By the delegate count, it would appear Romney has this race sown up. And, it is possible he will get to the magic number of 1,144 delegates needed. But there is also a good chance he won't if things keep going the way they are. And Santorum is the one dog that just won't let go of the bone.

On the surface, Romney's won more states and while the delegate count isn't solidified yet, he appears to be far ahead of the pack. Last estimate is Santorum has about half the delegates that Romney has. If Santorum's "path to the nomination" is correct, we'll start seeing that lead narrow in the coming elections and delegate assignments. But let's look at why Santorum may be the one candidate getting in the way of Romney getting the nomination on the first ballot.

Before we do that, however, I want to comment on one point Gingrich made. He said in an interview recently that he is staying in the race to help pull delegates away from Romney. Sorry Newt, that makes no sense. While yes, I'm assuming there are a few supporters of yours that will support Romney over Santorum, you know most of them will go to Santorum. As a matter of fact, the case can be made that by staying in, you are letting Romney get more delegates in these proportional states.

Take Mississippi, where it was nearly a three-way tie, only two to four points separating each of the 1st through 3rd finishes. Each of you got nearly the same number of delegates. Around 30 apiece. And because of that, where Romney won, in Hawaii and Samoa, he ended up with more delegates than anyone, causing him to gain distance from both you and Santorum. IOW, you both lost ground. Maybe to some degree you might have pulled a delegate or two from him, but that was in exchange for Santorum to literally shellack Romney in these states. What would have happened is Santorum would have received somewhere in the 50% range if you weren't in the race, and Romney would have been near or barely over 30%. That means he might have got another delegate or two, but Santorum would have cleaned his clock and closed the distance on Romney in delegates. He could have jumped up with 50-60 delegates while Romney was stuck in the 30s.

And we need to factor in the momentum that such a huge win would help create for Santorum. One could even say that Santorum winning in Alabama and Mississippi is in part due to the big win he had in Kansas. Big wins and gaining in delegate count on Romney would create more movement for voters toward Santorum as they see him as winning and out performing Romney in state after state.

Anyway, I don't think Newt is helping pull delegates away from Romney by denying Santorum the momentum and big wins that these and the coming contest would give him over Romney. He is likely giving Romney more delegates than he would get otherwise if he had dropped out.

But, here's why Romney is in trouble. It is clear in the south Romney will lose big. It only looks like he was close because the conservative vote is being split by Gingrich. If you take into account most of Gingrich's voters would vote for Santorum if Gingrich wasn't on the ballot, Romney lost in a landslide in those two states. Not even close. Santorum would have been in the 50s and 60s% in those states, with Romney in a distant 20s and 30s%.

But now head up north, which should be more favorable to Romney. In many of these states, even his home state, he has barely hung onto a win against Santorum, winning by one to three points in big states like Michigan and Ohio (which he would have won if Gingrich weren't in the race). Polls show Santorum will take Pennsylvania, which one would expect since that is his home state. Several other states in the north are not automatic wins for Romney, like he expected Colorado to be. Where Romney would be expected to be strong, he is struggling to stay alive and often losing.

And to struggle to stay alive, he is outspending Santorum by a wide margin with his superpac. It is no secret that Santorum's campaign isn't as well financed or organized. But despite that fact, Santorum has often, if not won, come in a very close second to Romney.

And that is despite the barrage of negative attack ads that Romney and his superpac are running in these states. Over and over again, millions are thrown against Santorum in negative ads, robo calls, contrasting opinion makers following Santorum's speeches with rebuttals, etc. And while those ads in state after state have taken out contenders like Gingrich as serious contenders, they only cause Santorum a slight dip in the polls.

It's like the public, by and large, are not buying the premise of Romney's ads. While they no doubt change some votes, they aren't convincing the vast majority of those deciding to vote for Santorum. And that has kept Santorum in the hunt even when other candidates were sent into single-digit numbers. A lot of that I predicted after his near win in Michigan.

It is clear that Romney isn't energizing the party's base. If you don't do that, you're toast in the general election. McCain proved that. Romney is weak even in areas of the USA he should be strong. Meanwhile. Santorum is able to seriously challenge him in places like Michigan where Romney grew up.

I think Santorum is right. All he needs to do is prevent Romney from getting the nomination. He doesn't have to overtake him. And if he does that, Santorum will be the likely winner of a second ballot.

But one things is clear. Santorum is a strong candidate who wins big where he needs to. Romney despite all his money and organizational advantage, is barely keeping his head above water. And these coming contest, he may just go under. Because Santorum is showing his roots are strong enough to weather the storms that President Obama plans on sending his way in the general election.

Romney will have a very hard time in the general election compared to Santorum. Why? Simple, really. Romney falls right into Obama's class warfare target hairs. Romney is the perfect candidate. Rich. Out of touch. With video clips to prove it. Can you see the Romney 10K bet being played over and over? Or any of his other "out of touch" statements he's made? Like not caring about the poor? Yes, those will be taken out of context and used by Obama's campaign. Romney is Obama's perfect candidate because he fits perfectly the 1% group the Democratic party has been trying to get the country ginned up over the past several months.

