Rick Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign

Moments ago, Rick Santorum suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Santorum, who came virtually out of nowhere in the Republican field of candidates, showed a remarkable resiliency in maintaining his campaign and giving the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, trouble in closing up the nomination early since winning the Iowa Caucus last fall. By dropping out, presumably Santorum will now be able to spend time with his family, and daughter Isabella, who has recently been in the hospital.

Fracking: Truthout's Fracking Expose, Part 1

Truthout.org has started a 3-part expose on the dangers of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking in the industry. Here's part 1:

"A new Pennsylvania law endangers public health by forbidding health care professionals from sharing information they learn about certain chemicals and procedures used in high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. The procedure is commonly known as fracking..." continue reading here.

I'd also note that Rick Santorum is from Pennsylvania. Something tells me he'd be okay with all of this.

Primary Preview: Newt and Santorum on Edge

Tuesday’s Alabama and Mississippi primaries are all-important for Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Each are staking their campaigns on how well they perform Tuesday night, and bolstering that whoever loses should drop out.

Gingrich has essentially been banking his campaign on his performance in the South since the Florida primary loss to Mitt Romney. Gingrich at the time knew the northern contests in Michigan and Ohio would not play well to his favor and never put much into those primaries. Now Gingrich has a chance to prove his candidacy, and legitimize his reluctance to drop from the race, by showing he’s a strong favorite through the south and that, for instance, if Rick Santorum were to drop out, Gingrich could sway a large portion of Santorum’s voters his way to defeat Romney.

This is ostensibly the same argument Rick Santorum is making. In light of last week’s primary wins in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, and his near victory in Ohio, the Santorum campaign has publicly pressured Gingrich to drop out, arguing voters will coalesce behind him to defeat Romney.

Both candidates have strong cases for the other to concede defeat. Anti-Romney sentiment runs high in the GOP, seeing his wealth as a bulwark to connect with the average voter – and his gaffe-prone campaign cements that image nearly every day. Romney also does not have strong support in the south. Gingrich is from Georgia and can easily wrap up several southeast states in the general election. If voters are given Romney as the candidate, they may be willing to vote for Obama simply based on the improving conditions of the economy. Santorum, in contrast, polls well with southerners on social issues and can pull the evangelical vote his way throughout the south and the beltway. The evangelical voting-block could be essential for republicans this fall if they stand any chance of winning the White House. A poll today of likely GOP voters shows that a large majority of Alabama and Mississippi voters do not believe the President’s continued stated admission of his Christian beliefs and think he is a Muslim. But let’s be honest, Mississippi and Alabama also rank in the bottom 5 in education with some of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country. So, there’s that.

But maybe Romney still has the best argument for both Santorum and Gingrich to drop out. According to weekend polling in Mississippi and Alabama, Romney is virtually in a dead-heat with these other candidates. If he doesn’t win either state outright, he’ll still secure some delegates and inch ever-closer to the magic 1,144 needed for the nomination. And after last week’s big Ohio victory, the Romney campaign began making their case that they should be the nominee. Of course, it’s not about policies or that he really is the better candidate. It’s math! The Romney campaign thinks the others should drop out because they can’t possibly reach 1,144 delegates now, so, just get out! I know nobody wants me to win, but I’ve got a twenty run lead. You should just forfeit now in the bottom of the third. I’ll pay you…

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker and AmericanLP

Will Obama End Super PACs If Re-Elected?

Bill Burton, former White House Press Secretary, and current head of Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, discusses the notion that even if a super PAC helps President Obama win re-election, the President will not work to achieve campaign finance reform to rid the political system of inhindered money in politics.

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/bill-burton-defends-president-obama-stance-on-super-pac-funding-for-the-2012-campaign

Super Tuesday Not Super For Mitt Romney

Super Tuesday offered a chance for Mitt Romney to finally secure the Republican nomination. It didn’t happen, despite narrowly winning the all-important Ohio contest. Here’s a round-up of the Super Tuesday results:

Mitt Romney won the crucial Ohio race, but it was neck-and-neck with his top contender Rick Santorum. Romney beat Santorum by a slim 1% margin, further proof of anti-Romney sentiment. This win was much less impactful than if Santorum had been the one to eek out a victory, especially in light of other key losses. But the former Governor did manage to win his other “home” state, Massachusetts, with a resounding 72% of the vote. Vermont, Alaska, and Idaho also fell his way. Virginia should have been a solid win for Romney, but comes with a heavy asterisk: Romney and Rep. Ron Paul were the only two candidates on the ballot. Romney earned 60% of the vote, but Paul’s 40% again shows the public’s timidity when it comes to their trust of “two-Cadillac” Romney.

