national debt

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Rick Santorum Is Not Honest About His Pro-Life Record

Conservative Samizdat Samizdat (Cамиздат-Cам-"self, by oneself"; издат-"publishing house"): Translates to mean self published. Providing conservative news and opinion since 2009.

By Jared Allebest

Today, Rick Santorum is in Wisconsin trying to get religious conservatives in that state to vote for him on the upcoming primary next Tuesday. Rick Santorum has currently positioned himself as the social conservative in the race. He wants you to believe that he's always been a pro-choice warrior who has fought in defense of life. However, that image does not provide a true picture of who Rick Santorum is. 
If we really take a close look at Rick Santorum's record on abortion, voters will find that he either tolerated abortion or has flip flopped in on his position of abortion. Let us the review the facts: 
When we look at his voting record, we find that Rick Santorum voted for the protection of Abortion Clinics. He's also backed pro-abortion candidates against pro-lifers such as Arlen Specter. Rick Santorum has admitted that he has not be a firm warrior on the issue of abortion: 
“Santorum, who describes himself in his campaign manual as a “progressive conservative,” and who did not have a firm position on abortion”
“Santorum said he had always opposed government funding of abortions, but “beyond that I tried as much as I could to dance around the issue, not really take a position on it.”
Additional evidence shows that Rick Santorum did not take up a position upon abortion until it was politically convenient to do so:
What's even worse, Rick Santorum may have been hostile to those who have been fighting the pro-life agenda. Recently, a video has surfaced in which it shows standing on the right hand side of Arlen Specter, applauding him as Arlen Specter berates those in the “radical” wing of our party who are fighting for justice for the unborn and religious freedoms. Watch the video below: 

Rick Santorum has been trying to portray himself as the stalwart warrior on abortion as a means of portraying himself as a staunch social conservative. However, the facts demonstrate that Rick Santorum's past actions undermine the image he's trying to put forth to the American public. This information is relevant for social conservatives in this race because they may not be happy with someone who is being dishonest about their pro-life record and has been seen cheering on a senator who openly mocks those who have been fighting for the unborn.

 See more of Conservative Samizdat  .............  http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Friday, March 30, 2012


By Evelio Perez

Governor Mitt Romney has finally separated himself from the anti-Romney pack and has seized the front-runner status for once and for all.

They threw the kitchen sink folks, in spite of having President Obama's Democratic machine and the Mainstream Media mercilessly attacking him for over a year, Governor Romney has shown that he not only can handle all of the vicious attacks but can if necessary, deliver a knock-out punch.

The Republican field was impressive down the line with each worthy candidate getting a crack at Gov. Romney (the presumed front-runner). All throughout the debate process, (20 of them?) Gov. Romney was the one to beat and that never changed.

He has exceeded all expectations and has prevailed against all comers, from Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
All of these candidates have at one time claimed front-runner status in this process as Tea Party hopefuls and proclaimed themselves as the alternative to Romney, only to eventually be overspent, overpowered and over-matched by the better candidate each and every time.
The biggest anti-Romney of them all, President Barack Obama and his enormous political machine is nervously waiting on the sidelines, hoping and praying that his opponent in November is someone else but Romney.

If we are ever going to defeat the sitting president, the most powerful man in America, we are going to have to put up our best, the most qualified candidate and the man who is most able to challenge him on the economy.
It is time folks, we must end the vicious infighting that is damaging our candidates and dangerously lowering our chances for victory in November, it is now time to unite.
The survival of our great country not only needs us to unite in force, but they need for us to win, this could be our last chance!

For the good of the Republican Party and the country, I am calling for Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul to do the right thing, withdraw from the race and unite in supporting Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Thursday, March 29, 2012


By Jesse Merkel

On Wednesday night on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) gave an official endorsement to Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor was flying high already after word came through earlier that day that former president George H.W. Bush would give him an official endorsement on Thursday. These two prominent Republicans are the latest to join the long list of Romney endorsements.

This was the endorsement that Romney wanted, especially considering the amount of respect that Rubio has been able to gather from conservatives nationwide.

The list now includes establishment Republicans like Majority Leader Eric Cantor and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, as well as rising stars like Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, deficit hawks like Senator Tom Colburn of Oklahoma, and businessmen like Donald Trump. Romney has also secured the endorsement of several prominent Tea Party favorites, including South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and former Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell.

