going on is, he thought he was going to win. And he’s devastated with what happened to him and he can’t quite comprehend it. He’s just fuming inside. He can’t believe it happened to him.”

Finally, the Washington D.C. health department shut down the Occupy DC outdoor kitchen due to rats as “there were definite signs of rodents thriving among the food and trash”.

With the Iowa caucuses behind us the Republican Primary is finally in full swing. Those of you in the Republican Party have to make a choice on who will challenge Barack Obama for the White House in November. Given how weak the Republican field is, the choice should be pretty clear.

Measuring a candidate is a difficult task, but as a voter you have a responsibility to make a judgement about which candidate will be best suited for the Presidency. There are several metrics you can use. The two metrics that seem to be getting the most attention are ideological alignment, and electability. This is especially true when discussing the candidacy of Mitt Romney.

Those in favor of Mitt Romney’s candidacy argue that he’s the only candidate that consistently polls well against Barack Obama. While those that oppose Mitt Romney argue that he lacks the Conservative credentials they are looking for. However these metrics have gotten way too much attention, because neither one can be counted as the most important metric. The most important metric is competency.

Allow me to explain. Throughout my career I’ve had the opportunity to interview a lot of potential candidates for various Software Engineering positions. There are a lot of different aspects I’m interested in, including software design philosophies, honesty, the ability to work with others, but above all else I’m looking for someone that can perform the function of the job. If I can determine early on that a candidate is not competent enough to perform the job we are interviewing for, I will cut the interview short, because none of the other traits an applicant might exhibit matter at that point.

A Presidential campaign can be equated to a huge job interview. Just like any other job, a Presidential Candidate needs to demonstrate that he/she is capable of performing the functions of the President. If a candidate lacks the competency to be President then no other metric matters. Unfortunately this leaves Republicans with only one choice, Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate that has demonstrated that he is competent enough to fill the role of President. The first test of a candidate’s competency is his/her ability to run an effective campaign. With the exception of Ron Paul, the other candidates have completely failed in this regard. Not only have the other candidates failed to offer substantive plans for the country, they have failed in some of the most basic campaign activities; such as debates, or getting their names on the Virginia Primary ballot.

What about Ron Paul? I have to credit Ron Paul: he is very effective at getting his message out. He’s also an uncompromising ideologue with extremist views that are unpalatable to even members of his own party, hardly Presidential material. Sorry, but Mitt Romney is the only real choice.

Unfortunately the Republican Party has become so extreme over the past few years that I’m not convinced they’ll make the clear choice. The Republican Party has become a party that values adherence to orthodoxy over substance. Ross Douthat put it well when he said, “In this atmosphere, deviations from a narrow party line are punished more severely than blatant stupidity, and fresh ideas are dismissed or ignored because they don’t fit a neat ideological narrative.”

I’ve watched with amusement, sometimes horror, as the Republican Party has struggled to come to terms with their current predicament. Every month, in a desperate attempt to find a candidate not named Mitt Romney; there has been a new front runner in the Republican Primary. Every month that candidate’s extreme incompetence becomes so obvious that even Republican Primary voters have to admit it. Every month it becomes more and more clear that Mitt Romney is the only viable candidate in the Republican field.

It’s time for the Republican Party to come to terms with this simple fact; Mitt Romney is the only qualified candidate you have. The choice is clear.

These good people probably know that I don’t write deep-thinking political non-fiction or fictional political thrillers. But many do know that I am the co-founder of this site, launched in 2005 as an outlet to free the lifelong political junkie in my system. You probably also know that my role with the site and our popular 2012 Power Rankings has led to regular appearances on the Fox News morning show, “Fox & Friends.”

Take these factors and combine them with my religion — I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — and I’ve become a natural target for questions about Romney.

Many of the questions I answer with this single statement: If you’re a republican, please don’t support Mitt Romney just because he’s a Mormon.

Remember 2008? During the general election, President Obama won 96-percent of the black vote. That was eight points higher than Senator John Kerry won in 2004. The increase for Obama was more than enough for him to win key swing states and sweep into the White House.

When the electoral dust settled, I had conservative friends bemoan the fact that black voters supported Obama in record numbers simply because of his race.

Living on the edge of the south in Virginia’s solidly conservative Shenandoah Valley, I occasionally encounter voters who pledge to stay home or vote third-party if Romney is the GOP nominee in 2012. Because of religious differences, they say, they simply cannot support him.

When I share this unfortunate reality with friends of my faith, they loudly complain about someone skipping an election simply because of a fellow republican’s religion. This is where it gets interesting.

How can one complain about an evangelical voter not voting for Romney based on religion when that’s the very reason some Mormons are supporting him?

If you support Obama’s reelection, do so because you agree with the decisions he’s made, his vision for a second term and whether he’s closer to your views than the alternatives. But don’t support him simply because of his race.

If you’re supporting Mitt Romney, do so for the same reasons, because you agree with him politically and see him as the best of the available options. But don’t support him just because he’s a Mormon.

Jon Huntsman, also a Mormon, has faced a different kind of religious bias. Some members of the Church like to ding him because early in the campaign he was famously ambiguous about his faith, citing his membership in the church as “tough to define.” I have good friends who stopped listening to him because he was no longer Mormon enough.

Isn’t it a double standard to discount Huntsman based on religion and criticize those who discount Romney for the same reasons?

In the 2008 nomination battle, did some women vote for Hilary Clinton simply because she was a woman? Certainly.

In 2000, did some conservative Jews support the Al Gore – Joe Lieberman ticket simply because Lieberman was the first Jewish candidate on a major political party ticket? It’s hard to believe otherwise.

I understand the appeal. Jews took pride in Lieberman. Women took pride in Clinton. Blacks took pride in Obama. Mormons take pride in fellow Mormons. There is nothing wrong with sharing in that sense of breaking barriers.

But are those reasons enough to support a particular horse?

I wonder if members of my faith buy my books strictly because I’m a Mormon. I hope not. I hope they buy them because they’re entertaining, inspirational reads.

Do Mormons listen to Glenn Beck simply because he’s one of them?

Do people buy Gladys Knight CD’s just because she joined the Church fifteen years ago?

Maybe this kind of preferential, biased thinking is unavoidable. Perhaps we’re hardwired to support, whether at the ballot box or at the cash register, those we believe are like us.

But does it have to be that way?

If I were Mitt Romney, I’d want your vote because you agree with my campaign platform and think I have the best chance of evicting Obama from the White House.

If I were Obama, I wouldn’t want your vote because I’m black, I’d want your vote because I represent your belief system and because you believe I have the country on the right track and deserve another four years.

If you see me at book event and want to talk politics, I’m happy to oblige. But if you ask me about Romney, brace yourself for an unpopular position.

If you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please don’t vote for Mitt Romney just because he’s a Mormon. Doing so makes you no different than those voters who won’t just because he is one.

Romney is certain to win New Hampshire leaving the third caucus/primary vote in South Carolina to be Rick Santorum’s next opportunity for a clear victory, as he seems likely to have defeated quickly plummeting Newt Gingrich. However, in this heavily Evangelical Christian state, Perry is certain to take votes from both Santorum and Gingrich. Having the three candidates battling over the same Evangelical votes will only help Romney rather than this potential voting block uniting behind one candidate.

Today, she’s out.

Michele Bachmann will “suspend her campaign” and effectively end her run at the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination.

It was just a few short months ago that Bachmann won the Ames Straw poll and was the first of the “Anti-Romney” candidates to surge. That surge ended abruptly when Texas Governor Rick Perry, who may be the next to bail out, entered the race.