Rick Santorum, by most counts, had a great night. He may not have won Ohio, but he came close, and it stands to reason if Newt Gingrich now drops out, Santorum will pick up most of the anti-Romney supporters. But what made Santorum’s night particularly noticeable were his wins in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, showing he still has the key evangelical vote. Santorum, however, is still having trouble garnering attention from more moderate republicans with his wild, dangerous social issues campaign. He has tried repeatedly to shift the message of this election from the economy to social issues. It worked in Tennessee last night and could be crucial for wins in the southern primaries next week.

Newt Gingrich had a terrible night. He won Georgia, his home state, a surprise to no one, but failed to make an impact anywhere else on the board. He might have shown strong in Virginia, but he wasn’t on the ballot, and his campaign is hurting financially. He needs wins in the next couple of weeks in key southern states: the Missouri and Kansas caucuses, as well as Alabama and Mississippi. However, Santorum is polling high in those states and it doesn’t look likely that Gingrich will muster enough votes for a victory. More reason the Santorum camp is urging Gingrich to drop out.

Ron Paul suffered a harsh blow on Tuesday night. He did well in Virginia, but didn’t persuade republicans that he can beat Romney head-to-head. In North Dakota, Vermont, and Alaska, he also performed well, but failed to win any of the decisions. He managed only 9.3% of the vote in Ohio, and only picked up 21 delegates. Paul has a strong backing, but it looks like he’ll never get the delegates needed for the nomination.

President Obama was perhaps the biggest winner of Super Tuesday. Republican voters are so un-energized and dissatisfied with their nominees that, come November it will be difficult for conservative operatives to rally behind just one person. Romney did inch closer to the nomination to face off against Obama this fall, but Romney is still not generating any kind of excitement from the republican base. This reinforces the fact that Obama’s reelection is in his own hands and he may just cruise to victory.

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker at AmericanLP

Rachel Maddow: Limbaugh "doesn't know what contraception is."

Rachel Maddow delved into the Rush Limbaugh controversy on her show last night and took the conservative political pundit to task for his incredible misunderstanding of how contraceptives work and how women use them. It's a long video, but watch the whole thing. You won't be disappointed.

Amreican LP News Brief March 2, 2012

American LP Daily News Briefing March 2, 2012

Republicans are begrudgingly coming to grips with the presidential candidacy of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Tuesday night, Romney won both the Michigan and Arizona primaries and it’s becoming clear that Romney should be able to secure the nomination. These wins though do not bode well for republicans when it comes to the general election. Republicans still seem hesitant to throw overwhelming support behind Romney, or any of the 4 remaining candidates. Romney has regained the lead in nationwide polls, but his support is sitting at an anemic 35%. His chief rival, Rick Santorum, has fallen quickly in the last two weeks, now sitting at 24%. The two have flip-flopped (much like Romney does on just about every policy issue) since the last major polls two weeks ago, where Santorum held 34% of voters’ support and Romney was at 24%. And speaking of flip-flops, Romney once again added another swift policy shift to his growing list, first by coming out and saying he opposed the Blunt Amendment in the Senate, and literally within the hour reverting to the most extreme position saying he was in support of the amendment.

The Blunt Amendment (at the 2:00 mark), a rider attached to a transportation bill in the Senate that would have allowed any employer to refuse health care coverage of any kind based on religious or moral reasons, failed in the Senate this week, a vote accurately reflecting public opinion polling. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 63% of Americans support the new Obama federal regulation requiring health insurance plans to cover the costs of birth control; 8 out of 10 democrats support the Obama requirement; 4 in 10 republicans support the ‘Obamacare’ regulation; and what seems most important in this upcoming election, the independent vote, shows that 6 in 10 registered independents support the Obama policy for insurance companies to pay for contraceptive care for people they cover.