Romney’s list of endorsements is the most diverse of any of the four remaining Republican candidates. It is also the longest. Members of the anybody-but-Romney crowd continue to cry foul, believing that everyone who has endorsed him either was promised a position of prominence or is selling out to the establishment. A fact they may not realize yet is that his list of endorsements tally more than the other candidates combined, and Romney ran out of positions to nominate people for a long time ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio
People will now say that Rubio, who for the past two years has been heralded as the next great conservative leader, is selling out in a pay to play scheme. When Governor Haley endorsed Romney, she was raked over the coals by some of her biggest supporters.

At some point, people may have to consider that some people who are endorsing Romney are not selling their souls or throwing away their principles. Perhaps some of them really believe in the guy. It could be that some of them really believe he can win, and that he has the credentials to be a good president.

Of course, it is a distinct possibility that if Romney secures the nomination, his vice presidential nominee will be someone that endorsed him. Romney has secured the endorsement and trust of people from both the old guard and the next generation of leaders. Establishment and Tea Partiers. While endorsements do not carry the weight they did 20 years ago, they do speak volumes considering how diverse a list it is. Sooner or later, Romney supporters hope the rest of the GOP will come to realize that if elected, Romney will not sign a bill doubling down on Obamacare while personally performing an abortion in the oval office if elected.

As Rubio said during his endorsement, Romney “offers such a stark contrast to the president's record.” Rubio also said it best when he said that Romney had ‘earned’ his endorsement. Romney has taken a substantial beating by the other candidates, the press, and people who question his conservatism for over a year. Romney has had to earn respect. Even with all of his money, if there were nothing genuine there, he would have dropped out due to lack of support a long time ago.

Check out Jesse Merkel here........ http://www.policymic.com/articles/6175/marco-rubio-endorses-mitt-romney-time-for-rest-of-gop-to-come-around

The Real Agenda of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich And Rick Santorum

Conservative Samizdat Samizdat (Cамиздат-Cам-"self, by oneself"; издат-"publishing house"): Translates to mean self published. Providing conservative news and opinion since 2009.

