2012 Election: Republican Candidates

[IMG]http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/rsz_romney_126189095_0.jpg[/IMG]

Posted By Sophia Jones
[I]Friday, October 7, 2011 - 3:54 PM[/I]

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told an audience at a South Carolina military college this morning that his presidency would herald "an American century," calling for an additional 100,000 active duty personnel, an increased defense budget, and stronger U.S.-Israeli relations. While many of the GOP Tea Party views align with Romney's presidential campaign, a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center points to some glaring discrepancies within the Tea Party that may prove deadly for Romney next November.

In many areas, to be sure, Romney fulfills his reputation as a weathervane for Republican politics. In his speech, Romney raised the specter that Israel will feel "isolated by a hostile international community," and that "those who seek Israel's destruction [will] feel emboldened by American ambivalence." Pew found that 68 percent of Tea Party voters feel Obama favors the Palestinians too much, and that over half consider government stability in Middle Eastern countries of the utmost importance, even if it means less democracy.

Tea Party Republicans also appear receptive to Romney's calls for a strong military, with 60 percent stating military strength as the best way to ensure peace. But while while Tea Partiers want to maintain U.S. military strength, they don't want to pay for it: 78 percent of Tea Party Republicans want to keep spending at current levels, or cut it back. On this issue, Romney -- who seeks to increase defense spending to 4 percent of GDP -- appears out of tune with the GOP base.

Romney also made clear his skepticism about Obama's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, indicating his intention to consult military officials who have voiced concern over the rate of U.S. troop pullout. While 66 percent of GOP Tea Party voters feel it is unlikely that Afghanistan can maintain a stable government after U.S. troops leave, they appear to be split on the issue of whether to keep troops in Afghanistan until the situation has stabilized: 55 percent agree with staying, and 42 percent lean toward leaving as soon as possible. A similar split exists on the issue of reducing military commitments overseas: 55 percent of Tea Partiers approve of reducing troops overseas to help lower the national debt, and 44 percent disagree.

As Romney made clear today, his presidency would eschew the isolationist inclinations of some in the Tea Party in favor of the muscular interventionism of the George W. Bush era. But whether that's what Americans will vote for come November 2012 is another story.

By John Stimpson
[I]Published October 08, 2011[/I]

I first met Mitt Romney in 1994. At the time I was working for the Republican Leader of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Mr. Romney was running against the state’s most senior Democrat, US Senator Edward Kennedy, and dropped by our office at the State House in Boston to introduce himself to some Republican legislators.

This was his first political race. When he walked into the room, no one recognized him. Most candidates for statewide office are current or former politicians, but Mr. Romney, who had spent his career in the private sector, was an outsider with little name recognition among voters and no grass roots political organization.

Despite his lack of campaign experience, he proved to be a formidable challenger, defying most people’s expectations. Senator Kennedy won the race but by the smallest margin in his re-election career.

Mr. Romney has journeyed a long way since he introduced himself to Massachusetts voters in 1994. Now he is running for president of the United States. At a time when economic insecurity will be the paramount issue for voters, he is the Republican Party’s best chance to win the White House in 2012.

Not since Jimmy Carter was president has there been such a crisis of confidence in America. Unemployment remains above 9 percent. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is more than 95%, a trajectory that is unsustainable.

Standard & Poor’s recently downgraded the country’s coveted AAA credit rating. And our elected leaders continue to kick the can down the road on reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the country’s three major budget-busters.

To combat the multitude of complex leadership, financial, and operational problems facing the Federal government, the next president will need to wear three leadership hats – chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operations officer.

Mr. Romney has experience in all three “C-level” functions. He spent the bulk of his career in the private sector at Bain Capital, a Boston-based private equity firm that he founded. His job was to identify and invest in start-up companies, such as Staples and Domino’s Pizza.

But another big part of what he did was to invest in distressed companies, turn them around and make them profitable. This involved rebuilding management teams, improving company processes, identifying new products and markets, fixing balance sheets, and implementing other strategic changes to unlock value in these troubled companies.

One of Mr. Romney’s most notable turnaround situations was the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. In 1999, he was asked to take over as president and CEO of the Games, which was in the midst of a bribery scandal and on the verge of financial collapse. He reorganized the management team, brought back disgruntled corporate sponsors, balanced the budget, and restored public confidence in the organization.

Why is his turnaround experience important in this presidential race? Today, there is no greater turnaround situation than fixing the federal government. The to-do list is extensive: reduce debt, balance the budget, fix entitlement programs, reform cumbersome tax codes and regulations, lower the costs of doing business for American companies, and open up markets for our goods and services around the world.

In the private sector, Mr. Romney’s goal was to increase shareholder value. While the federal government is not a publicly held corporation, he brings a real world business approach to Washington that is badly needed to get the country’s fiscal house in order and improve the value of government programs as measured by their cost and effectiveness.

But the toughest task will be coming up with bold ideas to revitalize an economy on the brink of another recession. Economic challenges in the US, weak global GDP growth and sovereign debt issues in the euro zone have escalated the importance of electing a president who understands the language of business and the global economy.

In this realm, Mr. Romney has the credibility and poise to lead as few others do because he has worked directly with small and large businesses and their management teams across diverse industries throughout the world.

As he stated during the recent Republican presidential debate in Tampa, Florida, “The American people create jobs, not government.”

Having put capital at risk, both his own and that of his investors, he knows firsthand the obstacles and pressures that businesses face in a global economy and how government can be a partner, not an adversary, in helping America compete.

Mr. Romney spent most of his career in the trenches of business, but he is also battle-tested in government. In 2002 he was elected governor of Massachusetts at a time when the state faced tremendous fiscal challenges. Despite taking office when there were just 23 Republicans in the 160 member House of Representatives and six Republicans in the 40 member Senate, he successfully restructured government programs, consolidated state services, reduced wasteful spending, and otherwise closed a $3 billion budget shortfall without raising taxes or borrowing from Wall Street.

What makes Mr. Romney most appealing as a candidate in a general election, however, is his ability to attract independent voters, which will be a key voting bloc in swing states.

As a Republican in Massachusetts, his election as governor was not a foregone conclusion. He defeated his Democratic opponent in one of the most liberal states in the country where Republicans comprised just 13% of voters. The bulk of voters (49%) were independents.

Mr. Romney has proven that he can appeal to a broad cross section of voters. Independents are especially tired of the business as usual polarization between Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Without the support of these more moderate voters, the Republican Party cannot expect to win the White House in 2012.

There is no perfect GOP candidate who will satisfy all Republicans. The challenge for the Republican Party is to see the forest for the trees. At a time when jobs and the economy will be the two overriding issues among voters, the focus in this presidential election will be who is best qualified to turn America around and get the economy back on track. That candidate is Mitt Romney.

John B. Stimpson served as an aide to former Massachusetts Governor William F. Weld. He lives in New York City.

By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer
[I]Updated at 11:03 p.m. ET[/I]

In the sixteenth debate of the 2012 campaign in South Carolina Monday night, Mitt Romney emerged with a steady if unspectacular performance, fending off criticism from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich over his tenure as head of Bain Capital.

But under pressure from Texas Gov. Rick Perry and from one of the debate moderators, Romney sounded a bit vague and elusive on precisely when he would release his tax returns.

“We cannot fire our nominee in September -- we need to know now” if he has any vulnerabilities, Perry said. Romney said he would "probably" release his tax returns in April. By that point he may have locked up the GOP nomination. Saturday’s South Carolina primary is likely to be the decisive event of the GOP presidential campaign.

The other contenders all had their moments of prominence. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich did not back off from his criticism of Romney’s tenure as head of Bain Capital – but he also did not add any new details to his indictment of Romney.

“I raised questions I think are legitimate questions” Gingrich said. “That’s part of a what a campaign is about” -- to raise questions “before you get a to a general election.”

He said that there was “a pattern in some companies” that Bain invested in of “leaving them with enormous debt” and then bankrupt.

Perry also joined the attack on Romney for Bain’s investment in a steel mill in South Carolina. “Bain swept in” and “they picked that company over and a lot of people lost jobs there," Perry said.

Romney responded that it was cheap foreign steel imports that had caused the problems at the South Carolina steel mill and other mills.

Romney also said that four of the Bain-sponsored companies had added 120,000 jobs to the economy. He added that Bain had invested in well over 100 different businesses. “I had experience turning around tough situations,” he said, and that, he said, is what led to him being asked to run the Salt Lake City Olympics and to run for governor of Massachusetts.

Santorum, too, pressed the attack on Romney and seemed to catch him in an awkward spot when he charged that Romney’s own state had a more liberal law allowing convicted felons to vote than a felon voting law that Santorum had voted for in 2002 when he served in the Senate.

And yet, Santorum said, a Romney-allied group was attacking him for that vote. Romney replied that he believed that people convicted of violent felonies should not be able to vote, but that Democrats controlled the state legislature in Massachusetts.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas got a wave of hostility from the debate audience when he was asked about the killing of Osama bin Laden and argued that even Saddam Hussein and Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann were captured and were put on trial – rather than killed.

Raucous booing followed when Paul tried to argue for a Golden Rule in foreign affairs, “Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.”

Earlier in the debate, Gingrich hit President Obama with harsh rhetoric, calling him "the best food stamp president in American history." He said the difference between the GOP candidates and Obama was that "we actually think work is good," implying that Obama wanted unemployed people to remain dependent on public benefits.

The dramatic highlight of the debate may have come about an hour into the event when Gingrich got into a tussle with Fox News panelist Juan Williams, who asked about Gingrich advocating that young people get janitorial jobs.

“Only the elites despise earning money,” Gingrich snapped.

Williams then asked whether Gingrich’s “food stamp president” comment about Obama was an example of him “seeking to belittle people.”

Gingrich shot back a heated response, charging that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than by any president in American history.”

Earlier Monday, Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and former envoy to China, announced that he was withdrawing from the race, having suffered a weak third-place finish on Tuesday in New Hampshire. Huntsman threw his support to Romney, calling him “the candidate who is best-equipped to defeat the president and return conservative leadership to the White House.”

Gingrich said Monday that if he wins the primary, he will win the Republican nomination: “South Carolina is going to pick the nominee.”

With Paul getting support from libertarians and those who like his anti-interventionist foreign policy, that leaves the social conservative vote split among Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum. None of the three has been strong enough to unite the conservative factions.

From CNN:

[QUOTE][B]Final Florida push begins after contentious debate[/B]

[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120127010512-jacksonville-debate-intro-story-top.jpg[/IMG]

Jacksonville, Florida (CNN) -- Republican presidential hopefuls headed into the homestretch of the critical Florida primary campaign Friday after a riveting debate that analysts believe gave Mitt Romney a boost over fellow front-runner Newt Gingrich.

Florida voters will decide Tuesday who gets the biggest delegate haul so far of the GOP presidential race, and the CNN/Republican Party of Florida debate provided the four candidates with their final chance to face one another on the same stage in the increasingly vitriolic contest.

Romney and Gingrich entered Thursday's debate in a statistical dead-heat for the lead, according to recent polling, with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Ron Paul trailing well back.

Paul, who concedes he has no chance of victory in Florida's winner-take-all primary, heads to more moderate Maine on Friday to campaign for the caucus that begins February 4, while Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all planned events in Florida to begin their final push for Tuesday's primary.

Needing a strong showing to try to blunt Gingrich's harsh attacks of recent days, Romney was forceful and had the former House speaker on his heels on some issues.

At the same time, Santorum had his strongest debate performance so far, coming across as a sincere and committed candidate who would best represent conservative principles.

"Romney won two ways tonight," said CNN contributor and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos. "One, by having a good debate and two by having Santorum have his best debate yet."

Romney appeals to the more moderate wing of the Republican Party while Santorum and Gingrich are competing for the conservative vote. If Santorum can build support, it would hurt Gingrich as the primary process continues.

Paul also had a good night, repeatedly prompting laughter and applause with self-deprecating one-liners and clear messaging about his libertarian policies that excite young supporters.

The focus, though, was on the two leaders. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, provided his most forceful and unapologetic statement so far about his vast personal wealth, saying Republicans such as Gingrich shouldn't criticize him for being successful.

Romney released his tax returns this week under pressure from Gingrich and others, revealing he paid a rate of less than 15% on income in the millions, mostly from investments including some holdings in offshore accounts.

Gingrich had disparaged Romney's wealth on the campaign trail, saying he lived in a world of "Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts" and did nothing for his money. Romney previously seemed uncomfortable discussing his finances, initially stalling on releasing his tax records, but he was ready Thursday.

"I think it's important for people to make sure we don't castigate individuals who have been successful and try to suggest there's something wrong with being successful and having investments and having a return on those," Romney said.

Addressing Gingrich directly, he said: "You indicated that somehow I didn't earn that money."

"I have earned the money that I have," Romney continued. "I didn't inherit it. Those investments lead to jobs being created in America. I'm proud of being successful. I'm proud of being in the free enterprise system. I'm not going to run away from that."

On the tax rate issue, Romney noted that combining taxes paid and charitable contributions equaled about 40% of his income, and added to applause: "Let's put behind this idea of attacking me because of my money and lets get Republicans to say, you know what, what you've accomplished in your life shouldn't be seen as a detriment but an asset to help America."

Other exchanges were just as compelling.

Asked to address the housing crisis, one of the major problems facing Florida voters, Gingrich began by claiming that Romney was knowingly and "unfairly" attacking him on his consulting record for mortgage giant Freddie Mac, sparking a fiery back-and-forth over which candidate has had a closer relationship with troubled lenders.

Gingrich claimed Romney had profited off of investments in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In turn, Romney explained his holdings were in a blind trust and involved mutual funds that included bonds of the mortgage lenders.

Then he turned the tables on Gingrich, pointing out that Gingrich also had similar investments involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which prompted a crowd response.

CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen gave that round to Romney, saying Gingrich threw a punch and Romney "came back and caught him unexpected."

Trying to widen what was becoming a two-man debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Santorum and Paul if they believed any profits earned from investing in the government-backed entities should be returned.

"That subject doesn't really interest me," Paul replied to laughter, while Santorum sounded exasperated in calling for a halt to what he labeled "petty personal politics" that distracted from more important issues.