Finally (the 3:05 mark), it came as a shock to learn that Andrew Breitbart, prominent conservative blogger and muckraker, died suddenly Wednesday night of natural causes, according to his spokesperson. Maybe more surprising, was the immediate swarm of conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Breitbart reportedly was to release a video on Thursday, March 1, of President Obama back in college that would have “destroyed” the President and significantly ruined his reputation before this upcoming election. Now, it’s still all hearsay as to how damaging this video might have been (remember Breitbart is the same person to selectively edit the Shirley Sherrod video that caused a phony outcry of racism, and also had his hand in the James O’Keefe fabrication that eventually led ACORN to close its’ doors), but it seems that if there were some strange insidious character trait President Obama has been hiding through over 3 years in office, and this video would expose him as a fraud, or a fake, or something worse, this video seems dubious to expose him as such. And even more preposterous is this idea that Breitbart was ‘taken-out’ because of the knowledge that he supposedly possessed. The autopsy will hopefully shed some light on the true cause of Breitbart’s death, but as evidenced throughout the last few years by the ridiculous spectacle surrounding President Obama’s birth-certificate, republicans may just scoff at any true evidence found in relation to Breitbart’s death.

Stick around to the end of the video for a new campaign ad by republican presidential candidate Ron Paul lampooning his rivals in the GOP race. We don’t like Paul anymore than the other candidates, but it’s always nice to see the republicans grilling one another.

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker

Rick Santorum's Theocracy: Update

Last time I was left questioning whether Rick Santorum was either willfully ignorant of the stated separation of church and state in the Constitution, or if he knows, but just doesn't care. It seems he does know, and he cares, and it makes him want to "throw up" that there is such a thing. Now I'm terrified.

Rick Santorum's Theocracy

I'm really trying to wrap my head around a Rick Santorum presidential victory and what it might mean for the country. And I find it a frightening scenario. First of all, I honestly do not think it will happen. I believe Michiganders will finally start thinking again before next Tuesday's Republican primary and Mitt Romney will win out after being ahead, then drastically falling, only to come to a tie again the weekend before the voters cast their ballots (that is, if he stops talking long enough...). This win for Romney will once again set him up as the front runner and I don't foresee Santorum coming back again. Much of Santorum's fall, however, is based on his own missteps (more on that momentarily). But should Santorum come in a close second in Michigan, and perhaps steal a few more primaries along the way, he could potentially be the Republican nominee against Obama. And even though many voters claim their highest priority is the economy in 2012, for many more the simple expulsion of Obama from the presidency factors much more and it may mean the President is not elected, giving candidate Santorum the White House. And if this happens, the bitterness still stinging your tongue from the Bush administration will suddenly seem like the most decadent wine you've ever tasted.

The number 1 issue on voters minds right now is the economy. Santorum, to his credit, recognizes he doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to the economy, spending, and earmarks, and his opponents are hitting him hard on it. Santorum's plan of government cuts and tax reductions will actually increase the deficit, just as Gingrich's and Romney's plans will do. In actuality, Ron Paul's deficit reduction plan is the only plan of the 4 remaining Republican candidates that will effectively reduce the deficit. Knowing his economic past may come back to haunt him, Santorum has attempted a debate 'coup' to change what the candidates are talking about. He criticized President Obama last week of practicing a "phony theology," questioning the very nature of the President's beliefs. Many from both sides of the aisle criticized this statement, and those who are incredulous to President Obama's stated Christian beliefs, and excoriated them for their double-standards. Santorum has also loudly drummed the "contraception controversy" and spoken of the President's "war on religion". Santorum is playing to his strengths and what he perceives as his best chance to secure the nomination and the White House: social issues. But there is a larger pretext to all of this: Santorum's want to create law based solely on "biblical law".

Santorum's questioning of President Obama's beliefs and his advocating to outlaw birth control, as well as abortions, and prohibiting same-sex marriage are directly linked to the former Senator's strict Catholic upbringing. Where most candidates and public officials recognize and abide the Constitution's separation of church and state, Santorum seems to be wholly ignorant of it (something many Conservatives might find interesting), or willfully blind to achieve his own selfish ends. The former Senator is running on a campaign that would essentially be the most theocratic administration in power in over 100 years. Santorum has unequivocally stated that civil law should "comport with God's law." Here's a video of him saying just that:

Santorum believes that sex serves no other purpose than procreation. He thinks sex, unless in the act of conceiving, is immoral. He believes this so strongly that he does not think contraception should be legal. He believes this so strongly that he does not think abortions should be legal, even in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman's life is in danger. He believes this so strongly that, though he claims to have nothing against gay people and purports to "know" many homosexuals, he thinks homosexuality is a sin because there is no biological expedient to homosexual sex, therefore making it immoral. As President, and as a member of the "liberty loving" right wing, Santorum would make all of these things illegal because he believes more strongly in a book written 2,000 years ago than all of the literature, math, and scientific advancements achieved since. In the era where Republicans overwhelmingly bemoan the overreach of government in our daily lives, Santorum seeks to effectively control you to your very bedroom.