By Jared Allebest

Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are determined to stay in the race even if the chances of them winning the Republican nomination grows slim with each passing election contest. All of the candidates know this but they're not in the race to become President. Each one of them have an agenda. 
Ron Paul
Ron Paul's chances of winning the Republican nomination is extremely low. He hasn't a won a single primary or caucus and his unfavorability rating is quite high.  However, Ron Paul has admitted that he isn't in the race to become President but that he's in the race for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues. Recently, Ron Paul admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but to have the power to influence our nation on matters he considers important. However, if that is his goal, Ron Paul has only has 50 delegates as of today. By the time the GOP convention rolls around, he won't have enough delegates and as a result will be in a inferior bargaining position in attempting to negotiate with the Republican party into adopting  his views on the national platform.
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich's chances of winning the Republican nomination is also extremely low. He's only won two Republican nominations and he only has 135 delegates as of today. He also has amazingly high unfavorability ratings of 60%. Regardless, Newt Gingrich is determined to press forward by bypassing the primary process and winning at the convention by getting the delegates to switch their votes to Newt.  Joe DeSantis, the campaign’s communications director, explains Gingrich's new election strategy:
The idea, Mr. DeSantis said, is to persuade unpledged delegates and those who have backed another candidate to see Mr. Gingrich as the best challenger to face President Obama. 
Joe DeSaintis elaborates more on their new election strategy: 
 “We believe that if Governor Romney is unable to secure 1,144 by the last primaries, he will be unable to do so at the convention where the vast majority of the delegates are conservative,” DeSantis said. “That creates [an] environment at the convention where Gingrich can emerge as the one candidate who can unite social, economic and national security conservatives (a fact which is borne out by polling).”
Newt Gingrich's agenda is pretty obvious. He is remaining in the race out of pure revenge and will do anything he can to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the nomination:
Joe DeSantis said Gingrich's decision to lay off staff and replace his campaign manager was a reorganization that would enable him to fight on to the Republican National Convention in the summer and win the nomination there.
The overhaul comes as a CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday indicated that most Republicans would like to see Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul end their White House bids.
But they want conservative challenger Rick Santorum to stay in the race.
The poll, conducted over the weekend, showed that about six in 10 Republicans wanted Gingrich and Paul to halt their campaigns, while a similar number supported Santorum continuing his bid.
DeSantis said the poll "showed that Gingrich dropping out of the race would help Mitt Romney dramatically more than it helps Rick Santorum."
This would "virtually guarantee Mitt Romney the nomination," he said, as he urged conservatives to rally behind Gingrich to keep the former Massachusetts governor from victory.
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum has done much better in this election than Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have. He's won 11 primary contests so far and currently has 273 delegates. However, the chances of him getting the 1,1140 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination grows slim with each primary election. The evidence is overwhelmingly clearthat the electoral math doesn't work for Rick Santorum. He cannot get the necessary 1,140 delegates needed to win. As Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post points out, there's just no way for Rick Santorum to win the Republican nomination: 
Romney still leads by about 300 delegates . With 568 delegates to Santorum’s 273 Romney, Romney needs only 576 more delegates, about 46 percent of the remaining delegates. Santorum would need to win about 70 percent, and that just isn’t going to happen.
Rick Santorum disputes the current calculation of delegates by arguing that what you hear in the news doesn't accurately reflect the delegate count:
As he struggles to keep up with frontrunner Mitt Romney and parries calls for him to drop out of the Republican presidential race, Rick Santorum has said in recent weeks that he has actually won more delegates than some media counts show.  Those counts, Santorum says, are not taking into account Republican party rules, as well as the state-level meetings that actually determine how many delegates go to each candidate.
"Here's one of the things that I can tell you I didn't know," Santorum told a small group of reporters at a breakfast in Washington Monday.  "Every single state is different.  Every state. Every single state is different.  It's different on how you get on the ballot.  It's different on their structure, how they allocate delegates, whether they are bound, whether they are unbound, when they're committed, how long they committed, how they're selected. Our math is actually based on the reality of what's going on in the states."
Now, the Santorum campaign is providing some numbers to flesh out the candidate's claims.  In a long conversation Wednesday evening, John Yob, the campaign's national and state convention director, pointed out that many high-profile primaries have been little more than beauty contests, and that delegates in many key states are actually being awarded in county, district, and state conventions, which are often dominated by conservative activists. "In that process, we are doing very well," said Yob. "The moderate candidate almost never performs better than a conservative candidate in a county, district, or state convention process."
Of course, the Romney campaign rejects Rick Santorum's claim and argue that no matter how Rick Santorum calculates the delegate math, he's still going to come up short: 
The Romney campaign strongly disputes Santorum's numbers.  In a March 22 memo -- sent out after Romney's win in Illinois but before Santorum's victory in Louisiana -- Romney political director Rich Beeson wrote that Romney led Santorum by more than 300 delegates and that Romney already had more than half of the needed 1,144 delegates. "Each day Senator Santorum continues to march up this steep hill of improbability is a day we lose to unite in our effort as Republicans to defeat President Obama," Beeson wrote.
Beeson pointed out that it is impossible for Santorum to reach the 1,144 delegate number himself.  Team Santorum doesn't really claim otherwise.  But their math is now about keeping Romney short of 1,144 -- and hoping things go their way in state conventions and, ultimately, in Tampa in August.
Despite the small chances of winning the Republican nomination through out the primary election,  Rick Santorum is going to try the same strategy as Newt Gingrich by  wooing delegates at the Republican convention: 
Arguing that neither he nor Mitt Romney will be able to sew things up by the last GOP primary in June, Santorum envisions spending July and August trying to persuade individual delegates to support him and “put together the coalition that’s necessary for you to get the 1,144.” He and his delegates would then move on to the Republican convention, scheduled to begin Aug. 27 in Tampa, Fla.
Its clear that Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are in the race because they want to become President. Each of these men are not interested in becoming leaders. They all have their own person agendas which they are placing above the American people's wishes of getting Barack Obama out of the White House. Ron Paul is running is in the race purely to change the Republican party platform from a conservative platform to a more libertarian one. Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are aiming for the mythological brokered convention as a last ditch attempt to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the Republican nomination. 
There's only one candidate who is in the race to defeat Barak Obama and make him a one term President. Moreover, he's in the race because he wants to be the President who will be a true leader and revive America's economy. That man is Mitt Romney.

Check out the Conservative Samizdat here ........ http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, March 28, 2012


It's official folks, Senator Marco Rubio, has endorsed Gov. Mitt Romney for President of the United States on Hannity tonight! 
It has been a long and hard process and now it's time to unite our party with our best and brightest.
How does Vice President Marco Rubio sound?

Rick Santorum Is Not The Ideal Candidate To Go One On One With Obama On ObamaCare

Conservative Samizdat Samizdat (Cамиздат-Cам-"self, by oneself"; издат-"publishing house"): Translates to mean self published. Providing conservative news and opinion since 2009.