"Can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills that he developed as a member of Congress to go out and advise companies -- and that's not the worst thing in the world -- and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because he worked hard and he's going out and working hard?" Santorum said.

Later, though, Santorum launched the toughest attack of the night on Romney in an extended back-and-forth over the health care plan Romney got passed in Massachusetts that in some ways served as model for the federal health care reform under the Obama administration.

Positioning himself as the strongest opponent of the health care law, Santorum insisted both the Romney plan and the federal plan included a mandate to own health insurance or face a fine -- a concept detested by conservatives.

He repeatedly returned to that point when Romney tried to argue the difference between a state plan for Massachusetts and a federal plan for the entire country, saying at one point: "Your mandate is no different than Barack Obama's mandate."

Throughout the debate, the audience was more vocal than during the previous Florida debate on Monday, when attendees were asked to hold their applause. Gingrich complained after the Monday debate against denying spectators the right to express themselves.

Also in contrast to Monday was Romney's approach, standing casually with a hand in his pocket for most of the two hours while responding with force to Gingrich salvos.

Afterward, Romney pronounced himself delighted with the debate, saying he thought it would give him a boost.

"When I'm shot at I'll return fire," he said. "I'm no shrinking violet."

Early in the evening, Romney drew frequent applause when he pushed back attacks by Gingrich over immigration.

Gingrich called Romney the most anti-immigrant candidate on the debate stage, repeating a charge in a campaign ad Gingrich eventually pulled after a complaint it was unfair by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.

Romney responded with outrage, accusing Gingrich of using "highly-charged epithets" irresponsibly and denying he wants to deport all of the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

However, Gingrich and Santorum also agreed with Romney that at least some illegal immigrants would be likely to "self-deport" if the government were to crack down on employers who hired illegal immigrants. All three men advocated a system of identification for immigrants that would help employers verify an employee's legal status.

Before the debate, Gingrich told an audience on Florida's Space Coast, hit hard by the end of the space shuttle program, that he would build a colony on the moon by the end of his second term in office -- a plan that found little support among his rivals on stage.

Santorum said the nation's debt crisis was too severe to consider such proposals, while Romney called the idea deeply flawed.

Citing his business experience, Romney said that if an executive had come to him suggesting spending "billions" of dollars on a colony on the moon, "I'd say 'You're fired.'"

Earlier in the day, Gingrich lashed out at Romney, accusing him of engaging in sleazy negative politics and being part of a fragile establishment desperate to stop the former House speaker from winning the GOP nomination.

One of Romney's most prominent supporters, former GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole, released a statement through the Romney campaign that characterized Gingrich as erratic, unreliable and certain to lead the Republican Party to defeat in November.

When Gingrich was in Congress, he "was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway," said Dole, a former U.S. senator from Kansas. As speaker, Gingrich "had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. ... Democrats are spending millions of dollars running negative ads against Romney as they are hoping that Gingrich will be the nominee."

According to a CNN/Time/ORC International survey released Wednesday, 36% of people likely to vote in Tuesday's primary say they are backing Romney, with 34% supporting Gingrich. Romney's margin over Gingrich is well within the survey's sampling error. Santorum was at 11% and Paul at 9%, with 7% undecided.

Gingrich received a boost in the polls after his double-digit victory in Saturday's South Carolina primary, but Wednesday's CNN poll and another by the American Research Group indicate that his momentum might be waning.

[I]CNN's Tom Cohen, John Helton, Alan Silverleib and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.[/I][/QUOTE]

From AP:

[QUOTE][B]Tired and broke, Santorum heads home to do taxes[/B]

By PHILIP ELLIOTT | [I]Associated Press[/I]

PUNTA GORDA, Fla. (AP) — Rick Santorum is tired, almost broke — and going home.

The former Pennsylvania senator is taking a pause from Florida campaigning just days before the Tuesday primary that even he expects to deal him a third consecutive loss.

Santorum says he would rather spend his Saturday sitting at his kitchen table doing his taxes than campaigning in a state where the race for the Republican presidential nomination has become a two-man fight between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

The cash-strapped candidate acknowledges that he simply can't keep up with the GOP front-runners in Florida.

"We're going to talk about the Constitution and talk about being a strong conservative," Santorum said at an event here this week. "And that's all we can do."

Outside advisers are urging him to pack up in Florida completely and not spend another minute in a state where he is cruising toward a loss. But Santorum insisted on Friday that he would return once he has readied his taxes for public release.

"I'm coming back within 24 hours, and I'm here through up to election day," Santorum told Fox News. "I've spent every minute here in Florida, and I'm going to work in Florida."

Santorum has yet to announce his schedule for Florida's primary day. He says it was a mistake for him to remain in South Carolina on its voting day.

"We can't let grass grow," he told reporters Thursday. "South Carolina Election Day was sort of a wasted day for us."

He pledged to continue his campaign regardless of the Florida outcome.

It's a grim period for Santorum, who just three weeks ago was riding high on a strong finish in the Iowa caucuses; after first saying the result was a virtual tie with Romney, the Iowa GOP ultimately declared Santorum the winner. The victory was short-lived. He lost big in both New Hampshire and South Carolina.

He faced an uphill battle even before the race turned to Florida. He doesn't have the money to spend on television ads in Florida's expensive media markets. He couldn't compete with the thousands-strong crowds his rivals have been drawing. And he wasn't able to find a moment here that crystalized the rationale for his candidacy.

"Other candidates tell you they need your help," Santorum told Florida Republicans this week, almost pleading. "They're lying. I really need your help."

But help didn't come — at least in this state — for a candidate who is visibly exhausted and running on, at most, four hours of sleep each night.

So Santorum is going home to Pennsylvania, which he represented in the Senate, and Virginia, where he lives with his wife and seven children, to get some rest and, he says, prepare his own taxes. He also plans fundraisers in both states as he works to rebuild his campaign account to pay for upcoming contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.

Santorum also is looking at Arizona and Michigan, states that vote at the end of February — if he makes it that far.

His inner circle of advisers is looking at the campaign checkbook. They say they can keep a lean campaign rolling in case Gingrich or Romney implode.

"This race is just starting. It's a three-man race," Santorum insists. "We're going to be in this race for the long term."

For now, at least, polls show Santorum dramatically trailing in Florida, the largest and most diverse state in the early nominating schedule. And he seems to be coming up short as he tries to win over voters with his everyman persona.

"I wish he had a little more passion in the belly," said Don Waldt, a Punta Gorda retiree who attended a Santorum rally at dusk this week. "He is conservative and authentic. But he isn't on top and doesn't seem to have a clear path to the top."[/QUOTE]

From Washington Post:

[QUOTE][B]Gingrich professes shock at Romney’s ‘dishonest’ debate performance[/B]

[URL="http://washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-second-run/2011/06/01/AGsk8jGH_gallery.html"][IMG]http://washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/01/25/National-Politics/Images/137661564.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://httpwashingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-second-run/2011/06/01/AGsk8jGH_gallery.html"][B]View Photo Gallery —[/B]  After what was widely considered an unfocused and bloated campaign in 2008, the Republican former Massachusetts governor is returning to the presidential sweepstakes with a more tightly knit team.[/URL]

[I]By Amy Gardner and Philip Rucker, Updated: Friday, January 27, 1:03 PM[/I]

MIAMI —Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that the reason he seemed less combative during Thursday’s televised debate was that he was shocked by what he described as rival Mitt Romney’s “totally dishonest” replies to several questions.

In a telephone interview, Gingrich cited Romney’s remarks on immigration, his vote for Democrat Paul Tsongas in 1992 and whether he knew about an ad his campaign is running against Gingrich.

“I think it’s the most blatantly dishonest performance by a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen,” Gingrich said. At several moments during the debate, Gingrich simply leaned away from his lectern and looked down at his feet because he was so stunned by some of Romney’s statements, he said. He didn’t engage Romney at the time, he said, because “I wanted to fact check. I wanted to make sure he was as totally dishonest as I thought he was.”

Gingrich spoke as a new poll from Quinnipiac University showed Romney back on top in Florida’s high-stakes Republican primary, adding to the momentum for the former Massachusetts governor following a strong debate performance Thursday night.

He claimed victory in the debate as he playfully told supporters at a Friday afternoon rally in Cape Canaveral, “Battling was fun, and battling was won.”

Romney went on the offensive against Gingrich on topics including immigration, taxes and wealth, lobbying, and colonizing the moon. Romney said it was “repulsive” for the former House speaker to label him “the most anti-immigrant” candidate in the field. He blasted Gingrich’s moon proposal, saying that if a business executive had brought it to him, his response would have been, “You’re fired.” He goaded his rival into a discussion of his own taxes.

Seeking to capi­tal­ize on his gains, Romney reached out forcefully to Hispanic Republicans here Friday, saying he would champion political and economic freedom in Cuba and throughout Latin America.

Romney sought to woo Florida’s influential bloc of Cuban-American and other Hispanic Republican voters four days before the state’s critical primary. He promoted his immigration and foreign-policy agenda, and he used particularly tough language to describe his stance against Fidel Castro’s Cuba.

In Cambridge, Md., meanwhile, President Obama rallied House Democrats at an annual issues conference, urging them to prepare for a “robust debate” with Republicans during this election year, while also looking for opportunities to cooperate.

“It’s going to be a tough election, because a lot of people are still hurting out there, and a lot of people have lost faith generally about the capacity of Washington to get anything done,” Obama said. But whenever “the other side is putting some politics aside for just a nanosecond in order to get something done for the American people, we’ve got to be right there ready to meet them,” he added.

“On the other hand, where they obstruct, where they’re unwilling to act, where they’re more interested in party than they are in country, more interested in the next election than the next generation, then we’ve got to call them out on it.... We’ve got to push them. We can’t wait. We can’t be held back.”

Obama did not mention any Republicans by name.

Gingrich has lost much of the momentum he brought to Florida after his landslide victory in South Carolina a week ago, and Romney’s strong performance in Thursday’s debate didn’t help.

Gingrich sought to retrieve that momentum in part with his aggressive stand on Romney’s debate performance, which he also described at length in an interview with Sean Hannity that will air on Fox News later Friday. In addition, his campaign began airing a new TV ad called, “What kind of man?” It features a quote from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee: “If a man’s dishonest to get a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job.”

Huckabee disavowed the ad Friday. “Any use of an out-of-context quote from the Republican presidential primary four years ago in a political ad to advocate for the election or defeat of another candidate is not authorized, approved, or known in advance by me,” he said in a statement. “I have made it clear that I have not and do not anticipate making an endorsement in the GOP primary, but will support the nominee.”

Gingrich also intensified his pitch to the Hispanic community Friday by promising to let Puerto Rico vote on the question of statehood. At a convention of the National Hispanic Leadership Network, he also held a news conference with about a dozen Hispanic leaders, including four who his campaign said had previously supported Romney. In an open letter to Romney, the group wrote: “Without an open dialogue with us, you are unable to understand issues important to the Latino community.”

The Romney campaign said none of the four supported the former Massachusetts governor this year. Additionally, none of them are from Florida. They are Vinicio Madrigal, a former chairman of the Louisiana Republican Hispanic Assembly; Joe Galvan and Massey Villarreal, both former chairmen of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly; and Jacob Monty, a former national Hispanic chairman for George W. Bush.

Romney picked up the endorsement Friday of Puerto Rico’s governor, Luis Fortuño, a rising star in the Republican Party and a potential asset in the quest for Latino votes.

In the telephone interview, Gingrich said he was affronted by Romney’s statements during the debate on illegal immigration. The statements, he said, have swung widely from accusing Gingrich last year of being in favor of amnesty to, last night, agreeing with Gingrich’s support for letting long-standing illegal immigrants obtain legal residency.

“I’m not going to go find grandmothers and take them out of their homes and deport them,” Romney said during the debate, which was hosted by CNN. “Those are your words, not my words. And to use that rhetoric suggests to people that somehow, if you’re not willing to keep people here who violated the law, that you’re anti- immigrant. Nothing could be further from the truth. “

Gingrich also said Romney was lying when he said he didn’t know about an ad his campaign is running that accuses Gingrich of calling Spanish a “ghetto” language. The former speaker charged that Romney also lied when he explained that the only reason he voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary was because there was not a Republican contest that year.

“I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot,” Romney said. “And and in my state of Massachusetts, you could register as an independent and go vote in whichever primary happens to be very interesting. And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took.”

Romney’s campaign did not immediately respond to the accusation from Gingrich, but Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a Romney supporter who is following Gingrich across Florida this week to rebut the former House speaker whenever he can, said: “I think Governor Romney has been very consistent overall on the issue of immigration. And he pointed out very aptly last night, I think, that the problem is not 11 million grandmothers. Mitt Romney has been very adamant that we need a fix on illegal immigration. It’s a good, solid, conservative position. I don’t see where the speaker thinks you can make inroads on a changing position. I just don’t see it.”

In his speech Friday to the Hispanic Leadership Network conference, Romney said: “There is a time coming soon where Cuba will be free. That’s gonna happen. But we’re gonna have to get organized for it. We’re gonna have to recognize that people there want freedom, as people do all over the world, and America can’t sit back.” His comments drew a loud, standing ovation from a crowd of several hundred.

If elected president, Romney said he would appoint an envoy responsible for democracy and freedom in Latin America, who would measure progress of each nation reaching toward freedom and help keep nations from “falling in line behind [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez and Castro.”

“I want to protect legal immigration,” Romney said. “I would like to expand legal immigration.... We are not anti-immigrant. We are not anti-immigration. We are the pro-immigration, pro-legality, pro-citizenship nation and party.”

In his roughly 20 minute speech, Romney did not mention Gingrich at all, even though the former speaker addressed the same audience less than an hour beforehand. But in her remarks, Romney’s wife, Ann, seemed to draw a subtle contrast with Gingrich, going further and speaking with more urgency than she usually does on the stump.

“What needs to be done needs to be done by someone that knows how to do it,” Ann Romney said. “You can’t have someone turn something around if they’ve never turned around anything before. You can’t have someone run an organization if they’ve never run an organization before. We tried that the last time with someone that didn’t have any experience, and how is that working?”