And did you notice that bit in the video right at the outset there too? He says, in Islam the civil law and the higher law are the same, what one Newt Gingrich might call 'Sharia Law,' but the United States is different because we have civil laws unrelated to higher laws but they ought to comport with the higher law... Um, what? So, basically, Rick Santorum is promoting that we should have 'Christian Sharia Law'? How is that any better than 'Islamic Sharia Law'? How would that be better than 'Jewish Sharia Law'? A theocracy is a theocracy. Maybe Rick Santorum doesn't exactly know his world history and that thousands of our American ancestors fled Europe to escape theocracies (and still found themselves plenty of theocratic colonies in the New World). But I doubt it. I think he knows full well what he's doing. And that scares me the most.

The Daily Show: Republicans Break Obama's Promises

     

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - President Evil
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

      Part 2:
     

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - President Evil 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

     

Rick Santorum Sinks Low

Rick Santorum has taken his current front-runner status in the GOP primary as a sign that he no longer needs to worry about his GOP contenders, but instead should start focusing his attacks on his presumptive opponent in the presidential race, President Obama. One might think Santorum, a former Pennsylvania Senator, would be attacking the President’s policies over the three years Obama's served in office, or maybe something the President did while in the Senate. No. It seems Santorum wants to forego debating what the President has done for this country (politics aside: staved-off an economic depression; saved the American auto-industry; provided access to health insurance for millions of Americans who couldn’t get it before; the list goes on…) and the administration’s policies and just go ahead and attack the man himself, unbelievably questioning the President’s core religious beliefs. On Saturday, Santorum said the President’s agenda is tied to “some phony theology” not based on the bible. I think in the next couple of days we’ll even see some on the right bemoaning Santorum’s remarks and saying he went too far. So far, of course, the Obama campaign has disavowed the remarks. Robert Gibbs, adviser to Obama’s re-election campaign, said on ABC’s This Week that Santorum’s remark, “crossed the line.” Surely, it did. But I also think this speaks largely to the campaign itself. As the economy continues to improve, it’s going to be harder and harder for the GOP candidates to argue how the President’s economic policies have actually hurt the country. And that’s what this election is all about. It’s about the economy, the most important issue on voters’ minds. What this shows to me, as well as the contraception ‘controversy’ drummed up over the past few weeks, is that the GOP are desperately searching for cultural issues as wedge devices in the upcoming election to pull independent voters their way. Will this Bush-era tactic work? I’m sure that some voters will be swayed, but for the vast majority of them, especially liberals and the all-important independent group, this will only serve to further pull them from ever voting 'right' again.

And speaking of running the country on a campaign ‘based’on the bible,' here’s an excellent clip from The West Wing season 2. Imagine if we did have a President who based how the country should be run only on the words of that outdated text.

AmericanLP Daily News Brief 2/17/12

AmericanLP covers all the top headlines in politics on both sides of the aisle in this morning’s news brief. Major headlines yesterday once again pointed to a rebounding economy. New applications for unemployment hit a 4-year low. Also, the DNC released a new ad, which you can view at the 1:15 mark, highlighting the diverging ideologies between the Obama administration’s decision to save the auto industry and Mitt Romney’s 2008 Op-Ed “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. The bailout was unequivocally a successful administrative decision for President Obama, and coupling this with the rate for unemployment applications falling, and last week’s news that the overall unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent, we have public opinion of the President quickly on the rise. 44% of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll believe economic conditions will be better in 2013 than this year. This coincides with a CNN poll yesterday showing the President’s approval rating is back to 50% for the first time in 8 months. The administration, and the Obama re-election campaign, have really begun hammering home the jobs numbers, focusing not on the unemployment rate so much, as that number is still unfortunately high, but rightly talking about how bad things were when Obama came into office (750,000 jobs hemorrhaging from the economy per month) to how his policies have vastly turned this country around (250,000 jobs added in January; a 1 million point swing) and have created the most manufacturing jobs since the 1990’s.