By Jared Allebest

With the United States Supreme Court hearing arguments on theconstitutionality of ObamaCare, Rick Santorum used this historic moment to launch another attack on RomneyCare:
Santorum then drew some unwanted headlines this past weekend and Monday after he said that Romney is the "worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama." He claimed he was only talking about the health care issue. He later cursed at a New York Times reporter who asked about the charge.
Undeterred, Santorum pounded the issue again on the Supreme Court steps Monday afternoon: "If we run this campaign, which we will, on Obamacare and we're successful, there's no doubt Obamacare will be repealed in one form or another, and that's not going to be the case with Governor Romney because he can't make it the argument, because if he makes it the argument, the Obama machine will turn it right back on him."
Rick Santorum's claim that Mitt Romney is a bad candidate to go one on one with Obama on the issue of ObamaCare is odd given that Santorum was one of the many conservatives who have supportedRomneyCare in the past. Moreover, Rick Santorum supported anemployer mandate in which his plan would mandate that employers be required to offer their workers a chance to purchase health insurance. If Rick Santorum decides to go after Obama on ObamaCare, the President will have no trouble returning fire during the general election.
Rick Santorum's claims that Mitt Romney can't make the case for overturning ObamaCare because Obama will turn it right back on him is also bizzare. Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised that he willrepeal ObamaCare on the first day in office as President. Recently, on March 22,  Mitt released an article reaffirming his promise to repeal ObamaCare and outlining additional steps he would take to reform America's health care system. Mitt Romney has already made the argument that he will repeal ObamaCare and Obama can't attack Romney on that point without getting dragged into a debate on the Constitutionality of his health care plan which is something that Obama himself may not want to do since a large majority of Americans do not support ObamaCare.
In fact, if there was any candidate who is ideal for going against Obama on the issue of ObamaCare, its Mitt Romney:
"The central tenet of the “Anybody-But-Romney” conservative theology is this article of faith: Nominating the former Massachusetts governor will take away the Republican Party’s best 2012 issue — because “Romneycare” is so like “Obamacare.” ABR true believers lump the two plans together, with the epithet “Obamneycare.”
This conservative faith is wrong, however. To the extent that attacks on President Barack Obama’s health care reform are good politics, the candidate best able to make them is Mitt Romney.
Since he orchestrated and then signed the Massachusetts health care law, Romney is uniquely qualified to lead the GOP attacks against the federal health care reform bill.
Why? He would be the first GOP nominee in nearly 50 years with a proven track record on health care who has been praised by Democrats — including the president — as fair and compassionate. He can’t be demonized as an out-of-touch, uncompassionate, hard-right ideologue on this issue.
Americans have been telling pollsters since 1965 that they favor Democrats over Republicans when asked whom they trust on health care issues. That was when President Lyndon B. Johnson and congressional Democrats passed the historic Medicare program — over the objections of many high-profile Republican opponents, including future President Ronald Reagan.
This political landscape meant GOP presidential nominees have regularly been put on the defensive, sometimes even demonized, on health care issues. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are typical in this regard."
"...Think of the advantage that this situation gives Romney: Even if the health care law is ruled constitutional, legitimate political questions remain because it is not fully operative for two more years. Only “Romneycare” is a public-private-sector plan in full operation, praised by his opponents — like Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a top Obama ally. By embracing a role for government in addressing health care, Romney has neutralized traditional winning Democratic arguments.
The Obama campaign has one overriding aim — paint any GOP nominee as out of touch with the problems facing average Americans. “Romneycare” presents a problem for this narrative. If the former head of Bain Capital is allegedly the “same ole” GOP rich guy worshipping at the altar of social Darwinism, how does the “compassionate party” explain away using “Romneycare” as a model?"
There is one fundamental difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare that people on the left and on the right somehow fail to grasp. Its a difference that Mitt Romney has been making for many months now and its a distinction that the attorneys opposing ObamaCare in the Supreme Court explained today:
If the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate based on the theory argued by Paul Clement, the attorney representing the 26 states that filed lawsuits against Obamacare, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign could get a big boost from the ruling.
Clement told the court, just as Romney has told Republican primary voters, that states have the power to enact individual mandates wheras the federal government has no such authority.
"I do think the States could pass this mandate," Clement said today in response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "[T]he States can do it because they have a police power, and that is a fundamental difference between the States on the one hand and the limited, enumerated Federal Government on the other."
Romney has argued throughout the presidential primary that Massachusetts has the ability, under the 10th Amendment, to enact an individual mandate for health insurance.
Democrats prepping for the general election have attacked Romney for supporting the individual mandate in his state while opposing President Obama's mandate.
If the Supreme Court agrees that states can enact mandates, but rules that Obama's mandate is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty, then Romney will have a solid rebuttal.
ObamaCare will certainly be an issue during the 2012 general election since the Supreme Court won't publicly release their decision until June which is a few months before election day. Romney's defense of RomneyCare is a solidly constitutional argument and whereas Obama's defense of ObamaCare isn't. The contrast between state's rights and governmental overreach will be made very clear if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee.  As a result, Mitt Romney is the best and strongest defender of state's rights and economic liberty and is the ideal candidate to go head to head with Obama.