In Thursday night’s debate, Gingrich declared that he has bigger ideas and a greater willingness to shake up Washington than his rivals do, but he did not have the kind of dominating performance that marked his appearances in two South Carolina debates. He protested when Romney hit him, saying, “You’re very quick to draw the widest possible exaggeration.” He said he is a more natural heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Romney, who struggled in the South Carolina forums, also performed well at a debate in Tampa on Monday. He is stepping up at a critical moment in the Florida campaign.

The Quinnipiac poll, conducted Jan. 24 to 26, shows Romney leading Gingrich 38 percent to 29 percent among likely GOP voters in Florida. A poll taken days earlier showed and released Wednesday showed Romney barely ahead of Gingrich, 36 percent to 34 percent.

At the same time, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released Friday showed Gingrich leading Romney nationally, 37 percent to 28 percent.

Underscoring the topsy-turvy nature of the primary race, however, the same poll showed Romney doing significantly better than Gingrich when voters were asked to chose between either of them and President Obama.

The tension between the two contenders was evident throughout Thursday evening, confirming how significant the next several days could be in the race. Gingrich arrived in Florida hoping to build on his come-from-behind victory in South Carolina, but has been pummeled this week by attacks from Romney and his surrogates.

The friction between Romney and Gingrich overshadowed another strong debate performance Thursday night by former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) and several lively comments from Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.).

Yet, Paul and Santorum trailed far behind their two rivals in the latest Quinnipiac poll, drawing 14 percent and 12 percent support respectively.

Santorum, cash-strapped and tired, decided to take a break from campaigning in Florida and return home later Friday to Pennsylvania, where he planned to spend Saturday doing his taxes at his kitchen table, the Associated Press reported. He said he would then come back to Florida and stay through primary day and would continue his campaign regardless of the outcome. He also plans to hold fundraisers in Pennsylvania and Virginia in the days ahead.

“This race is just starting,” Santorum said, according to AP. “It’s a three-man race. We’re going to be in this race for the long term.”

[I]Staff writers Rosalind S. Helderman in Florida and Debbi Wilgoren and William Branigin in Washington contributed to this report[/I].[/QUOTE]

From AFP:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/NPdXnSoNWCHLJAONM3CGQA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00NDE7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/TRWas6173201.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney addresses the Hispanic Leadership Network at Doral Golf Resort in Miami. Romney has stepped up his campaign in Florida after a new opinion poll showed he was gaining momentum in a race against archrival Newt Gingrich[/I]. (AFP Photo/Emmanuel Dunand)

[COLOR=#696969]By Andrew Beatty | AFP[/COLOR]

Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney stepped up his campaign in Florida Saturday after a new opinion poll showed he was gaining momentum in a race against archrival Newt Gingrich.

With only three days to go until the vital Florida primary, the two rivals barnstormed the huge battleground state which could prove a make-or-break stop in their battle for the Republican Party crown.

After a shock defeat by Gingrich in South Carolina last weekend and a slew of attacks, Romney's campaign got a fresh boost as he bids to be the party's nominee to take on Democratic President Barack Obama in the November elections.

A Quinnipiac University survey showed the former Massachusetts governor at 38-29 percent over former House of Representatives speaker Gingrich in Florida, re-capturing the lead after slipping badly over recent days.

The poll of likely Republican voters was taken before the candidates' televised debate on Thursday, but it indicated the race may be swinging back in favor of multimillionaire businessman and former venture capitalist Romney.

"Newt Gingrich's momentum from his South Carolina victory appears to have stalled and governor Mitt Romney seems to be pulling away in Florida," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Texas congressman Ron Paul, who has done virtually no campaigning in the Sunshine state, was on 14 percent, and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum was in fourth place, with 12 percent, the survey said.

The field has now narrowed in Florida to a two-man race between Romney and Gingrich, who traded bitter attacks in a debate late Thursday.

Gingrich supporters were still firmly behind their man, manning the phones and handing out pamphlets in the final countdown towards Tuesday's Republican presidential primary here.

"The country is underwater, the house is flooded, we want the best plumber regardless of the flaws he can have," said campaign official Bert Ralston at Gingrich's Jacksonville headquarters.

After a string of debates where he was criticized for lacking passion, Romney came out swinging, rounding on Gingrich for alleging he was against immigrants and dodged his taxes.

"We are not anti-immigrant. We are not anti-immigration," the former Massachusetts governor said. "We are the pro-immigration, pro-legality, pro-citizenship nation."

Immigration policy is high on the agenda in Florida, a vote-rich battleground state where the large Hispanic bloc forms a key constituency.

On Friday, Romney pledged at a conference organized by the Hispanic Leadership Network that he would appoint "a presidential envoy responsible for democracy and freedom in Latin America."

He scored another important victory later in the day when he secured the endorsement of Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuno.

"Mitt Romney is the one candidate who has the record, leadership, experience, and pro-growth plan to continue the course of private-sector job creation we've begun in Puerto Rico and provide economic stability for generations," said Fortuno, who appeared with Romney at a campaign rally in Orlando, Florida.

Before the endorsement, Romney told the Hispanic group that he hoped Puerto Ricans would follow the governor's lead and vote for statehood for the island.

Meanwhile, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, brother of ex-president George W. Bush, warned that the candidates ignored the Hispanic community at their peril.

"If we ignore the aspirational nature of the Hispanic communities across the country and say, 'well, we can just keep doing it the old way', and expect a different result, I think conservative candidates will lose," Bush said.

Romney already has a win in New Hampshire under his belt, and a victory in Florida on Tuesday could once again anoint him as the man to beat in the race.

Gingrich was often caught off guard in Thursday's debate and his usual agility in mounting a pugnacious counter-attack seemed to desert him.

Such was the heat of early exchanges that Gingrich offered a truce: "How about if the four of us agree for the rest of the evening, we're going to talk about issues?"

But the offer was quickly knocked down when Gingrich refused to answer for earlier remarks about Romney's Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts.

Instead Romney went on the attack. "Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to make here?" Romney asked rhetorically.

He also ripped Gingrich's plans to establish a permanent base on the moon, largely with private funding. "It may be a big idea, but it's not a good idea," Romney said.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that New York investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is managing much of Romney's $250-million fortune, has emerged as the largest single source of campaign money for the former governor so far.

Its employees have contributed to his campaign at least $367,000, the report said.[/QUOTE]

From AP:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ltCNylWmCkqP1s7XHax4_A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjA7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/62d107d0527a0303060f6a706700e768.jpg[/IMG]
[COLOR="#696969"]Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, speaks at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012[/COLOR]. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

[B]Trump endorses Romney[/B]

By BETH FOUHY and KASIE HUNT | [I]Associated Press[/I]

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Donald Trump on Thursday announced his endorsement of Mitt Romney for president, saying the former Massachusetts governor is "not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country we all love."

The reality show host and real estate mogul appeared with Romney and his wife, Ann, at a packed news conference at the Las Vegas hotel that bears Trump's name.

Romney said he was honored to receive the endorsement, but hoped even more to win the endorsement of Nevada voters. The state holds presidential caucuses Saturday.

The endorsement came after a topsy-turvy set of events that suggested Trump might endorse Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich's camp had been so confident of winning the real estate mogul's backing that it had leaked word Trump would support the former House speaker.

Speaking with reporters before the announcement, Trump said he had several meetings with Romney during the past several months and that those meetings helped influence his decision about an endorsement.

He also cited Romney's debate performances and tough stance on China as reasons.

Trump, who publicly had expressed less-than-enthusiastic support for Romney, said his past comments were a reflection of not knowing the former Massachusetts governor very well.

"I never knew him. I knew of him and respected him, but I really got to know him over the past few months," Trump said. "I've had numerous meetings with him."

Gingrich's camp was so confident of Trump's endorsement that those close to the former House speaker confirmed it Wednesday night for news organizations, including the AP. One of those officials said Trump had "sent signals" to Gingrich that he would support him. That individual declined Thursday to elaborate on what those signals were.

On a tour of a Las Vegas manufacturing facility Thursday, Gingrich made clear he wasn't getting Trump's backing.

"No," the former House speaker replied when asked if he was expecting Trump's endorsement. He added that he was amazed at the attention Trump was getting.

The real estate mogul and reality TV show host is known for being unpredictable, and the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the planned endorsement almost seemed designed to gin up interest in the event.

Trump had mused as recently as last month about running for president as an independent and, in interviews, has suggested that he wasn't enthusiastic about Romney's candidacy.

In an interview with CNN last April, Trump dismissed Romney as a "small business guy" and suggested Bain Capital, the venture capital firm where Romney made his millions, had bankrupted companies and destroyed jobs.

"He'd buy companies, he'd close companies, he'd get rid of jobs," Trump said of Romney.

Romney has staked his candidacy on his credentials as a businessman and has pushed back at Gingrich and other rivals who have criticized Bain's practices.

Romney also turned down an invitation to participate in a presidential debate that Trump planned to moderate in Iowa in December. Trump canceled the debate after all the candidates except Gingrich and Santorum refused to participate.

Trump has played an unusually prominent role in the presidential contest since last spring, when he mused publicly about joining the Republican field. His blunt criticism of President Barack Obama and fierce warnings of a nation in decline resonated with tea party activists. At one point, polls showed him briefly surging to the top of the field.

Trump stirred controversy and considerable criticism during that time by openly questioning the validity of Obama's birth certificate, lending credence to the chorus of "birthers" who believe Obama was not born in the United States and thus is ineligible to be president. The fuss pushed Obama to release a long-form version of his birth certificate, proving he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

The president dismissed Trump as a "carnival barker" for ginning up the issue and then memorably skewered his nemesis at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington, which Trump attended.

Trump announced last May that he would not be a candidate for the GOP nomination. But he welcomed other hopefuls to his office at Trump Tower on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue for strategy sessions. Romney made the trek, as did former candidates Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry.

Trump even took Sarah Palin out for a widely publicized pizza dinner in Times Square when she was considering a presidential bid. But the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee ultimately decided against running.

Gingrich visited Trump in December when he was topping polls in Iowa and nationally. After the meeting, Gingrich told reporters he had persuaded Trump to mentor a group of children from some of New York's poorest schools. The gesture came after Gingrich was criticized for suggesting that poor youngsters should do janitorial chores in their schools to learn the importance of work.

[I]Associated Press writer Shannon McCaffrey in Las Vegas contributed to this report.[/I][/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120203063446-bts-romney-obama-made-it-worse-00003423-story-top.jpg[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/video/?politics/2012/02/03/bts-romney-obama-made-it-worse.cnn"][IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/img/3.0/1px.gif[/IMG] [/URL]

By Paul Steinhauser and John Helton, CNN
[I]updated 9:10 PM EST, Sat February 4, 2012[/I]

Las Vegas (CNN) -- Mitt Romney took a large lead as the first returns started coming in from the Nevada Republican presidential caucuses on Saturday.

With 9% of the results in, Romney had about 45% of the vote while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas were tied far behind with 22% each. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who had largely bypassed the state, had 11% of the vote. Those numbers were gathered from vote counters at caucus sites across the state.

With a win in Nevada, Romney will be the first GOP candidate in this cycle to score back-to-back wins. The former Massachusetts governor appeared to win in the Iowa caucuses but the contest was later awarded to Santorum when the vote was certified. Romney scored a big win in New Hampshire but was then stunned in South Carolina by Gingrich. Romney scored a 14-point victory over Gingrich and the rest of the field in Tuesday's Florida primary and entered Saturday's contest with a sizable lead in polls.

Most of the caucuses were completed at 5 p.m. (8 p.m. ET), except for one site in Las Vegas, which was to start after sundown to accommodate Orthodox Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, and others who can't vote until after their Sabbath is over.

The caucuses are open only to the state's more than 470,000 registered Republicans. Nevada's 28 delegates will be awarded proportionately based on the statewide vote.

[B]How Nevada's caucuses work[/B]

Polls leading up to the vote had shown Gingrich trailing far behind Romney. At one point in the wake of a poor showing in the Florida primary, Gingrich advisers said he would basically concede the state and look down the road to more friendly states which vote in the March 6 Super Tuesday contests. But ultimately he chose to campaign in Nevada and didn't appear to make up much ground on Romney.

As the votes were being counted, a leading Romney backer in Nevada was calling for Gingrich to drop out of the race instead of continuing to divide the party.

Nevada Rep. Joe Heck, who has been closely allied with Romney since his 2008 presidential bid, said the results of the caucuses should be a wake up call for Gingrich.

"I hope he takes the message that it's time to withdraw gracefully and not continue to divide the party," Heck told reporters in Las Vegas, shortly before the first round of caucus results were announced.

While Romney's campaign and his network of supporters have voiced concerns about Gingrich's threat to remain in the race for the long haul, there has not yet been a chorus of Republican leaders publicly asking him to drop out.

Heck was not as insistent, however, when asked if Paul should also bow out for the good of the party.

Paul should quit when it becomes apparent that there is "enough critical mass in terms of delegates," he said, probably sometime after Super Tuesday.

Gingrich has vowed to stay in the race all the way to the Republican National Convention in August. He is hoping to survive through low-level contests in February and rebound on Super Tuesday, where he could find friendlier voters in March 6 Super Tuesday contests in Georgia, which he represented in Congress, neighboring Tennessee and Oklahoma.

Both Romney and Gingrich are spending caucus night in Nevada. As they did on primary night in Florida, both Paul and Santorum are looking ahead to Tuesday caucus states -- Paul in Minnesota and Santorum in Colorado.

The Silver State could almost be considered home-field advantage for Romney. He won the caucuses here four years ago in his first bid for the GOP nomination, grabbing 51% of the vote, far ahead of Paul, who was in second place at 14%.

According to exit polls from the 2008 caucus, Mormons made up a quarter of the electorate, and Romney, who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, won 95% of their vote.

Romney eventually lost the nomination to Arizona Sen. John McCain.

This time around, polls indicate Romney is again far ahead of his competition for the nomination. According to a Las Vegas Review-Journal/8 News Now poll released Thursday, 45% of likely caucus-goers said they were supporting Romney, with Gingrich at 25%, Santorum at 11% and Paul at 9%, with another 9% unsure.

The poll was conducted before Romney's big win in Florida. Other surveys suggest Romney had an even larger lead. Plus, the candidate has a stronger operation in the state than his rivals.