Switching over, AmericanLP discusses the latest from the GOP presidential campaign. Mitt Romney, on the verge of losing his front runner status in some polls, gave a speech Thursday in which he addressed the concerns of entrepreneurs looking for funding to start their own business. In a swipe at the Solyndra controversy, Romney excoriated the benefits of government funding a start-up business and instead suggested entrepreneurs should apply to venture capitalists, angels, or their parents for funding. A statement such as this is on par with Romney’s “$10,000 bet” and once again reinforces the notion that Romney is so fiscally out-of-touch with the general American public (the average salary for Americans is $26,000/year; Romney makes $57,000/day) that it’s hard to fathom how he’ll win the nomination. Romney was born to the kind of wealth where if he wanted to start his own company, he could go to his parents for the capital to get the project off the ground. However, most Americans cannot. Most Americans struggle to pay their own bills, and many are helping their parents through retirement after the recession. It seems every time Romney opens his mouth, he further ostracizes himself from the general American public. Maybe that’s why he chose to drop out of the CNN Georgia debate scheduled in a couple weeks. Rick Santorum also declined the invitation; his motivations for doing so are less clear. With less money and generally one of the candidates who performs well in these debates, it doesn’t really play to Santorum’s strengths not to participate. But Santorum was not immune to the ‘tax return release’ scrutiny either. Santorum released 4 years of his tax returns and they paint a startling contrast to much of what Santorum has been saying on the campaign trail. Posturing himself as a threat to big government, Santorum has actually made $3.6M in lobbying fees since losing his re-election bid for the U.S. Senate. Try as he might, Santorum seems just as much a “Washington Insider” as Newt Gingrich.

A new segment on AmericanLP, “News From The 14^th Century,” highlights the ridiculous spectacle yesterday from Congress where Darrell Issa barred a woman from testifying on a birth control hearing in response to the contraception controversy. Republicans, for all their talk of individual freedom, want to deny women access to birth control, even though 98% of Catholic women say they have used some form of contraceptive in their life. Issa, instead of allowing one woman to testify, decided to fill the panel with men and priests. Clearly, they’ll have a deeper understanding of contraception than any woman might…

These are just a few of the highlights from this morning’s briefing. Watch the whole video for more news in politics from around the country. ~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker

Obama and the Contraceptive Accommodation

I guess one of the things I find most appealing about Facebook is the access to information and opinion from my friends that I don’t find elsewhere. And I think the impersonal dialogue that exists through the site gives people incentive to write things they might not normally say during a conversation. For me personally it provides a gateway to my friends’ point-of-view that normally I do not think I would know. The contraception “controversy” dogging President Obama through the last couple of weeks has again provided a basis for some personal introspection on my part, some friendly banter on Facebook, and some evolving perspective on the issue.

It started with a link of mine to an article on Truthout.Org describing how this contraception issue is mostly being drummed by a partisan right-wing agenda to shift the upcoming presidential election towards social issues rather than the economy. The reason being this issue of having employers (including religious institutions) provide birth control care in their insurance plans has been law since 2000 and the Bush administration coming into office did absolutely nothing to appeal the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling that denying contraceptive care is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination based on sex. So, clearly, this was never a problem until a democrat was in office and then it became an ‘example’ of “government overreach by this administration”.

My point in linking the article was to highlight this GOP hypocrisy, but a friend commented about the ruling itself, having also fallen into the trap that the government is only now overstepping its bounds (and never did in the previous 8 years of the Bush presidency). He mocked that toothpaste will be the next thing the government will require employers to cover in their insurance plans. I responded that that was ridiculous because toothpaste is over-the-counter, and further tried to make my point that I was not addressing the contraception issue per se (for my views on it were initially that I think religious organizations should be allowed to deny birth control coverage based on freedom of religion), but, again, the hypocrisy of the GOP to make this an issue now. My friend then posted this:

“Here’s what I think. I read an article about how England lost their right to own firearms. It started slowly and pitted gun owners against each other. The government first outlawed automatic firearms. This only affected persons who owned automatic firearms so everyone else who owned semi-autos, bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Next the government outlawed semi-autos. So everyone that owned bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Then they outlawed bolt actions and so on and so forth. In England, all firearms owners should have stood together to fight the bans whether it affected them of not, but they didn’t and the government was able to break them down piece by piece. I see this contraception deal as the same thing. Non-Catholics are saying, 'Why do we care? We believe in contraception and preventative pregnancy.' What non-Catholics should be saying is, 'We do not share the Catholic Church’s belief on contraception, but we stand behind them in their Constitutional right to believe and practice their religious views.' This isn’t about me being Republican and you being Democrat. This is about a slippery slope. This is the first step toward the Government impeding the free exercise of religion. This isn’t some conspiracy theory,[sic] it’s just what governments eventually do.”