Check out Conservative Samizdat's blog........ http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Bowing to the Kremlin

Why Obama's "hot mic" diplomacy is endangering America. 

By Mitt Romney

Sometimes it's the unguarded moments that are the most revealing of all. President Obama just had such a moment at the summit in South Korea. "This is my last election," Obama told Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, in an exchange that was inadvertently picked up by microphones. "After my election I have more flexibility."

 But flexibility to do what? The president mentioned missile defense to Medvedev as one area where the Kremlin should expect more flexibility. This is alarming. 
It is not an accident that Mr. Medvedev is now busy attacking me. The Russians clearly prefer to do business with the current incumbent of the White House.
And it is not hard to understand why. The record shows that President Obama has already been pliant on missile defense and other areas of nuclear security. Without extracting meaningful concessions from Russia, he abandoned our missile defense sites in Poland. He granted Russia new limits on our nuclear arsenal. He capitulated to Russia's demand that a United Nations resolution on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program exclude crippling sanctions.

Moscow has rewarded these gifts with nothing but obstructionism at the United Nations on a whole raft of issues. It has continued to arm the regime of Syria's vicious dictator and blocked multilateral efforts to stop the ongoing carnage there. Across the board, it has been a thorn in our side on questions vital to America's national security. For three years, the sum total of President Obama's policy toward Russia has been: "We give, Russia gets."

Russian intransigence has elicited no push-back from the White House. Indeed, as the conversation in South Korea shows, President Obama appears determined to ingratiate himself with the Kremlin. This, unfortunately, seems to be the real meaning of his "reset" policy. An outstanding example is the personal phone call that Barack Obama made to Vladimir Putin from Air Force One congratulating the Russian leader on his election as Russia's next president.

The call followed a declaration from the State Department that "the United States congratulates the Russian people on the completion of the Presidential elections." Given that the Russian elections were widely seen to have been compromised by fraud and intimidation, these words made a mockery of America's commitment to democracy and human rights. They undercut all those in Russia who are risking so much to struggle for the universal rights that we ourselves enjoy. They are a shameful betrayal of our country's first principles.

President Obama's conversation with Dmitry Medvedev raises questions not only about his policy toward Russia, but his entire foreign policy.

Would post-election "flexibility" lead him to reach out once again to the Iranian regime
"without preconditions"? Would it lead him to resume pressuring Israel into making unilateral concessions to the Palestinians? Would it permit him to take an even softer line, if that is imaginable, toward the authoritarian regimes of the Castro brothers and Hugo Chávez? Would he further shrink our Navy and Air Force below the already-too-low force numbers currently planned? Would he pour more money into United Nations bodies that have recognized a Palestinian state and seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy denouncing Israel?

In a self-governing country like ours, the people have a right to know what kinds of decisions are being taken in their name. The American people deserve candor. They also deserve a foreign policy founded upon our enduring principles and a recognition of our exceptional place in the world.

That is not what they are getting now. Unfortunately, what they are getting is a sad replay of Jimmy Carter's bungling at a moment when the United States needs the backbone and courage of a Ronald Reagan. In his dealings with the Kremlin, as in his dealings with the rest of the world, President Obama has demonstrated breathtaking weakness -- and given the word "flexibility" a new and ominous meaning.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Rick Santorum Might Not Win Any Delegates In Pennsylvania

Conservative Samizdat Samizdat (Cамиздат-Cам-"self, by oneself"; издат-"publishing house"): Translates to mean self published. Providing conservative news and opinion since 2009.