"Nevada is a tough state for Gingrich and Santorum. They have three strikes against them before they even go to the plate," says Alex Castellanos, a GOP strategist and CNN contributor. "One, 11,000 of the 44,000 GOP caucus-goers four years ago were LDS and will go again for Romney. Two, Nevada also has a strong 'leave me alone' libertarian contingent that will vote for Paul, and three, Clark County, around Las Vegas, is dominated by establishment Republicans, not ideological conservatives."

Romney won big in New Hampshire, but his momentum didn't last, and Gingrich carried the day in South Carolina. His momentum obviously fizzled in Florida. Romney hopes to break the streak of a different winner each week.

Romney won the endorsement on Thursday of real estate mogul and reality TV star's Donald Trump, who last year flirted with his own bid for the White House, is a well-known figure in Las Vegas and his outspoken criticism of President Barack Obama has made him popular with some tea party activists and grassroots conservatives.

The state's strong tea party movement should have been Gingrich's trump card in Nevada, but supporters seem divided between Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, who just landed the endorsement of Sharron Angle, the tea party-supported Republican Senate nominee who came close to unseating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the 2010 midterm elections. The division of tea party supporters only helps Romney.

Gingrich started up his operations in Nevada much later than Romney and has been playing catch-up since. He does have some major allies in the state, including billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who along with his family has contributed millions of dollars to an independent pro-Gingrich super PAC.

A defeat in Nevada, especially if it's by double digits, could be damaging to the former House Speaker's bid for the nomination.

"One double-digit loss in Florida was devastating for Gingrich, but a second shellacking Saturday in Nevada will dry up his money," said Castellanos, who was a top media adviser for Romney's 2008 nomination bid but who is not taking sides this cycle. "Newt's campaign is already over a million dollars in debt. Even if his super PAC can find some coins under the sofa cushions, soon his campaign committee won't be able to afford travel or staff. All Newt will be able to do is throw long bombs. He will be frozen in place."

The Silver State won't be in the rearview mirror of presidential politics for too long. Nevada is a battleground state in the general election, having voted for the winning presidential candidate 10 out of the last 11 elections. Obama beat McCain by 12 points there in 2008.

[I]CNN Political Reporter Peter Hamby contributed to this report[/I]

From MSNBC:

[QUOTE][URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0207-colorado-santorum/11683954-1-eng-US/0207-COLORADO-SANTORUM_full_600.jpg"][IMG]http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0207-colorado-santorum/11683954-1-eng-US/0207-COLORADO-SANTORUM_full_380.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[COLOR="#696969"]Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks in Colorado Springs, Colo., Tuesday[/COLOR].
Chris Carlson/AP

[B]With signs that Newt Gingrich is fading, Tuesday's three caucuses could help Rick Santorum woo anti-Romney conservatives. But many challenges lie ahead[/B].

[I]By Amanda Paulson, Staff Writer / February 7, 2012[/I]

Tuesday night is shaping up to be a good night for Rick Santorum.

While polling has been limited in the three states holding contests Tuesday (Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri), and an unusually high number of voters are uncommitted, pollsters are predicting that Mr. Santorum will win two out of the three and should place a close second to Mitt Romney in Colorado.

The question is: Will that be enough to revive Santorum's candidacy or even put him on a path to nomination?

RECOMMENDED: [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0922/Huntsman-a-spider-7-politicians-with-Google-problems-besides-Rick-Santorum"]Rick Santorum and 7 other politicians with Google problems[/URL]

Despite winning (barely) Iowa's caucuses a month ago, Santorum has been largely an also-ran in the early contests, barely getting mentioned by headlines more interested in Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul.

So why is the former Pennsylvania senator surging now?

Likeability might be one factor. According to a recent Public Policy Polling report, responsible for the most up-to-date polls in the three states voting today, Santorum has a favorability rating over 70 percent in all three states. That's in marked contrast to Romney (with favorability ranging from 47 to 60 percent) and Mr. Gingrich (47 to 48 percent).

Santorum's biggest appeal, according to PPP, is with tea partyers, Evangelicals, and voters who describe themselves as "very conservative" – all groups who had been leaning toward Gingrich, but now seem to be abandoning him for Santorum.

There are positive signs in other polls as well. While Santorum still trails both Romney and Gingrich in national polls, Gallup's daily tracking poll now has him only six points behind Gingrich, who is falling. And a new Rasmussen poll that tracks how all four candidates do in potential matchups against President Obama has Santorum as the only candidate who comes out ahead, 45 percent to 44 percent (a finding Santorum's campaign has highlighted as much as they can).

Another reason for Santorum's resurgence may be Gingrich's descent. More conservative voters seem to be getting over their Gingrich crush and, still unhappy with Romney as a nominee, are moving to Santorum. Gingrich's decision not to make any campaign appearances in Minnesota this past week – one of the few states where he might have had a chance – only helps Santorum.

(In Missouri, whose nonbinding primary Tuesday has been likened to a "beauty contest" before the actual delegate-choosing caucuses in a month, Gingrich isn't even on the ballot – another point in Santorum's favor.)

But before anyone starts speculating about the possibility of a real battle between Santorum and Romney, there are some big caveats.

For one thing, the contests Tuesday are relatively small ones – only getting attention in the February desert of the GOP primary season – and don't even mean much for delegate counts. Colorado and Minnesota's caucuses are nonbinding, with delegates actually selected when the state party holds conventions later in March or April.

Santorum faces massive hurdles ahead when it comes to fundraising and organization against the better prepared Romney team. He also needs to convince voters that he can talk about the economy as well as he can talk about conservative social issues, and that he actually has a possibility of becoming the nominee. And he has to hit hard against Romney's weaknesses without going so negative that he loses that likeability edge – a tall order.

Santorum has already stepped up those attacks, hammering away at Romney for his Massachusetts healthcare program, in particular. In Minnesota this week he argued that "RomneyCare" makes Romney "uniquely unqualified" from being the nominee.

But Romney is stepping up his attacks too, and now has Santorum in his sights, largely ignoring Gingrich and Paul. He even had Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty hold a conference call with reporters Monday just to bash Santorum, calling him a "champion of earmarks."

It's becoming harder and harder to envision a GOP nominee other than Romney – even if Santorum slows his momentum Tuesday night and keeps the uncertainty going. But Santorum does have a few influential conservatives pulling for him.

A strong showing by Santorum Tuesday, argues William Kristol in the Weekly Standard, would do the most to slow the "Romney juggernaut." "It would also of course help Santorum's chances to replace Gingrich down the road as the alternative to Romney – an outcome that, I suspect, might well result in a better race for the nomination and a healthier situation for the ultimate Republican nominee," he writes.

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, meanwhile, outlines in her Right Turn blog all the hurdles Santorum would have to clear to get the nomination – which she agrees are a lot. But she concludes:

"The right made a critical error in not recognizing Santorum’s strengths earlier in the race. But time is not his greatest enemy, and it’s not useful for him to dwell on why conservative pundits went chasing after defective contenders. What he now has to do is grow in stature, project himself as Romney’s equal and convince conservatives that they can not only improve their chances of winning back the White House but also get a more consistent conservative if they jump from the Romney ship... But if anyone in the GOP field (past or present) can do it, Santorum’s the guy."[/QUOTE]

From Christian Science Monitor:

[QUOTE][URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0211-romney-wins-maine-caucuses.jpg/11731454-1-eng-US/0211-romney-wins-maine-caucuses.jpg_full_600.jpg"][IMG]http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0211-romney-wins-maine-caucuses.jpg/11731454-1-eng-US/0211-romney-wins-maine-caucuses.jpg_full_380.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[I]Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at a caucus, Saturday, Feb. 11, 2012, in Portland, Maine[/I].
[COLOR="#696969"]Robert F. Bukaty/AP[/COLOR]

[B]Winning the Maine caucuses gives Mitt Romney a burst of momentum he hopes will carry him until the next major primaries in Arizona and Michigan, then Super Tuesday when 10 states hold elections[/B].

[I]By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / February 11, 2012[/I]

Mitt Romney’s win in the Maine caucuses, announced Saturday evening, gives an added boost to what already was a good day for him. Earlier, he won the CPAC straw poll vote of conservative activists.

After losing three nominating contests to Rick Santorum earlier in the week – Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado – Romney could claim (or perhaps reclaim) front-runner status even though none of the four state events were particularly relevant in the delegate count. And Maine is especially odd in that some precincts could keep on caucusing through February.

But the headlines will read a win for Romney – 39 percent for him and 36 percent for Ron Paul. Neither Rick Santorum, winner of the week’s earlier three contests, nor Newt Gingrich actively campaigned in Maine. Santorum won 18 percent of the vote, Gingrich 6 percent.

Although he came in a very close second to Romney, Paul had hoped to win for the first time since the nominating contests began in Iowa last month. He has focused on caucuses, where his band of enthusiastic libertarian supporters might be expected to do well.

But in Maine, regional New England neighbor of the state where Romney was governor, the state’s noted independence was not enough to carry the day for Paul. Still, the Texas congressman vows to continue.

"We're not going away," he told supporters when the results in Maine were announced. "We have the message America needs at this particular time."

The results there give Romney a burst of a momentum his campaign hopes will carry him until the next contests – major primaries in Arizona and Michigan on Feb. 28, then Super Tuesday on March 6 when 10 states will hold elections.

Romney holds clear leads in both Arizona and Michigan (his home state), according to recent polls. He also leads in most national polls pitting the four candidates against each other.

The one exception, announced Saturday, is a Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey showing a Santorum surge. In PPP’s latest national poll, Santorum has 38 percent compared to 23 percent for Romney, 17 percent for Gingrich, and 13 percent for Paul.

Gingrich’s continued presence in the race is a big plus for Romney, PPP finds. If the former House Speaker were to drop out, 58 of his supporters would move to Santorum and just 22 percent to Romney.

“It’s been an amazingly fast ascent to first place for Rick Santorum,” said Dean Debnam, president of PPP. “It’s important to keep in mind though that fewer than half of his voters are firmly committed to him. When he comes under attack in the coming days his lead could evaporate just as quickly as it was created.”

In the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll Saturday, 38 percent voted for Romney, 31 percent for Santorum, 15 percent for Paul, and 12 percent for Gingrich. In a companion presidential straw poll of self-identified conservatives around the country, the results were much closer: 27 percent for Romney, 25 percent for Santorum, 20 percent for Gingrich, and 8 percent for Paul.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sl_debate6_0222_blog.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1[/IMG]
Jack Kurtz / ZUMAPRESS
[COLOR=#696969]Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul, left, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich stand together at the Republican presidential debate Feb. 22, 2012, in Mesa[/COLOR], Arizona.

[I]By Michael Scherer | @michaelscherer | February 23, 2012[/I]

[QUOTE][COLOR=#000000][B]0 minutes[/B]. Dry your eyes. It’s hard on all of us. But if you keep crying like this you won’t be able to see the 20th debate, perhaps the last of the primaries. We can do this together, learn to let go. But the sobbing must stop. James Earl Jones just said, “This is CNN.” John King is standing on the space stage. We have [URL="http://search.time.com/results.html?N=0&Nty=1&p=0&cmd=tags&srchCat=Full+Archive&Ntt=%22what+you+missed+while+not+watching%22&x=0&y=0"]so many memories[/URL]. Let’s make just a few more. King says this debate “could change everything.” Believe.

[B]1 minute[/B]. Montage. High desert mountains. Low political clichés. “Grand showdown.” “All over the map.” “Could take another turn.” “Fight to the finish.” Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is the “late contender.” Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the “Long Distance Runner.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the “Determined Challenger.” Texas Representative Ron Paul is the “Delegate Hunter.” None of these words mean anything.
[B]
3 minutes[/B]. Montage ends with a quick aerial shot of the indoor arena from a helicopter, soaring over the Phoenix suburbs, which look just like every other suburb. Then back inside. The candidates come out. Lumbering Gingrich. Measured Romney. Goofy Santorum. Amiable Paul. Romney makes a show of applauding Paul, so the others join in. Like old times.

([B]MORE:[/B] [URL="http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/23/arizona-gop-debate-santorum-finds-himself-in-the-spotlight-and-on-the-defensive/"]Santorum Finds Himself in the Spotlight and On the Defensive[/URL])
[B]
4 minutes[/B]. Arizona State University’s symphonic choral group does the national anthem. Always loved the student groups the best. Much better than the B-grade show-tune types.
[B]
7 minutes[/B]. Self-introduction time. Paul is “defender of the Constitution.” Santorum will talk about “positive solutions.” Romney gets going on a long riff about “a secure future and a prosperous life.” But when he says Obama is bad, the crowd’s Pavlovian response takes over. They applaud, interrupting Romney, who concedes. “That’s good enough. As George Costanza would say, when they’re applauding, stop. Right?” Actually Jerry Seinfeld said that. Close enough.
[B]
8 minutes[/B]. Gingrich goes with some fresh, jarring images. “I’ve developed a program for American energy so no future President will ever bow to a Saudi king again,” he says. Vote Gingrich. Vote rude diplomacy. Also “$2.50 a gallon gasoline.”
[B]
9 minutes[/B]. Questions. This one from a guy named Gilbert, who worries about the U.S. debt being so high, which is an enormously bland question. Santorum has a stump speech answer. He will go after “means tested entitlement spending” but not defense. He goes on for a while.
[B]
11 minutes[/B]. Then King gets to the point: He asks Romney if Santorum is fooling the country with his fiscal conservative pitch. Seems that whole first question for Santorum was a set up. Romney drops debt-sized chunk of oppo. “Well I’m looking at his historic record, which voting for raising the debt ceiling five different times without voting for compensating cuts. Voting to keep in place Davis-Bacon. . . . Voting to fund Planned Parenthood, to expand the Department of Education.” He goes on. One thing Romney has is a real talent for memorization.
[B]
13 minutes[/B]. Santorum responds by pointing out that Romney would have voted to raise the debt ceiling too. But Romney’s entire political approach is to deny completely obvious facts like this in favor of focus-group-tested one liners. So Santorum catches on with a one-liner of his own. “Governor Romney raised $700 million in taxes and fees in Massachusetts,” he says. “I never voted to raise taxes.”
[B]
14 minutes[/B]. Romney doesn’t respond to the claim directly. But he does say “cut, cap and balance” a couple of times. He also says he intends to cut taxes for everyone who pays them, “including the top 1 percent,” which is an odd thing to emphasize, given his problems connecting with those not in his income bracket.
[B]
15 minutes[/B]. Gingrich gets a chance to talk. He promises “$2.50 gasoline” again, which is exactly the sort of political pander he would probably call “fundamentally dishonest” if one of his opponents offered it. Never mind though. Gingrich has a theme.
[B]
17 minutes[/B]. King asks Paul why he called Santorum “a fake.” “Because he’s a fake,” says Paul. So good. Paul goes on to point out that Santorum is now against a lot of the things he once supported, like the No Child Left Behind education law.
[B]
19 minutes[/B]. Santorum comes back with a bunch of facts about all the conservative ratings saying he is conservative in comparison to other members of Congress. “That’s always a cop-out when you compare yourself to the other members of Congress,” Paul hits back. “The American people are sick and tired of the members of Congress. They get about a 9% rating.” If Paul was only selling something people wanted to buy, he would have a good shot at winning.