After pointing out that my friend should read Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came...” quote on the rise of Nazi Germany, I dove into an argument showing how I think President Obama’s shift to exempt religious organizations/businesses from this Affordable Care Act requirement was a “slippery slope” inclined the other way. (Note: the administration is now shifting the burden of covering contraception to insurance companies.) In my view, offering this accommodation to businesses with religious affiliations creates the opportunity for other businesses to deny contraceptive coverage, not only because they might have a moral/religious objection to contraception, but because they might want to save a little money instead of provide care to their employees. What were to happen if one of the largest insurance companies in the country decided that they had moral objections to contraception because some of their top executives suddenly became devout 'Catholics'? And when businesses are granted special privileges, why can’t a state or local government not be offered these same exemptions to discriminate against women for contraceptive use? And the current GOP front runner for the presidential nomination is Rick Santorum, who has been running on a staunchly evangelical platform and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning all contraceptives. This outcome seems like the next step in accommodating one religious group, or in reality what we should classify the Catholic Church as, this one business. The more I think about this issue, the more I side with President Obama’s initial take on this (and the one the EEOC deemed in 2000) is that no one group should be allowed to discriminate from any one group.

And I think it bears to mention, that Ron Paul, who has a strong backing all over the country for the GOP nomination, believes the Civil Rights Act was itself unconstitutional and should be repealed, and by extension would disagree with the EEOC’s ruling. Paul, a long-serving Texas Congressman, seems to me a very dangerous individual to have in office. Congressman Paul thinks that if a business, a person, or really anybody, wants to discriminate against a race, a sex, or any other group they have it within their rights to do so. Paul does not seem to understand that one individual’s freedom cannot be limitless. According to Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, individual freedom extends only to the cusp of infringing on another’s freedom. Sure, you have the right to own a gun, but if your right to have that gun to kill me infringes on my right to life, then you should have to relinquish that right. Such are the basis for laws. Such balance is the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to require employers to cover contraception. Government has an obligation to protect the citizenry no matter of race, religion, or creed. It has an obligation to thwart any person or entity who wishes to restrict the autonomy of another.

Allen West: The Personal Good

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) took place late last week in Washington D.C. All the biggest names in Republican politics were in attendance, and even some Occupy Wall Street protesters decided to join in on the excitement, or maybe just create some on their own. There were countless speakers throughout the conference, each offering up their litany of excuses not only as to why President Obama is such a bad president, but why he's such a bad person. Frankly, that's all anybody has heard who's been even remotely paying attention through the twenty-something debates the GOP primary has had so far, so as an outsider and liberal, none of that stuff really excited me. Mitt Romney didn't convince me any more than he did Sarah Palin that he's conservative. Rick Santorum gave a well received, though ultimately uninspired speech at the conference, and failed to hold the momentum he gained earlier in the week with a sweep of lat Tuesday night's caucuses. On Saturday, Santorum placed a distant 3rd in Maine's caucus. Ron Paul continues to hold his firm grasp of a decent-sized portion of the GOP electorate, narrowly beating front runner Romney in Maine. And Newt: I'm not too sure he's over the hill quite yet. But there was at least one thing I heard coming from CPAC that interested me.

Florida Congressman Allen West gave a speech on Friday night where he laid out this little tidbit, "We also realize that the public good is a misnomer, created by our liberal friends. It is not the public good that matters. It is the personal good."

I'm quite astonished by this statement. To me, this sounds like one of the most selfish things ever uttered by a man. It is made worse that Rep. Allen West considers himself a christian, a religion that teaches the practice of helping others in need, "do unto thyself as you do unto others," and to "bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ". Not only does this statement fly in the face of West's supposed religious beliefs, but it flies in the face of American values. We are the "United States," are we not? It's difficult to separate the inherent "public" of this nation when 50 territories (and thousands of others still within those) are bound by a simple doctrine of "We the people..." A statement such as West's is so callous and base that it makes me wonder how I grew up in the same society as a man elected to public office who would say this. Personal good means nothing without public good. If the public lacks freedom then the individual is bereft of it. If the public lacks goods and services then the individual is in want of these. If the public lacks safety, the individual is isolated in fear of everyone around them, and the more selfish they become the smaller the island to which they are immured.