"But, they'll make Santorum out to be an extreme far right guy. Ubber-social conservative out to get women by taking away their birth control." Yeah, they'll try to do that. They tried it on Regan. It didn't work. They tried it on W Bush, it didn't work. I say, let's go with the winning strategy here. Moderate rich guy is like feeding prime meat to the lions. Send in "Forest Gump" (in their eyes) and he'll win simply because he's honest, positive, and has a great goal and plan to get the country back on its feet. People see through the "ultra right-wing label." Only Democratic party diehards really believe all the scare tactics they use, and it hasn't worked on past elections. So, I say let them try again. They'll lose on that battle.

Fox News reported on a video that the media have put out in an attempt to make voters in Alabama and Mississippi look "uneducated" and out of the mainstream, knowing it is a highly conservative area that will not vote for Obama in the general election.

Check out the Fox News Story and then come back. I'll wait.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the general perception that the Democrats try to portray is that the Republicans are all for the rich/fat cat guys, giving them tax cuts, etc, while the Democrats are for the poor, the downtrodden, the uneducated?

Not if you go by this story. The more poor and uneducated the voter, the more likely they will vote Republican is what they are saying. Hum. Do you think this class warfare stuff has been turned on its head? Or maybe, just maybe, there is no class warfare going on here. Maybe, people both rich and poor are against Obama's policies.

We'll see come November.

As an update to my last post, Rick Santorum's campaign recently posted a state-by-state path to victory in the remaining primary and caucus contests. It explains several reasons why Romney is by no means the candidate likely to cinch the nomination, and that Rick Santorum is still very viable. In brief, the arguments go something like this:

1) Romney is not as far ahead as it would seem. A lot of this seems to rely upon the current delegate count is a "best guess" estimate since many of them are not committed to vote for a certain candidate. As state delegations vote, the delegate counts will firm up, so Romney won't have as many in states like Iowa he might think he does because convention goers tend to be more conservative in electing delegates to the national convention.

 Also, the Santorum campaign suggest that the Republican National Committee frontloaded contest favorable to Romney in the early primaries in the hopes that it would knock all contenders out of the race and make Romney the presumptive nominee. Which it is close to doing. But since Santorum is still in the game and polling nationally well against Romeny, the remaining states are more favorable to Santorum. He expects to pick up a proportionally bigger share of the remaining delegates than others would have us believe.

And they believe Romney's money supply is dwindling fast. He's been forced to spend large sums of money to defend states he didn't think he'd be defending, like Michigan and Ohio. It is forcing him to rely upon his superpacs for running ads...ads he doesn't control and could do him damage. But the end result as they move through the primaries, Romney will have less and less money to throw against Santorum, who has fared pretty well despite the negative ad onslaught.

Additionally, expect a challenge to Florida and Arizona's attempt to seat their delegates as "winner take all." They violated party rules by moving their primaries up, resulting in the requirement to allocate their delegates proportionally. Santorum expects to pick off some of Romney's delegates from that pool currently listed under his name when that challenge forces them to allocate.

So Santorum is expecting as the delegate count gets firmed up for the states already having voted and the coming contest which will be more favorable to him, the "real" delegate count will show Santorum much closer to Romney than the estimated delegate count. The memo actually expects Santorum to pass Romney sometime in June.

2) Santorum doesn't need to reach the 1,144 vote going into the convention. He only needs to not let Romney do so. It is his contention that the state convention goers are predominately conservative and would favor him more highly than Romney. So if the nomination goes into a second ballot, he expects that many of those pledged to vote for Romney will shift over to him at that point because Gingrich will be so far behind at that point he is a "non-factor." He also expects many of Gingrich's delegates to shift to him then too.

So his plan appears to be that he has a shot at getting the required number of delegates when it is all said and done. And if he falls short on the first ballot, Romney will have too, and he believes many of the delegates pledged to Gingrich and Romney will then vote for him since they will be mostly conservative. And he may have a point. He believes a second ballot won't be favorable to a moderate at a convention, giving him the edge.

The only cog in that plan could be Ron Paul. According to him, they are stuffing the convention delegates with their people. Listening to them, you'd think Paul has the deal sown up. But they tend to way over state things to the point of ridiculousness many times. But if Paul has been successful, it could be he would pull enough delegates away from Santorum at the convention on a second ballot to stall the whole thing, requiring them to go outside the current field for a compromise. If it is all bluster with little reality to back it up, Santorum's plan has a decent chance of succeeding.

If he's right, watch for the delegate count to start narrowing in the next two to three months between the two. This could be interesting to watch.

With Newt Gingrich pledging to stay in the race all the way to Tampa, no matter how bad he does in the upcoming primaries, this places a near impossible task for Santorum. The best he can hope for at this point is that Gingrich loses bad enough in most states that he essentially becomes a non-factor. That said, it does mean Gingrich will tend to pull around 10-15% of the vote away from Santorum, which will give Romney the wins in several states he might have lost otherwise, and a higher proportion of the delegates than he might have received, otherwise.

So with Gingrich pledging to stay in the race, no matter what, it pretty much assures that Romney will get the nomination short of something big happening. What could that be?

First, there's the possibility of a "brokered" convention. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul pull enough delegates away from Romney that he doesn't make the 1,144 delegates needed to cinch it. Then, theoretically, after that first ballot with no winner, enough of Gingrich's delegates could shift over to Santorum if he's still in second by that point, to reach the 1,144 count needed. But that is assuming enough of Gingrich's delegates would shift to Santorum on a second ballot and that they had enough numbers between the two of them to make 1,144. And it may be by staying in, Gingrich is hoping to create a brokered convention.