([B]MORE[/B]: [URL="http://thepage.time.com/2012/02/22/grading-the-mesa-debate/"]Grading the Arizona Republican Debate[/URL])
[B]
21 minutes[/B]. King asks Romney what the deal was when he called himself “severely conservative” a couple of weeks ago. “Well, severe, strict,” says Romney, basically admitting it was a mistake. Of course he will not admit that he has not actually been a strict conservative, just that he doesn’t say it right when he tries.
[B]
22 minutes[/B]. Have we mentioned the chairs? This is different. Everyone is sitting down. Only Romney has kept his suit jacket buttoned. Good judgement there. He looks like he is ready. The rest look like they are reclining after a big meal.
[B]
25 minutes[/B]. Talk turns to earmarking. And it’s complicated. Santorum is against earmarks now, but he doesn’t apologize for voting for them before. Romney is against Santorum voting for earmarks before, but he isn’t against his work to get earmarks before. Gingrich is generally into earmarks. Paul, who hates all government spending, also defends earmarks. The candidates flesh these positions out for 8 minutes. Real confusing. At one point, Romney says after Santorum talks for a while, “I didn’t follow all of that, but I can tell you this.” It is a near perfect transition sentence. But what follows is also pretty unintelligible.

[B]30 minutes[/B]. Here is a typical exchange: “Attached to a bill? Attached to a bill?” asks Romney. “As part of the bill. Congressman Paul…” says Santorum. “And the President can’t veto it?” asks Romney. “He can veto the bill,” says Santorum. “The whole bill, but he can’t veto the earmark?” asks Romney. “Well, we tried to do that, by the way. I supported a line-item veto,” says Santorum. “That’s what I support. That’s what I support,” says Romney. “Hold on. Hold on,” says Santorum. Democracy in action.

[B]34 minutes[/B]. From earmarks to bailouts. Santorum says he is against all bailouts, and that Romney opposed the auto bailout but supported the bailout of Wall Street in 2008. Romney gets all huffy. “Nice, nice try,” he says. An inferior transition sentence. Then he explains at length his auto-non-bailout position. He says he wasn’t just bailing out Wall Street by supporting TARP, but trying to bail out all banks. And he pulls out more oppo on Santorum. “Now, Senator you voted in favor of the bail out of the airline industry after 9/11,” he says. “I think that was the right thing to do. It was an emergency.” This is an odd attack, since it is actually a compliment.

[B]39 minutes[/B]. Santorum can’t let Romney get away with the compliment-attack. “As Governor Romney well knows, that the American government shut down the airline industry after 9/11,” Santorum begins. But pretty soon Romney is interrupting. “I agree with you,” he says. “I agree.” All confusing. Like two gladiators blowing deadly kisses.

([B]MORE:[/B] [URL="http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/21/in-the-national-spotlight-santorum-doesnt-shy-away-from-social-issues/"]In the National Spotlight, Santorum Doesn’t Shy Away from Social Issues[/URL])
[B]
41 minutes[/B]. Gingrich says Obama is bad and Chrysler is now a foreign company. Paul says government involvement in pretty much anything is always bad.
[B]
42 minutes[/B]. Our first commercial break. How you holding up? Maybe these aerial shots of Mesa, Arizona, which looks like a dun-colored office park, will help.

[B]46 minutes[/B]. We’re back. A question about birth control, which sparks boos from the crowd. So Gingrich steps in. “But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. Okay?” Okay. It is not true that Obama [URL="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1849483,00.html"]voted[/URL] in favor of infanticide. And it is not true that the elite media [URL="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1849483,00.html"]ignored[/URL] the charge that he did.

[B]47 minutes[/B]. Romney pivots away from contraception to religious freedom, and condemns Obama for “most recently requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill. Unbelievable.” This is a good line, as long as you don’t go back to Dec. 8, 2005, when Romney himself [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-and-plan-b-the-santorum-and-gingrich-claims/2012/02/07/gIQATG6VxQ_blog.html"]was quoted[/URL] saying, ““My own view is that every hospital should provide to rape victims information about emergency contraception, or emergency contraception itself.” Unbelievable, you say? Believe it.

[B]49 minutes[/B]. Santorum returns to contraception, which he has previously said he would speak out against as President. By definition, contraception prevents pregnancy, but Santorum suggests it does the opposite, by encouraging teen sexuality. “What we’re seeing is a problem in our culture with respect to children being raised by children, children being raised out of wedlock, and the impact on society economically,” he says. So vote Santorum, and prevent pregnancy with less contraception. Or something like that.

[B]51 minutes[/B]. Paul, who is a doctor, doesn’t buy Santorum’s logic. “Along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don’t see it that way,” he says. “I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don’t blame the pills.” He has a point.

[B]53 minutes[/B]. More talk of contraception. Romney again denies that Massachusetts ever wanted to force Catholic hospitals to be involved in emergency contraception, even though that was [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-and-plan-b-the-santorum-and-gingrich-claims/2012/02/07/gIQATG6VxQ_blog.html"]his position[/URL] at the time. Gingrich points this fact out, and then goes on to suggest that any government involvement in issues like contraception is always a “move towards tyranny.” The crowd likes this line.

[B]55 minutes[/B]. The whole debate is really becoming difficult to follow, and not just because of all the emotion surrounding the potential end of the GOP debates. Santorum says, “I opposed Title X funding. I’ve always opposed Title X funding,” which provides federal support for family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood. But in 2006, [URL="http://youtu.be/9MBO9tNNejo"]Santorum said[/URL], “I support, you know, Title X.” Really. It’s okay if you want to give up. Or cry. Start now.

[B]59 minutes[/B]. Romney points out that Santorum said something different back in 2006. “I think I was making it clear that, while I have a personal more objection to it; even though I don’t support it, that I voted for bills that included it,” says Santorum, as if this makes anything clear.

[B]60 minutes[/B]. To recap the first hour. Most of the candidates both hate earmarks and like earmarks. Romney hates restrictions on Catholic hospitals, but once supported them. Santorum hates federal family planning funding, though he once supported it but only because he supported the bills that included it. Gingrich will deliver $2.50 gas. Now we can begin the next hour.

[B]61 minutes[/B]. Santorum and Romney are squabbling about RomneyCare and whether it led to ObamaCare. Romney pulls out a zinger: “The reason we have Obama Care is because the Senator you supported over Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, the pro-choice Senator of Pennsylvania that you supported and endorsed in a race over Pat Toomey, he voted for Obama Care. If you had not supported him, if we had said, no to Arlen Specter, we would not have Obama Care. So don’t look at me. Take a look in the mirror.” Again, good memorization. Romney also says he is against ObamaCare because it cuts a private, add-on program for Medicare.

([B]MORE:[/B] [URL="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2105690,00.html"]Mitt Romney: The Once and Future Front Runner Looks Beyond Florida[/URL])

[B]62 minutes[/B]. Santorum shoots back by pointing out that RomneyCare required hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal subsidies to work, which is true. Then Santorum delivers a zinger of his own, saying Romney’s boasts of balancing the budget on the state level don’t mean anything, since governors have no choice, which is true. “Don’t go around bragging about something you have to do,” he says. “Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years, does that make him qualified to be President of the United States? I don’t think so.” Applause. Santorum then defends his support of Specter, for complicated reasons connected with the Supreme Court and the Senate Judiciary Committee, even though Santorum has previously told voters that he regrets supporting Specter. Abandon all hope any who want this to make sense.

[B]65 minutes[/B]. Question about immigration. Everyone wants a strong border. Then there is a crowd shot of Rick Perry in the audience. He still looks handsome. Without a microphone, he has more gravitas. Gingrich reiterates his desire for a double fence on the southern border. Romney calls Arizona’s tough immigration laws “a model,” and promises to drop the lawsuits to throw the laws out on constitutional grounds. Santorum also says he wants more enforcement.

[B]72 minutes[/B]. King quotes Republican rising star, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, as saying the immigration rhetoric in the GOP has been “harsh, intolerable, inexcusable.” He asks Gingrich to respond, and Gingrich dodges. “Is there somebody somewhere who’s done that? “ he says. “Sure.”
[B]
74 minutes[/B]. Another commercial break. It has gone dark outside, so no more aerial shots.

[B]80 minutes[/B]. We’re back. Each candidate is asked to describe himself in one word. Paul says “Consistent,” which is true. Santorum says, “Courage,” which is strange, because he has spent the night explaining away uncourageous positions. Romney says “Resolute,” which is also strange for basically the same reason. And Gingrich says “Cheerful,” which is nearly a perfect response, because it means, “You are all a bunch of clowns, and I put up with you.”

[B]81 minutes[/B]. Foreign policy time. Romney is not going to give a position on more women on the front lines of the military. Though he does say he wants to grow the size of the military dramatically, and that Obama is terrible for a number of reasons. Gingrich also won’t bite on women in the military, though he does call Obama “the most dangerous President on national security grounds in American history.” Paul says he wants fewer wars, especially the ones with the U.S. on offense. Santorum reiterates his concern about women in the infantry, and says he would not just defer to military leaders.

[B]90 minutes[/B]. All the candidates agree that Iran is really dangerous, must not get a nuclear weapon, and is run by crazy people. Except for Paul, who appeals to his colleagues: “If they are so determined to go to war, the only thing I plead with you for, if this is the case, is do it properly. Ask the people and ask the Congress for a declaration of war. This is war and people are going to die. And you have got to get a declaration of war.” This is unlikely to happen.

[B]100 minutes[/B]. Santorum gets a question about his past support for No Child Left Behind, which he now opposes. Santorum says he supported the bill for the worst political reasons, without believing in what he did at the time. “I have to admit, I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake,” he says. The crowd boos. “Courage” Santorum.

([B]MORE:[/B] [URL="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2103758,00.html?iid=pw-sl"]The Passion of Rick Santorum[/URL])

[B]103 minutes[/B]. Romney and Gingrich like local school control and choice. They don’t like teachers unions. Paul basically agrees, except he wants the federal government out of the school business completely.
[B]
108 minutes[/B]. One more break.

[B]111 minutes[/B]. Final question. What is the biggest misconception about you? Paul says it’s the media’s notion that he can’t win. Gingrich doesn’t answer the question. He just talks about how ready he is to solve big problems. Romney also dodges, and goes into his stump speech about restoring America’s promise. King points out that this is not a response to the question. Romney gets testy, “You know, you get to ask the questions want, I get to give the answers I want. Fair enough?” This is jarring and off message. Doesn’t feel restorative. Santorum says people don’t understand that he can beat Barack Obama.
[B]
116 minutes[/B]. That’s it. We’re done. And we may never return. It’s been 20 debates. A long wild ride. We made it. Let the tears flow.[/QUOTE]

From The Washington Post:

[QUOTE]Posted at 12:32 PM ET, 02/23/2012
[I]By Sandhya Somashekhar[/I]

PHOENIX — Mitt Romney hammered rival Rick Santorum on Thursday over his performance in Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, ridiculing the former Pennsylvania senator for his attempts to explain why he repeatedly voted against his conscience while in Congress.

“We saw Senator Santorum explain most of the night why he did or voted for things he disagreed with,” Romney said during an appearance before a meeting of the Associated Builders and Contractors. “And he talked about this as taking one for the team. I wonder what team he was taking it for. My team is the American people.”

Romney assailed Santorum for voting for legislation in support of Planned Parenthood and the No Child Left Behind education law, and against right-to-work labor laws. He criticized him for voting five times to raise the nation's debt limit without achieving compensating cuts. And he attacked Santorum for voting for earmarks including the infamous “bridge to nowhere.”

During Wednesday night’s debate, Santorum explained the legislation that provided funding to Planned Parenthood was part of a broader bill he supported, and that had he tried to compensate for his actions by introducing legislation in support of abstinence education. His votes to raise the debt ceiling, he said, took place at a time when the deficit was not such a major concern, and he said he abandoned his support for earmarks when it became clear they were being abused.

On No Child Left Behind, Santorum said his vote was a mistake. "It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team," he said.

Romney is doubling down on his attacks against Santorum as the crucial Michigan primary approaches Tuesday. The two men were virtually tied in recent polls in the state, and a loss by Romney would be particularly devastating, because he was born and raised in Michigan and his father served as governor. Arizona also holds its primary Tuesday, but Romney holds a sizable lead in polls here.

Romney's remarks Thursday also focused on President Obama and his relationship with labor unions, a key issue for Michiganders. Romney sharply criticized the president, saying he "bows" to organized labor because of its role in supporting his presidential campaign, and has dragged his feet on their behalf on initiatives that would spur the economy, such as free-trade agreements. Obama prefers to "brush aside the principles of free enterprise and fair play and instead tilt the entire playing field in our economy towards the people who financed his campaign," Romney said. "That kind of crony capitalism we have not seen in this country to the extent that we're seeing it in this administration, I don't think in history."[/QUOTE]

Four more hours until the primaries in Arizona and Michigan start.

There's talks about what future will hold for Mitt Romney if he lost the Michigan's contest, even just by a narrow margin.

I doubt that though. Don't know what the heck the Republican Party is trying to show, but it gave people [at least myself] the impression that they are lost, don't know who to pick to represent their party in the next coming election in 2012.