Mitt Romney Wins New Hampshire

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won a decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary tonight. The numbers as of press time show Romney with about 36% of the vote, about 11% more than his closest rival, Ron Paul. While that is a large margin, and CNN was able to call the primary just after 8 pm eastern time for the former governor when the polls were officially closed, it was not necessarily a decisive one. The Huffington Post splashed as their headline tonight, “5 Years Campaigning, Less Than 40%?” Romney has ostensibly never quit his 2008 presidential bid in New Hampshire, keeping offices open, continuing to build support over the last 4 years, much like what Congressman Paul had done down in Iowa (yet it still couldn’t get him a win). Romney did win, but he was only able to garner roughly 36% of the primary voters. With a lasting campaign as he had had, one might have thought New Hampshire would be a runaway victory for Governor Romney.

In all likelihood, Romney will win the nomination. There really is nobody in the field who can match his campaign when it comes to spending and donations. Through his own resources and the capital of the Pro-Romney Super PACS, he can fend off any surge by the other candidates in the race. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, they all rose and fell without Romney needing to do much. They had no chance when it came to Iowa, or New Hampshire. They beat themselves. Newt Gingrich, however, was a different story. With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich saw a huge shift in support from likely voters. And with the holidays coming up, and the focus shifting off Iowa for a hot-minute, Gingrich looked poised to roll into the final week with a commanding lead. Sensing a shift in momentum, Romney (and his Super PACS) stepped in. They blanketed the airwaves with attack ads on the former House Speaker calling into question his integrity, his record, his marital strife. And it worked. Gingrich’s popularity plummeted and Romney went “all-in” in Iowa hoping to shut down this roulette wheel of Republican flavors-of-the-month. It didn’t quite work. Former Sen. Rick Santorum played well with Iowa voters with his social conservative issues and nearly pulled off an upset. Without a decisive victory, Romney would still have a large field of contenders to bat off in New Hampshire.

It’s a week later, and I don’t see that much has changed. Sure Romney won by more than 10% (with a field of five), but it’s not a knockout punch. Rick Perry, after tonight, should really drop out. But he was never focused on New Hampshire and has instead been looking to South Carolina’s primary on Jan. 21. But his showing was so bad tonight, and his campaign has been running on life-support for weeks, that he should just give up while still ahead. Of course, I probably could say the same thing about Jon Huntsman, but he never even bothered with Iowa. His focus was New Hampshire and it worked – to an extent. Huntsman will likely finish a strong 3^rd in New Hampshire, but with no base whatsoever in South Carolina to speak of it’s difficult to say how he can press on from here. Huntsman really did need a 1^st or 2^nd place tonight to get the momentum he needed in the coming weeks. With only about 15-18% of the vote in New Hampshire, and a significant distance to catch Ron Paul, this does not bode well for his campaign in the coming weeks. But then this all comes back around to Romney and how poor his numbers were for the evening.

Without breaking the 40% margin, Romney has to be wondering what is missing from his campaign to draw in new voters. There must be some consternation on his part that the anti-Romney popularity has not yet finished weaving its way through the field of contenders. About 30% of voters this past weekend were still undecided going to the voting booth and Romney's final tally were fairly consistent with his polling numbers, meaning he still has not done what's needed to sway the undecided to his camp. If given a few more days, or another week, might Huntsman turned more support his way? We can't say for sure now. South Carolina might still have something to say for Jon Huntsman. It may have something to say for all the other candidates as well. Rick Santorum's social issues might play better in SC. Newt Gingrich is from neighboring Georgia. Ron Paul's libertarian base seems to be holding steady between 20-25% of republican voters. If New Hampshire is indicative of South Carolina in its population of undecided voters, we might not be any closer to solidifying a republican nominee for the White House in 11 more days. And the longer this strings along, the worse it will be for Romney.

Huntsman Lands Big Endorsement

Today, Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman received a major boost to his campaign just five days before the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday night. The Boston Globe, Massachusetts’ most influential newspaper, endorsed the former Utah Governor as their pick for the Republican nominee for 2012. This is big news for the Huntsman campaign, which has seen anemic support so far throughout the Republican race and it may also come as a surprise to some since Mitt Romney, current frontrunner for the nomination, was once the paper’s state governor. It may come as a surprise to everyone, except Romney himself. The Globe in the 2008 campaign endorsed Sen. John McCain, who eventually won the nomination. With the primary so close, it’s difficult to say if this endorsement is too little, too late for the Huntsman campaign, or if it will provide a flurry of media attention and support in the waning days before the primary, similar to former Sen. Rick Santorum before the Iowa caucus Tuesday night. With the top-tier of candidates so tight and many republicans still undecided, this endorsement could be just what Huntsman needs to finally make a move towards the top.