Another option is that either shortly before the convention or even at the convention, Gingrich could drop out and endorse Santorum, leaving his delegates free per each state's party rules to pledge their vote for a different candidate. Being that the bulk of Gingrich's delegates are from conservative states, there is a high likelihood that a good number of them would switch their vote to Santorum. The problem is, how many would do that, and are there enough of them to do that to push Santorum over the majority marker instead of Romney. It would be more akin to a"Hail Mary" pass. Once Gingrich officially dropped out to release his delegates, there's no guarantee who they would vote for.

The other scenario is some new revelation about Romney comes up that turns the tides so strongly for Santorum that he wins the bulk of the remaining delegates. Or Romney makes a big miscalculation in his strategy or word choices. But if the current list of issues with Romney isn't enough to make people back away from him, there's not likely to be anything bigger come out to do that. I mean, if the fact he promoted his own state-run health care takeover and Obama's as well, including individual mandates, isn't enough to scare people away from him, you'd have to find a video of him beating his wife to make a substantial dent in his progress.

To clarify my earlier statements, I've not called on Gingrich to drop out, specifically. I've only said if he doesn't want Romney to win, he should drop out. Because as long as he stays in the race, the less likely either he or Santorum will be able to beat Romney to the finish line. I think because of that he should drop out. But I also acknowledge that is purely his decision if and when to do so.

But if Gingrich is betting on one of these long shots, and that is why he's staying in the race, I think he will be sadly disappointed by the fact that Romney wins in delegate count and it is mathematically impossible for either he or Santorum to catch up, get a brokered convention, or have enough delegates between the two of them to beat Romney to the finish line if one of them were to drop out shortly before or at the convention. Unless he's aware of some hidden party rule that would be a game changer, his best bet is to drop out now and hope enough of his delegates go to Santorum and that Santorum can gain enough to beat Romeny.

No matter how you look at it, it is going to be a long shot for Santorum, and an even longer one for Gingrich, to secure the nomination. To have really ensured Santorum had a good chance, Gingrich would have had to drop out after Santorum won Missouri, Colorado, and Wisconsin. By this point, Santorum would have won Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, and Alaska in addition to his current wins, not even taking into account the momentum that would have generated additional turn out for Santorum in other states. That's four more for him and less for Romney, which would put Santorum on top in states won.

But, that didn't happen, and it looks like Romney will continue to win the bulk of the delegates since Gingrich stubbornly refuses to drop out, despite his chances of winning the nomination being slim to none. Which leads me to one other possibility that Gingrich is in this race. Not to win it, but to ensure Romney does. IOW, Gingrich is really doing the biding of the Republican establishment who wants Romney to win. If that's his goal, he's doing a darn good job of it.

Romney must be counting his luck by this point and smiling big.

Some have suggested that the Republicans could be headed toward a brokered convention. And the results of Super Tuesday didn't put that to rest either. Though Romney is ahead in the delegate count, none of the other three have dropped out of the race, making it more likely that those votes continue to be divided, causing Romeny to struggle to reach that majority delegate count.

And it may be that hope that keeps the current slate of candidates in. Karl Rove did the math, and as of today, Santorum would have to win around 64% of the remaining delegates, Gingrich 75% and Ron Paul...well, he doesn't have a chance purely on delegate count. Somewhere up in the 90% range if I recall, which isn't going to happen. Gingrich has a nearly impossible task to win 75% of the remaining delegates, and Santorum has a very, very steep hill to climb as well. Probably requiring a big misstep by Romney or some new revelation that sink's Romney's chances. While not impossible for Santorum to get there purely by getting the number of delegates needed, it isn't a likely situation at this point. He'd have to shoot up in the polls drastically and blow Romney out of the water in the remaining states.

But Paul's one hope is for a brokered convention, and is why he has been attempting to stack the deck of delegate selectors with his own people, in the hopes that if the convention becomes brokered, that his supporters, being freed to vote for whoever they wish, are then free to vote for him.

However, "brokered" is a bit of a misnomer for the modern process. Used to be candidates were always selected by "brokers" at a convention. When the modern primary process changed that, the brokers were done away with. Now the decision for the candidate is in the hands of the delegates. Some delegates are pledged to vote for a certain candidate based on the primary or caucus results in their state. Others are free to chose who they wish, regardless of how the vote went. Superdelegates vary in how they are selected, but often it is the party chairman and two committee members.

Thus, at a "brokered convention" the party bosses no longer make "smoke-filled backroom deals" to decide the nominee, but various party and candidate officials will lobby the delegates to support their guy. And if there is no firm consensus able to be had on the current slate of candidates, it is possible that a totally new person could be selected as a compromise.

For instance, let's suggest the most likely scenario for this. Let's say Romney doesn't get the total number of delegates, and once at the convention, on the first vote, not enough of the free delegates go his way to give him the majority. And let's say that Santorum is in second place with a significant number of delegates. Gingrich and Paul have fewer but not insignificant.

Once that first vote fails, the delegates can then change their vote. On the second vote, what will likely happen is delegates who perhaps are really for one candidate but because their state's primary or caucus bound them to a different one, will now vote their conscious instead of who they were pledged to vote for.

But even on this second vote, you don't get a consensus. After another vote or two, and the two sides are not moving closer toward resolution, and no one is getting a majority, then a third option might come up to the table and gain approval among the delegates, until there is a majority of delegates voting for one guy, whoever that is. So someone like Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin could end up being nominated, if they had enough support among the delegates.