They are not willing to rally behind Romney. But everytime when someone else broke away from the pack, to give Romney some serious contending... that person had fallen flat on their face in the next national broadcasted debate. Santorum was no exception. His debate was mediocre if not a disaster [with the announcement that politics is a Team Sport].

I think Governnor Romney will get all the delegates in Arizona and win the votes in [his home state] Michigan as well.

Not only Michigan is important because it's his "Home" State, it's President Obama Home State also!

From Christian Science Monitor:

[QUOTE][URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0228-romney-santorum-mich/11871492-1-eng-US/0228-romney-santorum-mich_full_600.jpg"][IMG]http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0228-romney-santorum-mich/11871492-1-eng-US/0228-romney-santorum-mich_full_380.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[I]Republican presidential candidates, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, left, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney talk following a Republican presidential debate last week in Mesa, Ariz[/I].
[COLOR="#696969"]Nick Oza/AP Photo/The Arizona Republic[/COLOR]

[B]Given that Michigan awards delegates proportionately, the winner of the primary could earn fewer delegates than the loser. Even so, the contest is a must-win for Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.[/B]

[I]By Amanda Paulson, Staff writer / February 28, 2012 [/I]

If the polls are any indication, tonight's Michigan primary could be very close. While Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have been duking it out there for weeks, neither one is likely to win by a wide margin.

And given how Michigan apportions delegates, they may both emerge with about the same numbers (the winner could even receive fewer delegates than the loser).

So why does the Michigan primary matter?

Mitt Romney gaffes: 9 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up

The reality is that both Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum have a lot at stake – and a lot to lose – with Tuesday's contest.

Fair or not, the media is likely to place disproportionate weight on the outcome – especially since Arizona and Michigan are the first contests held since Santorum won Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri three weeks ago – and the loser in Michigan is likely to face increased scrutiny on a host of issues.

If Romney wins both states (Arizona will almost certainly vote for him), then it's going to be tougher for Santorum to claim he's the serious contender for the nomination that he claims to be.

Santorum has been struggling in recent weeks, and delivered a lackluster debate performance in Arizona last week. His decision to stake all his bets on social issues seems to be backfiring among some voters, and raising questions about whether he can appeal to women, and to more moderate Republicans and independents.

Also, all the contests he has won so far (except Missouri, whose primary didn't count and where no other candidates campaigned) have been caucuses. Caucuses, where far fewer voters turn out and those who do tend to be the most enthusiastic and represent the most extreme parts of the party, play to Santorum's strengths. But he badly needs to demonstrate that he can win in a straight primary, as well.

Santorum has had trouble appealing to party leaders, whose support he needs to secure in a race this close, and especially given his deficiencies in money, staffing, and organization compared with Romney. And a Michigan win could be pivotal to helping him make his case.

In writing about Santorum's almost total lack of endorsements, even after his big wins in Colorado and Minnesota, the Washington Post's Jonathon Bernstein wrote that:

"... Endorsements are also bets that a particular candidate will do well (it’s rare for there to be any incentive to back a likely loser), and they’re bets made by people with inside information. Senators, governors and members of the House either know each of the serious presidential candidates personally or, at most, are at just one remove from them. The governors of Michigan and Arizona probably have someone they trust who has worked with Rick Santorum and has strong opinions about him. And what they’re hearing, apparently, isn’t anything good for Santorum."

Losing both contests Tuesday may reaffirm in many of those leaders' minds that Santorum's earlier wins were a fluke, and he can't go much farther.

On the other hand, a loss for Romney in his home state will also be a big blow.

Even though he (like Santorum) has sought to temper expectations about his performance there, Michigan is a state that until recently seemed almost certain to go to Romney.

Romney was born and raised in Michigan, and his father was governor there. Losing would raise questions – yet again – about why Romney is having so much trouble delivering victories in states (like Colorado) that on the surface should have been his, despite all his money and organization advantages.

There would be more questions about why Romney struggles in particular in the Midwest, where he has yet to win a state and which may be particularly pivotal in the general election. And about whether he is unable to connect to blue-collar, lower-income voters – a population that may be pivotal in November.

Yet again, his inevitability as nominee would be questioned (look for more talk of a brokered convention), the lack of enthusiasm he generates will be highlighted, and his lack of appeal to more conservative voters will be an issue.

Even with a loss in Michigan, it's not hard to envision Romney still winning the nomination – especially if he can go on to a better performance on Super Tuesday next week. But it will be yet another blow in an already rough month, and could further cripple him in the general election.

Questions about both Romney and Santorum will remain no matter how they perform on Tuesday – but a victory in Michigan, even a narrow one, could go a long way toward giving each of their campaigns a much-needed boost.[/QUOTE]

From The Nation:

[QUOTE][I]Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto on February 28, 2012 - 8:22 AM ET[/I]

Nothing. My home state does not suffer from a fundamental political or societal flaw. There are a number of things that I do not like about Arizona, namely S.B. 1070, tent city Joe Arpaio and finger-wagging Jan Brewer. But to understand Arizona and that nothing’s the matter with it, you have to understand its Western personality, one that is volatile and quirky. It is a personality that is forged by an inheritance of populist politics and idiosyncratic political leaders.

One hundred years ago this month, Arizona was the last state in the continental United States to gain statehood. While the political machines in New York, Baltimore and Chicago were grinding out back-room deals, Arizona was only beginning to think about statehood. As Tom Schaller points out in his book, Whistling Past Dixie, the later incorporation of the Mountain West states meant a later start to political development in this region. As a result, states west of the Mississippi do not have deep partisan roots that anchor their political systems.

Politics in the West has been and continues to be candidate-centered. The same state that elected Barry Goldwater to the Senate is the same state that in 1974 elected Raúl Castro, Arizona’s first Latino governor. Arizona is also a state where in 2002 and 2006 voters simultaneously elected Democrat Janet Napolitano as governor and Republican Jan Brewer as secretary of state.

A thin party structure is complemented by a strong tradition of direct democracy—referendums, initiatives and recalls. For example, in 1996 Arizona became the first state to pass a medical marijuana proposition and in 1988 became the second state to approve a recall of their governor, though Governor Mecham ended up being impeached before the election. The five states with the highest number of initiatives have all been in the West. Until Scott Walker’s recall effort, the previous three recalls were all in the West.

Recently Western states have engaged in what political scientist Caroline Tolbert refers to as new progressivism. In the 1990s Western states once again looked to progressivism to provide citizens further control of their government, such as with term limits, public financing of political campaigns or voter approval of tax limits. These measures have wrested greater control from partisan and governmental institutions. And to further curb partisan influence in politics, in 2000 Arizona voters approved Proposition 106 that established an independent redistricting commission.

Western states have their own personalities. Arizona’s brand of cowboy politics is largely unbridled by partisan institutions and a republican form of government. For better or for worse, it is a system that allows for greater political volatility. Arizona’s political system allows for S.B. 1070, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Jan Brewer. However, it also allows for a system where Russell Pearce, the architect of S.B. 1070, can be recalled and the 2010 redistricting map can be drawn more competitively—much to the public annoyance of the governor. And lastly, Arizona is a state that preferences the will of the electorate and with each electoral cycle that electorate becomes increasingly more Latino.[/QUOTE]

Rick Santorum is speaking like he won the race. Just imagine what a speech it would be if he actually did win. :)

The introduction speech governor Mitt Romney's wife'd given was more like a victory speech for the nomination than just Michigan. :)

Vry short and appropriate, confident victory speech, preparing him for the match against president Obama.

From CNN:

[QUOTE][B]3 things to watch on Super Tuesday[/B]

By John Helton, CNN
[I]updated 2:06 PM EST, Tue March 6, 2012[/I]

CNN LIVE: Tune in to the CNN Election Center tonight at 7 p.m. for live coverage of the Super Tuesday primaries and follow real-time results on CNNPolitics.com, on the CNN apps and on the CNN mobile web site. Follow CNN Politics on Facebook and on Twitter at #cnnelections.

(CNN) -- It's not as super as it has been in previous elections with more states involved, but 10 states have their say Tuesday in one of the most volatile Republican presidential races in generations.

Here are three things to watch for:

Romney's big day. He's been the off-and-on frontrunner throughout the race, but a big Super Tuesday could begin an end game toward a sometimes hesitant base coalescing behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Romney should win his home state of Massachusetts, neighboring Vermont and Virginia, where he and Ron Paul are the only two candidates on the ballot. His campaign thinks he can win in Idaho with its heavy Mormon population and possibly in North Dakota. That leaves Ohio and Tennessee, where polls show former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum leading just a week ago.

If Romney can win in Ohio, a bellwether for the general election, and Tennessee, which would help dispel the notion that he can't win in the South, it would be a big boost in overcoming a balky base and propel him to a huge lead in the delegate race.

Turnout. It's the biggest dance yet for Republicans, so the number of people who show up at the polls could be an indication of how energized Republicans are now and what that might mean for the fall.

While there have been spikes in turnout in some states -- South Carolina was energized to turn out a win for Newt Gingrich in January that helped blunt Romney's early momentum -- overall it's down nearly 10% from 2008.

There are many factors that influence turnout -- local races on the same ballot, weather, polling that suggests the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Watch states such as Ohio and Tennessee for a better indication of how energized Republicans are.

How is your Super Tuesday? What issues are you voting on?

Anyone leaving the race? No.

Even if Romney doesn't win in Ohio and/or Tennessee, he'll be able to take the podium tonight and point to wins in other states. Expect Santorum to also declare victory and emphasize that he was outspent by Romney in the states he lost to him.

Newt Gingrich will get a big win in Georgia, which he represented in the House of Representatives, and is already looking ahead to next week's contests in Alabama and Mississippi to keep his campaign going.

And Ron Paul could finally win his first contest of the 2012 battle for the Republican nomination in one of the caucus states. Even if he doesn't score a victory, he'll pick up some delegates, and his passionate core following and low-budget campaign will keep him in the race as long as he wants.[/QUOTE]

From CBS:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/06/Super_Tuesday_Romney_Wife_140807929_620x350.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and his wife Ann attend a Super Tuesday Republican primary elections evening in Boston, Massaschusetts, March 6, 2012[/I].
[COLOR="#696969"](Credit: EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images)[/COLOR]

[I]March 6, 2012 11:27 PM[/I]
Updated: 1:09 a.m. ET
[I]By Lucy Madison[/I]

CBS News projects that Mitt Romney will win Ohio's key primary contest Tuesday, after a neck-and-neck race with rival Rick Santorum to eke out a victory in the pivotal battleground state.

With 96 percent reporting in Ohio, Romney has 38 percent support to Santorum's 37 percent. Newt Gingrich is in third place with 15 percent and Ron Paul follows with 9 percent.

CBS News projects Mitt Romney will also win primaries in Virginia, Massachusetts and Vermont, as well as the Idaho caucuses. CBS News projects Rick Santorum will win primaries in Tennessee and Oklahoma, and in the North Dakota caucuses. In Georgia, CBS News projects Newt Gingrich will clinch his first primary victory since South Carolina's January 21 primary contest.

According to current CBS News projections, Ron Paul did not win any contests on Tuesday, but he did finish second in four states: Vermont, Idaho, North Dakota and Virginia.

There are also caucuses in Alaska. Results are expected later this evening.

With voters in ten states selecting their choice to be the Republican presidential nominee and 419 delegates up for grabs, Super Tuesday could be a make-or-break night for the remaining Republican presidential candidates.

In remarks to reporters following the Ohio call for Romney, his campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said the campaign was "pleased" to have "gained the trust of Ohio voters."

"Nearly a week ago Governor Romney was behind in some polls by double digits. But Ohio voters responded to his pro-jobs and pro-growth message, and rallied behind him the days before the primary and helped push him to victory tonight," Williams said.

Speaking out of Boston before his victory was projected in the Buckeye State, Romney stayed positive that his campaign was "going to get more" wins under its belt by the end of the night, and that by his count, the delegate situation "looks good."

"Tonight, we're -- we're doing some counting. We're counting up the delegates for the convention, and it looks good. And we're counting down the days until November, and that looks even better," Romney told an enthusiastic crowd. With almost all precincts reporting in Massachusetts, Romney, who served as the state's governor between 2003 and 2007, was ahead overwhelmingly, with 257,174 votes (72 percent).

In his remarks, Romney went on to accuse President Obama of being "unresponsive" to the wishes of the American people, and blasted him for allegedly operating "by command instead of by consensus."

"President Obama seems to believe he's unchecked by the Constitution," Romney said. "He's unresponsive to the will of our people. He operates by command instead of by consensus. In a second term, he'd be unrestrained by the demands of re-election. And if there's one thing we cannot afford is four years of Barack Obama with no one to answer to."

Super Tuesday results by state: Alaska | Georgia | Idaho | Massachusetts | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Tennessee | Vermont | Virginia

A win in Ohio would have been considered a huge boon for either Romney or Santorum on Super Tuesday. For Romney, the victory could signal a return to the so-called inevitability of his candidacy; for Santorum, it would have proven his ability to win in a crucial swing state with a large, diverse population.

Polls showed the two candidates neck-and-neck in the past several weeks, although the most recent surveys trended toward Romney.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Romney and his super PAC outspent Santorum four-to-one in Ohio, with Romney and his super PAC spending just over $4 million on TV and radio ads in the state, and Santorum and his super PAC spending $968,000.

Speaking to supporters in Ohio, Santorum called Tuesday a "big night" for his campaign -- but emphasized that he was "up against enormous odds."

"This was a big night tonight, lots of states. We're going to win a few, we're going to lose a few, but as it looks right now, we're going to get at least a couple of gold medals and a whole passel full of silver medals," he said. "We went up against enormous odds, not just here in the state of Ohio, where -- who knows how much we were outspent -- but in every state. There wasn't a single state in the list that I just gave you where I spent more money than the people I was able to defeat to win that state. In every case, we overcame the odds."

According to exit polls, the economy is the top issue for voters in the primary states today, while the ability to defeat President Obama is candidate the quality that matters most to voters.

In both Tennessee and Oklahoma, Santorum did well among the nearly 75 percent of primary voters who identified as evangelical Christians, according to exit polls. He did particularly well among those voters who said it mattered "a great deal" to them that the candidate share their religious beliefs.