By Jared Allebest

Rick Santorum Might Not Win Any Delegates In Pennsylvania

With Pennsylvania's primary election coming up next month on April 24th and with 72 delegates at stake, Rick Santorum is eager to win his home state so that he can justify staying in the race. However, victory won't come easy for Santorum because many prominent Republican leaders in Pennsylvania are not thrilled with him as a candidate:
Several interviews with influential members of Santorum’s state party reveal a pervasive dislike for the man running for president without the support of the party’s kingmakers.
Party bosses dislike his zealous pronouncements and extreme social positions.
Fiscal conservatives see him as a big-government, pork-barrel spender.
And some social conservatives question his support of former Sen. Arlen Specter, who supported abortion rights.
The common critique, however, is of Santorum’s hair-trigger volatility, cruel political maneuverings, dismissiveness and notoriously massive ego.
In fact, many insiders in the Pennsylvania Republican party are secretly hoping Rick Santorum will lose so that they can rally around Mitt Romney:
“Party folks are just tolerating [Santorum] and hoping he loses as soon as possible so that they can all get behind Romney,” said a GOP activist who did not want to be identified.   
Rick Santorum appears to be universally disliked in Pennsylvania by nearly every conservative in that state:
Yet from Gov. Tom Corbett to U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, state GOP Chairman Rob Gleason and on down the political food chain, no major GOP politician in the state has endorsed Mr. Santorum.
Even Alen Specter, who Rick Santorum endorsed in the 2004 because the Bush Adminstration asked him to, refused to endorse him in this election:
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Friday that ex-Senate colleague Rick Santorum is “so far to the right” that it’s not realistic for him to win the presidency.
Rick Santorum is not popular among the regular Republican voters in that state as well: 
Pam Todd, 74, a Philadelphia artist and member of the fiscally conservative Tea Party, felt strongly the election should be focused on the economy and defeating Obama, not issues like abortion and gay marriage.
"I feel that perhaps Romney is the most electable. I like Rick very, very much. I admire his guts. But he sometimes gets down in the weeds on the social issues," she said.
"You can really get into the social issues and the country could go over a cliff fiscally," Todd said.
One of the state's main Tea Party groups, the influential Independence Hall Tea Party Association PAC, endorsed Romney in the fight to be the Republican who will face President Barack Obama in November.
"There are a fair number of Republicans who are driven by social issues but they aren't as committed to those issues as economic issues in an election cycle like this one," said Alan Novak, a former chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party who is backing Romney.
"The election is really first a referendum on the president, unemployment and gas prices," he said.
Despite the Rick Santorum's unpopularity within the Pennslyvania GOP, party leaders and activists are trying push back against calls to wrap up the GOP nomination process as quickly as possible:
Several activists and state elected officials pushed back on their national counterparts itching to tackle Obama, arguing that the GOP vetting process should continue until Pennsylvanians can vote and even beyond.
“It’s actually going to make the ultimate nominee stronger for having gone through the crucible of a good solid, intense debate, so I think it should continue — if necessary, until the convention,” state Rep. Stephen Bloom, who has not publicly endorsed a candidate, told POLITICO. “As long as the candidates are drawing citizens into the process, getting voters engaged, that’s good. The battle of ideas is a good thing.”
While Rick Santorum currently remains ahead in the polls, its not a guarantee that he will in that state. Even if he does win in Pennsylvania, he may wind up not winning any delegates at all because the delegates are free to vote for anyone they want at the Republican convention. Moreover, Republican leaders and activists are also delegates themselves and given Santorum's unpopularity with Republican leaders and activists, Rick Santorum might haveanother Phyrric victory in Pennsylvania:
The ranks of delegate hopefuls are littered with Republican state committee members, elected officials and others with close party ties, who will ultimately be more beholden to a state party leadership that, while officially neutral, is visibly leaning in Romney’s direction and increasingly vocal in its fear that Santorum could hurt the party in a general election — especially after witnessing his 18-point drubbing in 2006.
Romney, Ron Paul and even Newt Gingrich got some of their supporters on the ballot as delegate candidates. But Santorum’s campaign officials, who have struggled with ballot organization issues across the country, privately concede that they just didn’t have the time, nor resources, to organize their own supporters to run as delegates when the paperwork was due earlier this year.
Mitt Romney enjoys strong support among many Pennsylvania delegates:
The state party has so far not made an endorsement in the race. But Bob Asher, a Republican National Committeeman and one of the most powerful forces in state politics, is backing Romney. So are top party fundraisers and members of Congress from the Philadelphia suburbs who, like many elected and party officials, worry that a Santorum candidacy would send independents fleeing from the GOP and damage their prospects in down-ballot races.
“I think most people recognize we have to put forward the best candidate to beat Barack Obama,” said Rep. Jim Gerlach, a suburban congressman and Romney backer who’s also a delegate. “There’s a lot of support to make sure Gov. Romney is ultimately our nominee.”
Added a top Republican fundraiser who’s neutral in the race: “People like Rick, and they often like his policies. But his brand is so tarnished and we’re all terrified at the prospect of him on top of the ticket.”
Regardless of how Rick Santorum does in Pennsylvania, it will not be a good night for him since its a winner take all primary and he will remain far behind Mitt Romney in the delegate count.

Check out Jared Allebest on Conservative Samiztad.............