I would like to suggest that the system is way too complex and broken. You can look at who has won the most states, but that doesn't really tell you much. You can look at who has won the most delegates, but so many of those are unpledged that you really don't know where that number stands exactly. And then you have states that hold a primary as a "beauty pageant," like Missouri, and then hold caucuses at a later date to actually divide the delegates. A huge waste of money in my opinion.

The problem with all this complexity is that it disenfranchises the public's vote. If they can get to a convention, and end up selecting someone that isn't even on the slate, that no one voted for in any state, then what was the point of voting? Most of these oddities are to keep party bosses with some input and control over the process and influence in who gets nominated. Especially when you get to a close nomination like this one.

Here's what I would suggest to avoid all this mess. Simplify the process, and make sure the people who vote, count. One, get rid of the delegate process. State parties can elect delegates for the national convention, but it won't be to vote on a candidate. They will go simply representing their state on the party platform and other items of business.

The primaries and caucuses will tally their votes as always. But instead of that vote dividing a slate of delegates, it would simply be added to the vote count from other states to keep a running tally. Then get rid of the majority requirement, and have the election decided on plurality. Whoever has the most votes from all the states, wins. End of story. There would have to be some rules for the rare instance when there is an actual tie in the final vote count, but that isn't likely to happen, if ever. Maybe at that point, the decision to break the tie would go to the convention delegates. But that is all, to select one of the two who tied, not to go outside that.

Then it would be clear who is winning, and everyone's vote is counted, and there is no situation where the decision of who is nominated is decided by anyone other than the voters. Additionally, it doesn't matter how many are running, all a candidate has to do is get the most votes, not reach some magical number.

Because if we do go to a brokered convention, and Ron Paul's plan to stuff his supporters as delegates to the convention succeeds, we could see the lowest vote getter and least likely person to win the general election end up with the nomination. I would imagine such a scenario taking place would ensure the selection process gets changed, especially when said candidate gets shellacked in the general election because of previous racist statements he supposedly made in his newsletter (I know, he says he didn't know about them, but even if true, that won't stop Obama from painting it that way and the people will believe him over Paul...those statements have his name attacked to them).

It would be considered outrageous for the lowest vote getter and delegate getter to get the nomination. Calls for overhauling the system would abound. And while I think that could in the long run be a good thing, this year is not the year to deal with that. Another four years of President Obama and our country won't be the same country it once was, and may be irreparable by then short of a super major overhaul. We need someone in there who can win. And right now, the only two with a chance of that is Romney and Santroum.

But I would like to see the selection process overhauled to put the power for selection more in the voter's hands and make it simple so we know clearly who's winning from the first state's votes.

Fox News article titled "Santorum backers pressuring Gingrich to bow out of presidential race" has the following quote from Gingrich:

We are staying in this race because I believe it will be impossible for a moderate to win the general election," Gingrich said Wednesday in Montgomery, Ala., referencing Romney. 

If Gingrich really believed this, he would bow out as soon as he could get in front of a camera. Because by staying in, he is assuring that the moderate Romney will be nominated. So by staying in the primary race at this point, he is by his own statement, giving President Obama another four years in office.

Because it is very clear that he will not hold the conservative mantel. He may have a better record on that than Romney, thus his stronger conservative support, but strong conservatives will not tend to go his way anymore than they would Romney's. And for some of the same reasons.

Gingrich sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and promoted cap and trade. While admitting that was one of his more stupider mistakes, the only mistake he attributes to that is getting the political cooties from Nancy. He hasn't said it was a mistake to promote cap and trade to my knowledge, or to believe in the global warming hoax that cap and trade is founded on.

Gingrich has promoted in times past, the health care mandate to force private citizens to buy a product simply for living. While he may be against it now because he knows it is politically expedient to do so if he wants conservative support, the fact is his history on the topic hasn't been consistent. Actions speak louder than words, or they should.

And that is why the only state Gingrich won this past Tuesday is his home state of Georgia. It would have been surprising if he hadn't won it. But what he hasn't shown is the ability to win outside that region. And many could say the only reason he won South Carolina was his attack on the media in the debate just days before the primary there sparked a noticeable jump for him in the polls. Without that "gotcha" moment, Romney would have likely won that state. And it is why he hasn't been able to replicate that feat. You can only do that so many times. And there aren't many debates left in the primary to even think about doing that again.

But when Florida voters took a closer look at him, he sank in the polls and lost Florida by a significant margin and hasn't recovered since. In every race since Florida, not counting Georgia, he has been in third or fourth, often in single digits or barely breaking ten percent. And that is the reality he is facing. There is little to no reason to believe at this point that his fortunes in that regard will change. For the most part, he's lost the mantle of being the true conservative in this race.

And in the delegate count, it becomes more obvious. With Romney holding 415 delegates by AP's count as reported by the Wall Street Journal, and Santorum closing in on 200 with 176 delegates, Gingrich has barely broke 100, with a count of 105. And because many of those delegates are not bound to vote for Gingrich, they could shift their vote to Santorum as it becomes clearer that Gingrich is not going to have a chance of winning. Over this next month as Santorum will be competing in states he's expected to win, it will make Gingrich look crazy for staying in the race. He isn't going to be competitive going forward.