In Tennessee, with 89 percent reporting, Santorum led Romney with 191,420 (37 percent) votes to 142,848 (28 percent) votes. In Oklahoma, with nearly all precincts reporting, Santorum bested Romney with 93,744 votes (34 percent) to 77,724 votes (28 percent).

In Georgia, which he represented in Congress for 20 years, Gingrich was ahead with 414,896 votes (46 percent) with nearly all precincts reporting. Romney came in second with 224,361 votes, or 26 percent. Santorum followed, with 171,346 votes, or 20 percent.

Exit polls out of Georgia showed Gingrich winning among men, women, and white evangelical voters. He also led among very conservative voters and those who said the economy was their top issue.

Gingrich's victory in Georgia could give the candidate a much-needed boost in momentum after a string of losses in recent nominating contests.

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7401179n[/video][/QUOTE]

From MSNBC:

[QUOTE][I]By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com[/I]

Updated at 12:35 a.m. ET March 7: Campaigns live and die on the momentum swings of big victories, strong debate performances or debilitating gaffes. But nominations are won with delegates, and in this year's Republican presidential campaign, the math is relentless: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is starting to pile them up, and faster than any of his rivals.

That's partly because of the nature of the 2012 race, but it's also because, more than in any other recent campaign, the state Republican parties are doling out their delegates in a variety of ways this year. They've moved away from the more traditional system in which the winner of a congressional district takes most or all of that district's delegates — a winner-take-all approach that has led to the nomination's having been decided after just a few big primaries and caucuses in previous cycles.

Casual followers of politics might assume that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for example, won most of the 76 delegates Tuesday night in his home state, Georgia — and he would have under the winner-take-all system. But the Republican National Committee has tried to steer the state parties toward district allocations that more accurately reflect the popular vote.

The upshot is that even though Gingrich won Georgia, according to NBC News' projection Tuesday night, he could end up with fewer than half its delegates. Romney, meanwhile — despite finishing second or third — could come away with a quarter of them or more.

Math like that made it possible for Romney to hit 323 total delegates, according to NBC News' projections through 12:35 a.m. ET — more than triple the number won by Gingrich (105) and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (101) and 13½ times those won by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (24).

And it's the kind of math that makes it harder for a non-front-running candidate to make a big leap in delegates, which he could do by winning an upset in a big winner-take-all state.

The problem for Santorum and Gingrich is that there are only 12 such opportunities this year, compared to 25 in 2008. That's the number of states — none of them on Super Tuesday — that were running largely winner-take-all contests, while 22 were awarding delegates more along proportional lines.

(As for the rest of the states, they were waiting for state conventions or were using a combination of the two systems, many of them with unique complications — like Ohio, where delegates were being allocated proportionally unless one candidate won a clear majority, in which case it would switch to winner-take-all. Tennessee was using a similar arrangement, except the winner-take-all trigger wouldn't be pulled unless one candidate won two-thirds of the popular vote.

(None of this takes into account the three wild-card delegate spots in each district reserved for members of the RNC. Still with us?)

Boil it all down, and what it means is that having to navigate such a patchwork of rules rewards candidates with well-financed national campaigns that can compete in every state.

It rewards Romney, in other words.

Besides having won six contests going in to Tuesday, Romney had also finished second in four of the five others, winning a significant number of delegates in many of them. Besides adding three more wins by mid-evening, he was also running second or was in a virtual tie for the lead in most of the rest of Tuesday's contests that had reported returns.

Certainly, an unexpected development, like a candidate's withdrawal or a major mistake in a debate, could change the calculus, but as it stands now, the problem for Gingrich and Santorum is that, no matter how good they look in national polls compared to Romney, they're finishing third or fourth too often.

Meanwhile, the majority of winner-take-all states, where they theoretically could begin to catch up, are backloaded this year, with most coming in April or later. By that time, Romney could well have taken on the mantle of inevitable nominee, thanks to lackluster but good-enough finishes to keep the delegates ticking into his column.

Romney all but pointed that out himself at a rally Tuesday night in Boston:

"Tonight, we are counting up the delegates for the convention — and counting down the days until November," he said.[/QUOTE]

From Fox:

[QUOTE][B]Santorum lands Southern primary wins in Mississippi, Alabama[/B]

[I]Published March 14, 2012 | FoxNews.com[/I]

Rick Santorum scored a big pair of victories Tuesday night, winning the Mississippi and Alabama Republican primaries as he builds the case that he is the "conservative" alternative to Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich.

"We did it again," Santorum told a cheering crowd in Louisiana Tuesday night.

The former Pennsylvania senator won in two deep red states that are among the most conservative in the nation. In his victory speech, Santorum suggested the GOP contest remains far more competitive than Romney's supporters make it out to be.

"We will compete everywhere. The time is now for conservatives to pull together," Santorum said.

Mitt Romney did not go home empty handed, clinching a victory in the Hawaii caucuses by a wide margin. He took home 45 percent of the vote, with over 80 percent of precincts reporting. Santorum trailed with 25 percent.

Romney also won the small Republican caucus in American Samoa. He picked up all nine delegates in the contest in the U.S. territory located 2,300 miles south of Hawaii.

With Tuesday's contests, the Republican candidates are now at roughly the halfway point in the nominating battle. Twenty-four states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, still have to hold their primaries and caucuses.

In Mississippi, Gingrich finished second, just ahead of Romney. With nearly all precincts reporting, Santorum was leading with 33 percent of the vote. Gingrich was behind with 31 percent, followed by Romney with 30 percent.

Gingrich and Romney are still battling for second place in Alabama. With 99 percent reporting, Santorum was ahead with 35 percent -- followed by Gingrich with 29 percent and Romney with 29 percent.

Ron Paul is a distant fourth in both states.

Santorum's wins allow the candidate to increase the pressure on Gingrich to bow out of the race. The two primary contests Tuesday were considered crucial to the former House speaker's Southern strategy, and Santorum in the run-up to the vote had suggested it was time for Gingrich to exit. So far, the former speaker has won just two contests, in Georgia last week and South Carolina in January.

"It's very, very clear that outside of Speaker Gingrich's backyard, if you will, we're the candidate who's taking it to Mitt Romney," Santorum told Fox News. He told Fox News earlier in the day that conservative voters "have pretty much made a decision," claiming Gingrich is probably not "in the mix for getting the nomination at this point."

But Gingrich told Fox News before the results came in that he will not step aside. Talking to supporters Tuesday night in Alabama, Gingrich made clear he intends to stay in it.

"One of the things tonight proved is that the elite media's effort to convince the nation that Mitt Romney is inevitable just collapsed," Gingrich said. "The fact is in both states, the conservative candidates got nearly 70 percent of the vote. And ... if you're the front-runner and you keep coming in third, you're not much of a front-runner."

Gingrich said his campaign stands out for its emphasis on "substance" and big ideas, and he vowed to fight "all the way to Tampa" to compete for the nomination at the convention. He said his emphasis on gas prices already has changed the national debate, citing President Obama's recent focus on the issue.

Alabama offered 47 delegates on Tuesday, while Mississippi offered 37. Because both states divvy up their delegates proportionally, Gingrich and the other candidates will each win delegates Tuesday. That means Santorum will again struggle to make measurable gains on Romney, the delegate leader.

Santorum's campaign was similarly frustrated over the weekend, after winning big in the Kansas caucuses -- only to watch Romney negate his delegate gains by picking off a few in Kansas and many more in under-the-radar contests held in various U.S. territories.

Going into the race Tuesday, Santorum had 217 delegates to Romney's 454. Gingrich had 107 and Paul had 47. It takes 1,144 to clinch the nomination.

Exit polls, as they have in prior races, showed Romney doing best among moderates on Tuesday. In exit polls out of Alabama, Santorum was pocketing 41 percent among those who describe themselves as very conservative. Gingrich was pulling 36 percent among that group.

In the same state, Santorum led among evangelicals, followed closely by Gingrich. But Romney far outpaced his competitors on the question of who is most electable against Obama -- 46 percent chose Romney, while less than a quarter said the same for Santorum or Gingrich. Three percent thought Paul was most electable.

The Gingrich campaign meanwhile circulated a memo late Tuesday afternoon claiming the candidate is "well positioned" to win the nomination, citing the numerous Southern contests still on the horizon.

"This race is not going to be won or lost over backroom deals or endless and mind-numbing discussions in the media over delegate counts. This race is going to be decided by a big debate -- a big choice -- among GOP primary voters about the future of the Republican Party; what it stands for, and which candidate has the most compelling vision and most credibility to carry forward a conservative governing agenda," Gingrich advisers said in the memo. "That is the debate Newt is going to win, and with it, the nomination and the election."

Romney did not address supporters Tuesday night but made clear beforehand that he doesn't consider the Southern contests to be must-win for his nomination chances.

"John McCain didn't win either of these states, Alabama or Mississippi," he told Fox News. "We are delighted that we are doing so well there. The polls are suggesting it is kind of a three-way tie. It is an away game for me."

[I]Read more[/I]: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/13/alabama-mississippi-gop-primary/print#ixzz1p53wZjHt[/url][/QUOTE]

From ABC:

[IMG]http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/AP_rick_santorum_puerto_Rico_thg_120315_wblog.jpg[/IMG]
[COLOR="#696969"]Image credit: Dennis M. Rivera Pichardo/AP Photo[/COLOR]

[I]Mar 15, 2012 12:16pm[/I]

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe and Shushannah Walshe report:

Rick Santorum Wednesday became the first Republican presidential hopeful in this election to visit Puerto Rico before the island commonwealth’s Sunday primary, taking a controversial stand on statehood that he was forced to defend this morning after losing a key supporter.

Rather than boost his standing, the trip has ignited a firestorm with Santorum’s comment that English would have to be “the main language” in order for Puerto Rico to become a U.S. state.

“Like in every other state, it [must comply] with this and every other federal law,- and that is that English should be the main language,” Santorum said in an interview with the El Vocero newspaper Wednesday. “There are other states with more than one language, as is the case with Hawaii, but to be a state of the U.S., English should be the main language.”

The question of statehood is a huge issue in Puerto Rico, which is set to vote on the matter in November. The island’s voters will have a referendum on whether to become a state, something some Puerto Ricans favor and others oppose, whether they be in favor of remaining a commonwealth or becoming independent.

Santorum’s comments left one of his supporters, Oreste Ramos, so upset that the former Puerto Rican senator rescinded his endorsement.

“Although such a requirement would be unconstitutional, and also would clash with our sociological and linguistic reality, as a question of principle I cannot back a person who holds that position,” Oreste said, according to El Vocero. “As a Puerto Rican and Spanish-speaking U.S. citizen, I consider the position of Mr. Santorum offensive.”

Santorum’s deputy chairman in Puerto Rico tried to explain away Ramos’ defection by claiming that his gripes have more to do with Santorum’s stance on statehood than specifically with the English-language issue, and that it is too late for Ramos to remove his name as a delegate for Santorum.

Santorum himself today defended his English-language comments as he was exiting a special-needs school in San Juan with his wife, Karen, and five of their seven children.

“What I said is English has to be learned as a language and this has to be a country where English is widely spoken and used, yes,” Santorum told reporters, stating that the use of English should be a “condition” if Puerto Rico is to become a state. The island, he said, “needs to be a bilingual country, not just a Spanish speaking country.”

“I think English and Spanish – obviously Spanish is going to be spoken here on the island – but this needs to be a bilingual country, not just a Spanish-speaking country, and right now it is overwhelmingly just Spanish speaking. But it needs to have, in order to fully integrate into American society, English has to be a language that is spoken here also and spoken universally,” Santorum explained.

“I think that would be a condition. I think it’s important. And I think if you talk to most parents, they want their children to learn English. It is essential for children in America to be able to speak English to fully integrate and have full opportunities,” he added. “I don’t think we’re doing any more than, you know, people who come to America on the mainland. We’re not doing them any favors by not teaching them English.

Puerto Rico considers English and Spanish its official languages, but Spanish is more frequently used. With the island’s primary only three days away, Santorum – already the underdog there – can ill afford to alienate supporters. Republican front-runner Mitt Romney is the favorite in the commonwealth, and the former Massachusetts governor enjoys the backing of Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno. If Romney, or any other candidate, wins more than 50 percent of the vote Sunday, then he will take 20 of the island’s 23 delegates. That leaves three super delegates, and two have already endorsed Romney.

Santorum met with Fortuno in San Juan Wednesday, explaining away the governor’s support for Romney by noting that “the establishment across America lined up behind Gov. Romney very early on and I certainly respect that.”

At the same time, Santorum tried to emphasize his ties to the island, noting that he was once referred to as “Senador Puertorriqueno.”

“I was referred to by many in my state as Senador Puertorriqueno,” he told reporters. “They used to make fun of me: ‘Why are you representing Puerto Rico?’

“Well, someone has to because they don’t have a voice. I felt a responsibility to the island.”

But such comments garnered far less attention than his call for English to be the “main language” there. Romney, for his part, is scheduled to arrive on the island Friday, hoping the visit goes far better than Santorum’s has.

There is plenty at stake for both candidates come Sunday, and every misstep, as evidenced by Santorum’s stop there, comes with potentially significant consequences.

[I]Matthew Jaffe is covering the 2012 campaign for ABC News and Univision.[/I]

From The Ticket:

[QUOTE][B]Romney’s ties to China surveillance firm whacked by Obama campaign[/B]

[I]By Olivier Knox[/I]
White House Correspondent
[COLOR="#0000FF"]By Olivier Knox | The Ticket[/COLOR]

President Barack Obama's reelection campaign pounced Friday on a New York Times report that Mitt Romney may stand to profit, through a family blind trust administered by the Bain Capital private equity firm he founded, from China's government surveillance of its citizens.

[B]Here's how The Times puts it:[/B]

"In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government's Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques and movie theaters from centralized command posts."

Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, seized the opportunity to hit back at Romney, who has sharply assailed the president's policy towards China: "Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama on the campaign trail for putting economic interests ahead of human rights in China. But this new revelation about Romney's financial interest in a Chinese surveillance company suggests that Romney is not living up to his own publicly-stated values."