Republican voters seem, at least before Romney’s narrow Iowa caucus victory earlier this week, reluctant to pick and stay with a candidate. The field has seen Michelle Bachmann (dropped out of the race after finishing last in Iowa), Herman Cain (dropped out), Rick Perry (back in Texas to reassess his campaign after a 5^th place Iowa finish), and Newt Gingrich all at one time taking the top spot in polling. Ron Paul has seen steadily increasing numbers and has the most ardent supporters. Paul feels so strongly about the loyalty of his base he has not yet ruled out running as a Third-Party candidate in the general election. And there’s Huntsman, who has run a steady campaign in New Hampshire (he did not participate in the Iowa caucuses), but has seen very little support come his way. The Globe’s endorsement may help change all that. Romney leads comfortably in New Hampshire, but a strong surge from Huntsman, possibly moving him into 2^nd or 3^rd in the Republican race could upend the field and bring many of these candidates back down to earth. Just look at the end to the Globe piece:

                “But even if Romney emerges as the nominee, it matters how he gets there. Already, the religious Right, represented by Rick Santorum, and Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul, have pushed Romney in unwanted directions. In New Hampshire, Republican and independent voters have a chance, through Huntsman, to show [Romney] a sturdier model. Jon Huntsman would be a better president. But if he fails, he could still make Romney a better candidate.”

Romney is, in view of many analysts, a moderate pandering to the far Right in order to secure the nomination, and that should he win the presidency, he’ll be much less conservative than the party wants (probably the reason voters are reluctant to pick him and constantly looking elsewhere for a viable conservative they can support). And as the Globe points out, “Huntsman has been bold” when it comes to his beliefs and values, and contrary to Romney’s denunciation of all-things-Obama, his unsubstantive vision of repeal, repeal, repeal while speaking little of what he would replace it with, Huntsman has consistently laid out his goals for the future.

A link from Huntsman's campaign website provides a detailed overview of some of Huntsman’s signature goals if elected president. But there are a few items that I have been watching with Huntsman for several months now.

Huntsman opposes the notion that ‘corporations are people’ and the controversial decision of the Supreme Court in early 2010 in the Citizens United case. The entire Republican field has endorsed the decision of the court and none find it controversial nor view it as a threat to our democracy. It is, and Huntsman is the only candidate who rightfully believes so. Mitt Romney on the other hand was against the idea of granting “personhood” to corporations until, or course, he needed to raise cash for his campaign and very publically proclaimed to a worried gathering of supporters when questioned on the decision, “Corporations are people, my friend,” then dismissively went on to another topic.

Jon Huntsman refuses to accept that global warming is a natural trend and wants to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our emissions, and strongly supports turning our economy off foreign oil, as well as fossil fuels all-together, and move the country towards a green economy so that we can compete with the $5 Trillion alternative fuel industry emerging in China, India, and the rest of the world.

And finally, Governor Huntsman has been advocating the break-up of “Too Big to Fail” banks, recognizing their involvement, deceit, negligence, and criminal activity that lead to the housing crash and ultimately the Great Recession. Rightfully, Mr. Huntsman has bemoaned the Obama Administration and Congress for failing to address and change the systemic issues of the financial services industry with the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed into law in 2011. He believes lawmakers failed to pass meaningful reform.

I do not necessarily agree with Mr. Huntsman on everything. I do not like that he is basing his plans for entitlement reform on Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan, which essentially ends Social Security as we know it. Huntsman seems willing to expand domestic oil production, which I think could pave the way for approval of the Keystone oil pipeline, the benefits of which are considered by many wildly over exaggerated, and threatens vulnerable environmental areas throughout the country. But what I do not want to happen is come November, I’m casting my vote to re-elect President Obama simply because the guy standing at the other podium is so dangerous to human rights, so neoconservative in their views on tax cuts and military spending, so disastrously unqualified, that I have no choice. If Jon Huntsman wins the GOP nomination, he will also force President Obama to become a better candidate.