Rick Santorum's Phyrric Victory In Louisiana

By Jared Allebest

Rick Santorum's victory in the Louisiana Primary yesterday was a Pyhrric victory since he's still way behind on the delegate count. Here's the current delegate count:
Despite the fact that Rick Santorum won ten delegates while Mitt Romney won five delegates in Louisiana, it won't be enough for him to catch up because the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the electoral math doesn't work for Rick Santorum. He cannot get the necessary 1,140 delegates needed to win. As Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post points out, there's just no way for Rick Santorum to win the Republican nomination: 
Romney still leads by about 300 delegates . With 568 delegates to Santorum’s 273 Romney, Romney needs only 576 more delegates, about 46 percent of the remaining delegates. Santorum would need to win about 70 percent, and that just isn’t going to happen. 
Not only is Rick Santorum behind in the delegate count, but he cannot catch up to Mitt Romney's campaign funds:
As of the February 29, 2012 FEC filing, Romney had more than $7.3 million in his campaign war-chest with no debt versus $2.6 million with almost $1 million in debt for Santorum. Additionally the Super PAC supporting Romney had vastly more money than the organization behind Santorum.
Try as they might, neither Senator Santorum nor his Super PAC is in Governor Romney’s league in fund-raising and these margins will widen as time progresses.
The next primary contests don't look too good for Rick Santorum in which 98 delegates are up for grabs in  Wisconsin, Maryland and District of Columbia will be voting on April 3rd. To make matters worse for Santorum, all three states are winner take all contests and Mitt Romney is expected to win all three states. Mitt Romney will easily win Washington D.C. since Rick Santorum did not make the ballot on that state. As a result, Mitt will get 19 free delegates.
Then on April 24th, five states are holding their primaries. Those states are New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware. A total of 231 delegates are available on that day. New York is a winner take all state with 95 delegates at stake and Pennsylvania is also a winner take all state with 72 delegates at stake. Mitt Romney is expected to win four of the five states on that day with Rick Santorum winning Pennsylvania. However, some people think that its possible that Mitt Romney can win all five. 
Either way, the future doesn't look good for Rick Santorum. 


Friday, March 23, 2012

An Open Letter to Gov. Romney

Tim Shaw Sr.  
 Gov. Romney, I can't get your Illinois victory speech out of

my head, it was your best ever. I just loved the way you

continually used the word FREEDOM.

This campaign has caused me to once again study my copy of

the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, plus some

of the writings of the Founding Fathers. 

One of the best quotes I found was, "It is the duty of the

patriot to protect his country from its government." Thomas

Paine. I see that as your role in this election. This is your theme.


The founders used the word TYRANNY to describe a repressive government, Webster's

agrees; "An oppressive power exerted by government." We also often, in our modern

English, speak of the "TYRANNY of debt." Many of us have experienced the prison we feel

locked into when our debt becomes unmanageable and our choices in life become limited.

When you combine the enormity of our Federal Government, the oppressive taxation,

regulation, and more especially the multi-generational burden the national debt places on

our children and grand-children, it is not unreasonable to use the term TYRANNY.

What we all seek in your election Gov. Romney is FREEDOM, LIBERTY from the TYRANNY

of a Federal Government which has lost control. We want control of our own lives, as close

to our homes as possible. This is why I support your candidacy. On the night of your

Illinois victory, a man I greatly respect, as I'm sure you do, CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER,

said after your speech, "All the elements were there... except one. When he said he had

the vision, he never told us what it was." He may have been right in that instance, but I

have listened to you for years Governor, and I believe I just described your vision in what I

wrote above.

"A people blessed by their CREATOR, with a hard fought FREEDOM from the TYRANNY of

government, possessing the LIBERTY to choose the course their own lives in the PURSUIT


I believe that in every American's soul they will respond to these three words with great


These three words are the words spoken by patriots going into battle. They fought against

TYRANNY for FREEDOM and LIBERTY. These are the words that constitute your vision,as

I have heard you speak. Maybe by speaking of them in the way the early patriots did, you

will relight the flame of the patriot that still flickers in us all. Then I won't have to hear

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER say, I didn't hear his vision again.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Obamacare is Not the Most Fundamental Issue of this Election

By Chris Gadbois,
Mitt Romney Tea Party Supporters

Obamacare is Not the Most Fundamental Issue of this Election 

 Despite what Senator Santorum and his supporters would have you believe, Obamacare is not the most fundamental issue of this election. I would argue there are more fundamental areas where the Republican candidate needs to draw sharp contrasts with Obama.

Leadership & Executive Management Experience - Even after four years of playing President, Obama still has far less executive management experience than Mitt Romney and most Americans realize Obama is a failed leader, even if they like him personally. Please ask yourself if we can afford to give this issue away to Obama by nominating someone who has never managed anything but political campaigns.