And he stands as the least electable candidate in the field. In poll after poll since Florida, he has been in last place when put up against Obama. Each of the other three have had polls that put them in the lead at various points, but Gingrich consistently polls the lowest against Obama and hasn't shown any likelihood of changing that anytime soon. His negatives among women are too high with his past affairs, repentant though he may be. He has lots of political baggage. So much so, that Nancy Pelosi looked gleeful at the thought of Gingrich being nominated because she was sure he couldn't win, knowing what she knows about him.

No, if he really wants to see a conservative nominated, at this point his best chance of that happening is to leave the race and throw his support behind Santorum. But apparently his ego is so big, it prevents him from seeing the obvious. And because of that, we'll likely see Romney as our nominee, save a game changing event or revelation. And because of that, we stand a bigger chance of losing to Obama in the general election. Because Gingrich is right. With a moderate as our nominee, Obama stands a better chance of winning. By nominating a candidate who fits the 1% profile to the tee, we are handing Obama's class warfare machine exactly the contest it is best suited to fight. And we'll likely have Gingrich to thank for it in part, because he put his own personal ambitions over that of his party and country, and didn't bow out when it became painfully clear to everyone but him, that he should.

Thanks a lot, Newt.

Been out with personal issues the last few days. Finally making some time to comment on the results of Super Tuesday.

One of my previous predictions/fears has come true. Due to Gingrich staying in the race, Mitt Romney has taken more of the states than he would have. It may be that Gingrich has ensured that Romney is the next nominee for the party.

Santorum picked up three states tonight, and came in a very close second in Ohio. That alone says a lot in that Santorum has been far outspent and yet is able to give Romney a run for his money in several key places, as he did in Romney's home state of Michigan.

But in looking at the percentage of the votes that Santorum and Gingrich pulled in the states yesterday, it is clear that had Gingrich followed his own advice to Santorum back in January, and dropped out of the race, Santorum would have picked up three more states tonight. There is no doubt if even a small percentage of Gingrich's votes went to Santorum in Ohio, he would have won that state handily. If Gingrich hadn't been running, conservative Georgia would have gone to Santorum. And in looking at Alaska, if even a decent number of Gingrich's votes had gone to Santorum, he would have pulled ahead of Romney there.

That would mean instead of it looking like Romney won most of the states, Santorum would hold the biggest hand, and three of the higher delegate states, Ohio Georgia, and Tennessee. Out of ten, Rick would have won in six, Romney in three (Wyoming hasn't been declared yet).

Because Gingrich is holding onto a stubborn "I'll go all the way to the convention" attitude in some attempt to put a mark on Romney, he is ironically helping to ensure that Romney gets the nomination. If Gingrich has any sense, he will realize this fact, see the handwriting on the wall in that the only state he did well in was his home state, and know that he is only hurting any chance that a true conservative will be the nominee if he stays in.

If he has any sense, he will be announcing in the next few days that he is dropping out of the race and putting his support behind Santorum. Because we still have some big delegate states coming up, and Santorum will need all he can get at this point to catch up to Romney and beat him, if it is still possible to do so.

But one positive note for Santorum tonight was that despite his lack of funds to match Romeny's, despite his lack of organization in each state to match Romney's, despite his "one man show" going up against Romney's establishment funded organization, despite all the negative ads that Romney has been running, Santorum is not only still in the game, but has won three states and came within one percentage point to winning Ohio. That's impressive for him, and also shows how weak of a candidate Romney is, and will be in the general election. If Santorum had half of Romney's advantages, he'd be running circles around Romney.

Which is why I say I'll vote for Romney should he get the nomination. But I greatly fear that once again the establishment will have picked a moderate candidate who won't be able to beat Obama. It will be a John McCain do over. What we don't need this time around to win is conservative lite. He doesn't have the history to take on Obama when it comes to the Health Care law, Cap and Trade, or the bailouts.

If electability was really that important, they wouldn't be voting to put Romney in there. But if he gets the nomination, he will be a vast improvement over Obama if he were to win. But we need a strong conservative to set things right. And I don't think Romney is that man.

But if Gingrich stays in the race, I'm sure that's who we'll end up with when push comes to shove. If Gingrich had bowed out of the race before Super Tuesday, Romney would be in a much weaker position now. But now Super Tuesday is history. All we can hope is for Gingrich to realize what he is doing and drop out now that he's been soundly defeated in every state except his own.

Santorum made a comment a few weeks ago when he did the three-state sweep of victories. He said that what was lacking in the Republican field was a candidate who could excite the Republican base. Naturally, he felt he was the candidate to do that, and after those wins, he could make a case for it.

But since those wins, predictably, the media has gone after him, Ronmney's gone after him, Paul's stepped up his attacks on Rick. As a matter of fact, about the only one in the game who isn't attacking Santorum with any energy  is Gingrich. The result is that the polls show Rick having lost some of his support. His lead in Michigan slipped to now some polls show Mitt ahead, but within the margin of error. So essentially what we have in the polls is a tie. Which means tomorrow will be quite interesting to watch it play out.

There are two factors in the election tomorrow that could indicate something. First, there is the possibility of a wrench being thrown into the works that may create different results from the poll. In which direction is anyone's guess. That factor is the Democrats and Independents. Apparently they can vote in the
Republican primary if they so chose. And it is not clear if any of the polls took those people into account. I would wage most of the polls tell us how registered Republicans are going to vote, but may not poll Democrats and Independents who intend to vote in the election.

If true, these voters could go one of three ways. One of the more predictable is many of them are coming over to vote for Ron Paul. In most all the contest, he has pulled more of that group than the other candidates. Some would point to that as verification that he could do well in the general election. But the voters coming over to vote for him are generally the antiwar types. They aren't that enamored with his other policies so much, they just want a president who won't take us to war all the time. And it is at least clear Paul doesn't intend to do that, even if Iran gets a nuclear weapon.

But some could be coming over to vote for Romney because they want to see a moderate get the nomination. Either because they really want Romney in, or they think that will be the candidate President Obama will have the easiest time defeating. Or they are coming over to vote for Santorum because they think he will be the easiest for President Obama to defeat.

So there is a question how this group will vote. If most of them go to Paul, it won't affect the results of the poll much other than to show Paul with a higher percent he's shown, but he still won't come close to winning that state (though I'm sure he'll say he did, because he likes to believe in fantasies). Otherwise, it could shove either Mitt or Rick into the lead tomorrow.

But I think the second factor will make a lot more difference tomorrow. And that factor is whose voters will be excited enough tomorrow to turn out in big numbers. Whoever has the more excited followers is more likely to win tomorrow. Whoever has enough people getting out to the polls will shove one candidate over the top in Michigan.

Because of that, if Santorum's supporters are as excited as he has said they are, I believe it will show up in the numbers tomorrow. Keep in mind, in Colorado, Romney thought he had it sown up right up until election day. And if Santorum wins tomorrow, it will be a big loss for Romney, and not just because he would have lost his home state.

Because for the first time, Romney would have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at a candidate ahead of him, and he still won. If Mitt's negative ads don't cause him to win, I'd even say by a good size margin tomorrow, it will show that not only is Mitt's campaign strategy flawed, but that Santorum is the one candidate who has a chance to withstand Obama's onslaught and come out winning.

For Santorum to win in Michigan tomorrow will reveal that he has the ability to defeat Obama's attack machine, as no candidate has withstood Romney's up to this point. It will reveal that Santorum's supporters are more energized and excited than Romney's. And it will show that Romney doesn't have what it takes to beat Obama. He won't be able to negative-attack his way into the White House.

Even if Romney wins tomorrow, but Santorum comes in a close second, it will demonstrate Romney's weakness, and still be a big boast for Santorum who by logic shouldn't even be that close in Michigan. Romney has everything to lose if Santorum wins. Santorum has little to lose if he doesn't win. Especially since the delegates are proportionally appointed.

So, tomorrow could be very revealing about the direction of this race. And if Santorum wins tomorrow, it will mean for him a really big boast going into the Super Tuesday contests, which could be critical.

Most of the commentators seem to think everyone did well in the CNN debate in Mesa, AZ this past Wednesday evening. But they also seem to agree that Romney and Gingrich had the best night, while Santorum did well, but not as well.

And part of that was, being the frontrunner, he was the one with a target on his back. Romney and Paul did most of the attacking and kept Santorum on the defense. Goes with the territory of being the frontrunner, and by most accounts, Santorum did well, though there were a couple of missteps, at least in some views.

One of those missteps was when he was questioned about his support of "No Child Left Behind," he responded that it was against his principles but he voted for it in order to take one for the team, specifically President Bush who championed the program. He admitted it was a mistake and should be repealed.

This was a misstep for only one reason. Mainly, that it gave ammunition to Romney and probably Paul as well. And sure enough, Romney used Santorum's statement in his stump speeches Thursday, referencing his comments that he was taking one for the team, and questioning which team Santorum was on. Like he really thinks Santorum is a liberal. Right.

So, yes, it was an act of giving political ammunition to Romney's campaign. We'll have to wait for the primaries Tuesday to see if that has any significant effect on the race. How Michigan turns out will tell a lot. We'll be watching the polls closely in the next few days to see where it is headed.

But here's a point that many commentators will miss, because they are thinking politics and not what the average person on the street will think. What's that? Breaking news! A politician is honest with the American people! Wow! Knowing that statement would become political fodder, Santorum told it like it was. Instead of giving us talking points, we get the real deal, even when it isn't favorable to him. Now that's character.

This past Monday, I posted "Mitt's Conservatism" where I made the case that for Romney to really be taken seriously as a conservative, he needs to repudiate and apologize for two big things: RomneyCare and his belief in Global Warming via supporting Cap and Trade in his own state as governor. But you know what? I don't expect he'll do that. One, his political ambitions would see such an admission as a political weakness. Two, he doesn't have the courage to say those were wrong. He'd spin it before he'd admit it. Three, I doubt he believes those are wrong.

But I didn't think we'd see a more overt display between Romney's polished approach and Santorum's honesty than we got Wednesday night. Rick did refute and apologize for voting for a bill that expanded government. Yes, Rick could have used a different route to say the same thing without saying he voted against his principles and giving Romney a good ad line. But you know what? I dare any of the other candidates to pick something from their past record they are not proud of, be honest with the American people, and admit that what they voted for, signed into law, vetoed, etc., was against their principles.