Jobs, the Economy & the Deficit - Mitt Romney is a turnaround specialist and naturally instills confidence that he is the best person to ignite a true economic recovery and reverse this trend of increasing deficits. Any objective review of Senator Santorum's record will show his love of earmarks and that Republicans engaged in deficit spending and government expansion while he was part of senate leadership.

Government Control - the Republican party would completely undercut all their legitimate complaints against government control these past four years by nominating Senator Santorum. How do we justify that we all of a sudden want government control when it comes to things like porn and gay marriage? That level of hypocrisy is a huge turn off for many, including those conservatives who are Libertarian on social issues.

Whining, Finger Pointing & Excuse Making - we need a candidate that can look the American people in the eye and tell them he will be accountable for his administration and that he will not spend his presidency blaming his predecessor. The style of campaign run by Senator Santorum leaves him without the credibility to convey this message convincingly.

If you support Mitt Romney and enjoy political insight and humor, then please like our page. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mitt-Romney-TEA-Party-Supporters/174401882635203?ref=tn_tnmn

Mitt Romney Tea Party Supporters

Monday, March 19, 2012


By, Tim Shaw Sr.
Well, here we are again, at another "game changing state, Illinois," but we know, given the history of this primary, that when Gov. Romney wins, it changes nothing (no matter the size of the win). The media, right and left will act as if he lost it (Puerto Rico will be ignored) and it will be said "Romney just can't close the deal," and it all moves on as if Santorum won. (He did much better than expected given Romney's spending advantage... it will not be mentioned that the sign of a good candidate is the ability to have a well built organization and the ability to raise money. In Romney's case this advantage is seen as playing unfair, poor Ricky). No one will mention that Romney will have added to his substantial delegate lead and the enormous 1.2 million popular vote lead over Santorum. No one will mention that polls show that if Gingrich dropped out of the race, Santorum will only get a little over half of Newt's support and the rest will go to Romney. People like Gretchen Carlson on Fox will say incomprehensible things like, "the delegate count really doesn't matter, it's all about perception, isn't it?" (which she said the morning after TN & AL, not even mentioning HI, which I think is a state).

And we will continue to hear Santorum's delusional statements, which I'm sure started as campaign propaganda, but which he now actually believes, that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. And Santorum will continue to ignore that there is an absolute differences between Federal and State's Constitutional rights while attacking Gov. Romney's Health Reform, and accuse Romney of supporting everything the Mass Supreme Court ordered upon the State, against Romney's will... And the list goes on. Santorum will fail to remember he believed Gov. Romney to be the "True Conservative" in 2008, after his term of Governor was over. None of this will change. And, no one in the press will report it, or question him about any of it.

Yesterday, Brit Hume said it best, on the After Show Panel for Fox News Sunday, "It has become politically incorrect to say that Romney is winning, and doing a pretty good job of it." Usually, in the Republican party we don't play this Politically Correct game, We usually laugh at the liberals while they tie themselves into rhetorical knots playing it. WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS PLAYING IT NOW? That's the question. The overwhelming majority of the rank and file members of the party are choosing Romney, WHY CAN'T THIS BE SAID? The "establishment" that controls the dissemination of news is preventing the story to be told in it's entirety. We only hear,"Romney can't close the deal." Well, the game is different this time. This time around we are playing by the proportional distribution of delegates, a new system to allow more states to have a say, to lengthen out the process. Well it has done that. This primary system was designed for no one to "close the deal" too early. But, who explains this, NO ONE. Gov. Romney, given the new rules, and with 4 candidates is doing an exceptional job!

Back to Brit Hume's observation. Why would Republicans play this despised PC game which the left plays constantly, WHY? AND, BY WHOM? Is the left planting the stories, I am sure that the MSM is, we know they support Obama and want to diminish Gov. Romney's stature. But why are the facts being distorted, or not told, in the conservative media? Romney governed as a consistent conservative as Governor. "Who's who" in conservatism supported Gov. Romney in 2008, even Santorum, what has changed since? I just don't understand. To be Politically Correct (PC) means to offer only a set of facts which supports the orthodox or accepted narrative, to expose facts which support an alternative narrative causes one to be shunned by the established powers and to be labeled an outcast of accepted society (in this case the Conservative Republican Party). Why would we allow this sort of thing into our party? Is it the personnel ego's of Santorum and Gingrich that are bring this PC insanity into the party? Anti-PC is just a matter of presenting the facts as they are, not siding with a certain candidate. But, bias has entered the picture. This is the story, this is the question. Why? and by Who? Who is going to going to write that story?