As bills come in with several things on them, some you want and some you don't, everyone of them up there has made decisions that went against their principle, usually to move projects and bills that fully support their principles forward. Except maybe Ron Paul, who has accomplished very little. Why? Because compromise is how the founding fathers set up our government to work. You have to give up some of what you want, vote for some things the other side wants that you don't, in order to get done what you want. Ron Paul never got that part of the Constitution, and so has not moved his agenda hardly one inch in the 20 years he's been in Congress. He'd accomplish nothing as president for the same reason. He'd veto every bill given to him.

That's the way Congress has always worked from when they hashed out the Constitution to any votes taken in Congress this week. And every President signs bills with items in them that he doesn't agree with. So does every governor. And if you dug back into the bills Romney has signed into law, I'm sure you could come up with some laws he put his signature to that went against his principles, and some good bills he vetoed because there were things in it he couldn't stomach. It is the way our Founding Father set up our government to work. Because otherwise what we have is a dictatorship, not a democracy.

At least Santorum is honest about it. That is a high quality to have in any president. And my gut feeling is, when people think about it, that statement will be more of a reason to support Santorum than to dump him. Because it is men of character like him that we need in office. It would be a refreshing change from what we currently have: a president who says one thing and does something different. Based on Romney's lack of refuting liberal positions he's taken, I don't have the same confidence that he would be that much better on that point than Obama.

If my gut feeling is right, people will perceive Romney's attack on Santorum's statements as more of the same political win-at-all-costs by taking advantage of a candidate who was being honest with them for once. Santorum will rise in the polls due to both Rick's honesty and the backlash from Mitt's attacks on that honesty. Or we could find that honesty, once again, is a sign of weakness and will be exploited, and the electorate will reward the candidate that does so.

We'll know in a few days which type of influence the Michigan and Arizona Republicans will vote for.

The first amendment of the United States Constitution is, when you boil it down, about being a tolerant society. Specifically tolerance from the federal government for differing opinions, that they not be able to make any laws which squelch different opinions on various questions, whether they be religious, political, or published by the "press."

And yet we have an orchestrated effort to do just that by groups such as Media Matters. And what makes this case of particular concern is that the presidency, the enforcing arm of the three branches of government, is working with them in concerted effort to drown out opposing view points. While this isn't the making of a law that the first amendment prohibits, it most certainly violates the very essence of the first amendment for the federal government to circumvent Congress in order to silence opposing view points they find intolerable.

We've seen an effort to do so in Congress or through an administrative agencies. Bills have been introduced to force broadcasters to put up opposing programs, no matter they would be money losers for the stations, and for any program to include opposing view points. But such laws would be a violation of the first amendment, forcing the "press" to provide opinions and news that they don't want. It was a way for the government to get their hands into the programming and control it.

But that didn't fly. Too many people stopped it from happening. So now what do we see? President Obama's office holding regular weekly meetings with a group called Media Matters, whose primary aim is to silence conservative, mostly Republican, opposition to Obama's policies and view points. This attempt at circumventing the first amendment protections of our rights to free speech, and freedom of the press, is disgusting and undermining of our Constitutional rights. It is an attack on our freedom.

Because the fathers of our country realized that tyrants want to control the media, and limit free speech. Free speech was the assurance that we would not end up with a dictatorship in the future. It avoided the federal government from becoming another king and queen like England, who could trample on others rights to satisfy its own agenda. And in countries where there is freedom of speech, that is one of the first things to go for a dictator to take control. Dictatorships, by necessity, are intolerant of differing opinions. They are threatened by them.

It is clear one of the reasons that the media appeared so in the tank for Obama in 2008, is because through Media Matters and related groups, they controlled the media in order to create that appearance. Their list of "journalist" who they can control, who are nothing more than a repeater for Media Matters into the news, shows how far many in the press have sold their journalistic integrity for ideology. They are disqualified as journalist now that we know they were nothing more than shrills for the far left.

But what is insidious is that our President participated in this attempt to silence opposing voices. He has been working to subvert the first amendment, because he knows it is the only way to stay in office is to trick the American people into keeping him there.

How dare he and his cohorts take statements like Rick Santorum's statement about Obama's radical environmental theology out of context to accuses him of questioning Obama's Christianity. Which he's never done. He was questioning the theology of global warming that Obama has bought into, that he has believed. And the Media Matter's attempt to discredit Santorum because he doesn't agree with global warming, is an example of Obama's intolerance for differing opinions from his.

If we are not careful as a nation, we'll allow those on the far left to oppress the nation by silencing the opposing voices. Once that's done, we are a skip and a step away from having a king. For only kings would say something like, "if Congress won't do it, then Joe and I will." He is working to seize control of our country.

Look out if he loses the election, because it may be the first time in US history that the sitting president doesn't leave without a fight. Look out for desperate strategies ahead. This will not be pretty.

People are asking what Romney needs to do to convince people he's conservative. After all, there are positions and "votes" he's taken as governor of Massachusetts that are conservative in nature and principle. For sure, some of what he's done is conservative. I don't deny him that at all. But moderate candidates can point out conservative actions and votes they've taken. That's the definition of moderate, that they have both conservative and liberal positions.

One listed conservative position listed, cutting taxes, is a little iffy. He touts having cut taxes while balancing the budget. But the record recorded in Club for Growth is a little different spin:

When Romney was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 through 2007, he had a mixed record on taxes.  During his initial 2002 campaign, Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge, but he pledged to balance the budget without raising taxes and touted his fulfillment of that pledge throughout his term.  But the details suggest that he broke his verbal commitment.  While it is true that Governor Romney did not impose any broad-based tax hikes despite pressure from liberal special interests and an inherited budget deficit, he imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax “loophole” closures, together with spending cuts, in order to eliminate the budget gap.

 So the "cutting taxes" is a bit of smoke and mirrors tricks in reality. But it is good that he balanced the budget. Just too bad he couldn't do it without raising taxes/fees. Which in reality he did.

But here's what Romney needs to do to be seen as "severely conservative."

1. Renounce and apologize for RomneyCare. The bottom line, is that socialized medicine is not conservative. Any move toward that, which this is, and any mandate that everyone has to buy it, is not conservative. It is unconstitutional. Yes, that applies to the Federal government, not the states. But it is still a violation of a person's privacy and freedom to be required to pay money for something they don't want or need by the government.

That said, the concept of paying for what they do need and use is good and conservative. Address that. But not by forcing people to pay for something they *might* need, which is what insurance is. And it needs to be totally in the private sector, not government, as to how it is provided. Yes, that means Medicaid should be reduced for only poor people, not everyone. Not expanded like it was in RomneyCare.

2. Renounce and apologize for cap and trade, and denounce global warming as a hoax. This is not a conservative position. As long as he holds that belief system that isn't true, then he will be held hostage to extreme and radical environmentalist. Cap and Trade is not a business-friendly policy, and global warming is a hoax. He needs to come to those conclusions in a strong way to be "severely conservative."

Until that happens, he will not be viewed as conservative, but a moderate. A mixed bag. Same for Newt, as well  as he has his own past problems with these two issues that make him less than conservative than he would otherwise be.

There you have it. Now you have the answer. Do it or shut up about being "severely conservative."

Today I heard yet another person try to make the case that our current debt level and recession is Bush's fault, that Obama inherited a mess and it is taking a while to turn the downward spiral around. I've dealt with this before, but allow me to make the case that this simply isn't true. This isn't Bush's economy that was inherited, it is a Democratic economy. I'm dealing with this "old" issue because as we head into the general election, you know this is what they are going to say is why our economy is in the shape it is. It's Bush's fault. Yeah, right.

Here's the fact. The president has very limited input and control of what money is spent. He offers a budget which is chopped up and changed by Congress. The Congress spits out a budget bill (or they're supposed to, the Senate hasn't produced one in over three years now--we're still operating on the 2009 budget) usually chalked full of pet projects. The president gets it, and usually signs it even if he doesn't like a lot in it, because by the time Congress gets him the bill, usually it is down to the wire and not signing it means shutting down government.

The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to decide what money will be spent and to set the tax rates. The president has to abide by the budget that Congress creates. It is common perception that an economy is Bush's, Clinton's, or Obama's. But the truth is, it is the Congress's economy. The bills they vote on and become law is when money is spent and taxes are levied. The only other control the president has is in appointing the Federal Reserve chairman, which is another issue.

So the real economy Obama inherited was a Democratic economy. Let's look at the debt numbers between when the Republican's controlled Congress and when the Democrats controlled Congress, and let's see when the economy took a nose dive.

The Republicans, for the most part, held control of Congress from 1995 to 2007. Based on the numbers at Treasury Direct, the national debt in 1995 was just under $5 trillion. When Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007, the national debt was just over $9 trillion. That represented a total increase in the national debt of just over $4 trillion in twelve years. That reflects and average increase in the national debt each year during the Republican control of Congress of $366 million. Hold that number.

When Obama came on board in 2008, the Democrats had been in control for a year. The national debt had grown to $24 billion over $10 trillion. A total rise in the debt of over $1 trillion for their first Democratic budget. Three times higher than the average during the Republican's control. And it is during that first year of the Democratic control that we had the housing bubble burst and our current recession started. Up until that moment, the economy had been doing very well for all of Bush's term after a shaky start due to 9/11 attacks.

So what has happened in the last four years when we not only had a Democratic controlled congress and a Democratic President? The accelerator has been pushed to the floor instead of the brake being applied. The current debt level as of today is reported as almost $15.5 trillion. In four years the debt grew to $5.4 trillion whereas during the Republican years it took 12 years to grow $4 trillion. Since the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007, the debt has grown by $6.4 trillion. That's an average of $1.28 trillion average per year increase. Almost four times the rate of debt growth than during the Republican control of Congress.

Bottom line, the Republicans did grow the government and raise the debt by $4 trillion in twelve years. One of the reasons the Republicans were kicked out in 2007. But once Democrats took control, despite Obama saying the debt going up to what it was was "unpatriotic," they have raised the debt in five years at a rate of 3.8 times faster than the Republicans did in twelve years.

The fact is when Obama came into office, the economy was in Democratic control and already spiraling out of control. It was the Democrats that protected Freddie and Fanny Mae from regulation to attempt to get the mess under control before it exploded, which it eventually did. They government had been under a Democratic budget for over one year when Obama took office and in that one year added over $1 trillion to the debt, the biggest one year increase in history. The last year of the Republican Congress, the debt had grown by half a trillion.

So there is no basis to claim that the economy Obama inherited was Bush's. It was his own party's mess he is "cleaning" up. And it is the Democrats who are adding to the national debt like drunken sailors at a gambling casino. This is Obama and the Democrat's economy. Any reference to Bush is not only lame after Obama's been in control for three years, but false.