"Mitt Romney seems to play by one set of rules on the campaign trail but has another set of rules for his own finances," she said in a statement the campaign emailed to Yahoo News.

The Times noted that "Mr. Romney has had no role in Bain's operations since 1999 and had no say over the investment in China. But the fortunes of Bain and Mr. Romney are still closely tied."

And Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul called Cutter's remarks "a ridiculous attack from President Obama who is trying desperately to change the subject from price shock at the gas pump, which is creating more misery for people trying to survive his bad economy."

"Governor Romney left Bain 13 years ago, and his investments are in a blind trust, but that is not the issue on the minds of voters. The issue is we have an administration that has no idea what to do about rising gas prices because it's running on empty," she said in a statement by email to Yahoo News.

But the Times report gave fresh ammunition to Democrats who have already gleefully painted Romney as the poster child for Wall Street excess and as out of touch with average Americans, and suggested that the former Massachusetts governor is hiding something by not making a fuller disclosure of his finances.

"Now we know why Mitt Romney has been less than forthcoming about the details of his finances. This revelation not only highlights Romney's utter hypocrisy on China, but it also raises more questions about what his investments are and why he won't reveal all of them," Cutter said.

A Romney campaign spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment.[/QUOTE]

From Fox:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://a57.foxnews.com/video.foxnews.com/thumbnails/032012/640/360/396/223/032012_aehq_romneyspeech_640.jpg[/IMG]

[I]Published March 21, 2012 | FoxNews.com[/I]

Mitt Romney romped to victory over Rick Santorum in the Illinois Republican primary Tuesday, notching his latest win in an industrial state and leaving his chief rival with an increasingly steep road to the nomination.

The victory poses a setback for Santorum, with just a few contests left on the calendar before a mid-April hiatus. Santorum is banking on a win in Louisiana this Saturday, but he may have to wait another month for any major opportunities to catch up to Romney -- as the GOP presidential front-runner builds his case that he is marching inexorably toward the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

At his victory speech in Illinois, Romney focused squarely on the November general election.

Glossing over his rivals in the Republican contest, he described the hypothetical race between him and President Obama as a choice between a "conservative businessman" and a "law professor." Romney said "economic freedom" will be on the ballot.

"We're going to face a defining decision as a people," Romney said. "I'm offering a real choice and a new beginning."

The former Massachusetts governor stressed his private-sector experience above all else on his resume, signaling a renewed focus on jobs going into the weeks ahead. "For 25 years, I lived and breathed business and the economy and jobs," Romney said.

He said the campaign is moving closer every day to victory, as well as a "better America."

Romney will add to his delegate lead with Tuesday's performance. The former governor received 46 percent of the vote, followed by Santorum with 35 percent, Ron Paul with 9 percent and Newt Gingrich with 8 percent.

A total of 54 delegates were up for grabs in Illinois.

Santorum, though, stressed that he would peel off some delegates from the contest. Speaking in Gettysburg, Pa., Tuesday night, he said he feels "very, very good" about Louisiana and predicted a big win a month later in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Santorum urged his supporters to "saddle up" for the race ahead, casting Romney as a flimsy conservative and himself as the candidate with "a long track record of deep convictions."

The former Pennsylvania senator took a shot at Romney, saying he doesn't fight just because of what a pollster or a teleprompter tells him. Romney used a teleprompter Tuesday night for his speech, but Santorum noted: "I don't happen to have one here tonight."

Santorum accused Romney and Gingrich of swaying with the political winds, particularly on climate change. "I'm not going to change with the climate," Santorum assured Republicans.

The candidates head next to Louisiana, where polling shows Santorum indeed has the edge -- but the state is not worth as many delegates as Illinois, with just 25 on the table. Santorum had fought hard for an Illinois upset, campaigning in the state and hoping to follow up his back-to-back wins in Alabama and Mississippi a week earlier.

Despite those wins, Santorum has struggled to make any delegate gains on Romney, who most recently added to his lead with a shutout victory in Puerto Rico over the weekend.

In Illinois, Romney invested heavily ahead of Tuesday's vote. Romney and the super PAC that supports him outspent Santorum and his super PAC by roughly 7-1 in the state, according to the Associated Press. CBS News reported the margin was 18-1, citing an estimate by the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

Operational problems in the Santorum camp also opened the door for Romney to win more delegates on Tuesday regardless of the outcome. Because of filing problems, Santorum was ineligible for 10 of the 54 delegates at stake.

Santorum adviser John Brabender, speaking to reporters before the Illinois race was called, said the nominating battle is only at about the halfway point, and projected that Louisiana on Saturday would be an "important" contest.

After that, Santorum will have to wait until late April before the state he used to represent in Congress, delegate-rich Pennsylvania, holds its primary. In between is a three-contest set in Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia on April 3, with 95 total delegates at stake. Santorum did not make the ballot in Washington, D.C., but is competitive in the other two contests.

Romney adds Illinois to a column of industrial state victories that includes Michigan and Ohio.

Exit polls in Illinois on Tuesday reflected a familiar theme. They showed Romney dominating among self-described moderates, as well as voters who view electability as the most important candidate quality. Santorum was leading among voters who most want their nominee to either have strong moral character or be a "true conservative."

Though Gingrich and Paul continue to campaign, neither campaigned extensively in Illinois.

Gingrich, in an interview on Fox News, argued that he is best suited to go up against Obama in November.

"I'm staying in the race because I really do think it's a question of who can beat Barack Obama," Gingrich said.

His campaign also put out a statement knocking Romney for spending so much in Illinois, saying, "Republicans can't nominate a candidate who relies on outspending his opponents 7-1."

Going into Tuesday's contest, Gingrich and Paul trailed in delegates -- with Gingrich at 136 and Paul at 50.

Romney had 522 delegates going into the Illinois voting, according to the AP count. Santorum had 252. It takes 1,144 to win the nomination. [/QUOTE]

From New York Post:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/03/27/news/web_photos/APTOPIXSouthKoreaNuclearSummit082016--300x150.jpg[/IMG]
AP
[COLOR="#4B0082"]Obama in Seoul Tuesday[/COLOR].

Last Updated: 8:23 AM, March 27, 2012
[I]Posted: 8:22 AM, March 27, 2012[/I]

SEOUL -- A day after being caught on an open microphone telling his Russian counterpart he would have more "flexibility" to address a missile-defense disagreement following the November US election, President Barack Obama was more circumspect Tuesday -- covering a microphone as he chatted with Dmitry Medvedev at the nuclear security summit in Seoul.

He also indicated to reporters that he stood by his comments, saying the current partisan political battling in the US made it difficult to enter into constructive discussion with Russia.

According to a pool report cited by FOX News Channel from the summit's first plenary session, Obama appeared to make light of his embarrassing hot-mike gaffe Tuesday, which had drawn widespread condemnation from rivals back in the US.

Grinning, the president placed his hand over a nearby microphone as he greeted Medvedev, in an obvious reference to the previous day's incident.

On Monday, Obama and Medvedev had been caught on-air discussing the disagreement both countries have over US plans for a missile-defense system.

"This is my last election, and after my election I'll have more flexibility," Obama said to Medvedev after their bilateral meeting, according to audio picked up by television cameras that apparently was not intended to be heard by reporters.

"I understand," Medvedev replied.

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," the outgoing Russian president added, referring to his successor in the post, Vladimir Putin.

When he explained the hot mic remarks to reporters Tuesday, Obama defended his comments, saying it takes time to discuss complex, technical issues such as arms control.

"I don't think it's any surprise that you can't start that a few months before a presidential and congressional elections in the United States and at a time when they just completed elections in Russia, and they're in the process of a presidential transition where a new president's going to be coming in a little less than two months," he said.

He added that the political climate in the US in the lead-up to November's presidential election was not conducive to bilateral weapons discussions.

"The only way I get this stuff done is if I'm consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I've got bipartisan support," he said.

"Frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. I think the stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is pretty good evidence of that."

Following his hot mic comments Monday, Obama was slammed by his GOP rivals for not being forthright on a national security matter.

"When the president of the United States is speaking with the leader of Russia, saying he can be more flexible after the election, that is an alarming and troubling development," Republican presidential frontrunner Romney told supporters during a rally at the medical device company, NuVasive, in San Diego.

Newt Gingrich also weighed in, calling Obama's remark "chilling" during an interview with FOX News Channel's Neil Cavuto.

The former House speaker interpreted Obama's statement to Medvedev as, "Let me pretend I'm tough long enough to be re-elected, then I'll take care of you."

Russian bloggers were also quick to pick up on Medvedev's response to Obama, characterizing it as an admission that he has to run all important matters via Putin, who reclaims the title of president in May.

"Today, let's all respond to every tweet: 'I will transmit this to Vladimir'," opposition leader Alexei Navalny said in a Twitter message.[/QUOTE]

From Christian Science Monitor:

[QUOTE][URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0404-romney-obama-budget/12195532-1-eng-US/0404-romney-obama-budget_full_600.jpg"][IMG]http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0404-romney-obama-budget/12195532-1-eng-US/0404-romney-obama-budget_full_380.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[COLOR=#696969]Mitt Romney gestures during the Newspaper Association of America annual luncheon in Washington on Wednesday[/COLOR].
Larry Downing/Reuters

[B]On Tuesday Obama said the Republican budget would lead to draconian cuts to the social safety net. Mitt Romney counterpunched Wednesday, calling the warnings 'rhetorical excess.'[/B]

[I]By LInda Feldmann, Staff writer / April 4, 2012[/I]

[B]Washington[/B] - Mitt Romney punched back Wednesday for the merciless beating he and the Republicans took at the hand of President Obama the day before, calling Mr. Obama’s predictions of draconian cuts to social safety net and other programs “straw men.”

Mr. Romney was in Washington to address the Newspaper Association of America, and fresh off a sweep of Tuesday’s three primaries that tightened his grip on the GOP nomination. Obama, he said, had looked at the House Republican budget and pointed to “all the terrible things that would happen” if cuts were made by the same percentage across the board. But that’s not how it would work, he said.

“These things are just straw men that have no relevance in reality,” Romney said during the question and answer portion of his appearance. “I think it’s important for us to talk about the real issues that exist in the country and how we would address them.”

Mitt Romney's top 5 attacks on President Obama

Romney accused Obama of engaging in “rhetorical excess [that] I don’t think serves us terribly well in a process like this.”

In his speech Tuesday, Obama listed a series of cuts aimed at illustrating life under the House Republican budget, from depriving 2 million women and young children of nutritional assistance to reductions in financial aid to 10 million college students.

Romney suggested Obama was engaging in a false exercise. “Of course you wouldn’t cut programs on a proportional basis,” he said. “There would be some programs you would limit outright – eliminate outright, Obamacare being first on the list. And that saves about $100 billion a year.”

One straw man, Romney said, was that “Republicans are interested in corporations being able to do whatever they want to do with pollution and with their employees with impunity, without regard to the consequence.”

In his prepared remarks, Romney accused the president of not being forthcoming with his plans for the country.

“He wants us to reelect him so we can find out what he will actually do,” Romney said. “With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama's hide-and-seek campaign.”

Romney also rejected Obama’s assertion Tuesday that Ronald Reagan couldn’t “get through a Republican primary today,” because of his willingness both to cut spending and raise taxes in the name of deficit reduction.

“I actually think Ronald Reagan would win handily in a primary, and frankly in all the primaries,” he said. “I also think that our party is intent on preserving the vitality and dynamism of the American spirit that I think is being deadened by a series of government programs that have been increasingly invasive and have attacked economic freedom.”

Romney played down Obama’s claims of success in his presidency, saying that his legislation failed to get the economy going again.

“I know some will say, ‘But the economy is getting better,’ ” Romney said. “Yeah, three and a half years after the stimulus has expired. Of course, every recession ends.”

Romney acknowledged that polls show him facing a large deficit in the women’s vote against Obama, noting that the Republican Party has traditionally faced a gender gap. He blamed the Democrats for “doing a good job of mischaracterizing our views.” But in the final analysis, “we will win with men and women in battleground states and across the country,” he said. “That will be by focusing on issues women and men care most about.”[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=#000080]So why are the bozoes, other Republican candidates, still out there? Trying to do what?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#000080]One Bozo left the race; there are still two bozoes left...[/COLOR]

From Washington Post:

[QUOTE][COLOR=#000080][IMG]http://washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Epaper/2012-04-11/A/1/38.2.3147820656.jpg[/IMG]
Rick Santorum turns to his wife, Karen, after announcing in Gettysburg, Pa., that he is suspending his presidential campaign.
[/COLOR]

By Rachel Weiner, Updated: Wednesday, April 11, 7:49 AM
Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign was always a longshot prospect. But the former Pennsylvania senator succeeded in one respect — he will no longer be remembered just for his stunning 17-point loss in the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate race.

Now that his campaign is over, here are the moments we think will be remembered of Santorum 2012, both good and bad.

* Calling “bulls---” on a question from New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny. Santorum went on to argue that “if you haven’t cursed out a New York Times reporter during the course of a campaign, you’re not really a real Republican.”

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/03/26/National-Politics/Videos/03262012-21v/03262012-21v.jpg[/IMG]

* Almost as memorable a jab came in February, when Santorum called President Obama a “snob” for thinking that every child should go to college: “There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them.”

[video=youtube_share;GSn3YL1hZOU]http://youtu.be/GSn3YL1hZOU[/video]

* Santorum’s emotional speech on the night of the Iowa caucuses was one of his best, tying together his social conservativism with an appeal to blue collar workers.

<IFRAME height=270 marginHeight=0 src="http://specials.washingtonpost.com/mv/embed/?title=Rick%20Santorum%20thanks%20his%20wife%20and %20God%20after%20strong%20showing%20in%20Iowa&stillURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf% 2Fimage_606w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2012%2F01%2F04%2FNational-Politics%2FVideos%2F01042012-4v%2F01042012-4v.jpg&flvURL=%2Fmedia%2F2012%2F01%2F04%2F01042012-4v.m4v&width=480&height=270&autoStart=0&clickThru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpo litics%2Frick-santorum-thanks-his-wife-and-god-after-strong-showing-in-iowa%2F2012%2F01%2F04%2FgIQAUG3dZP_video.html" frameBorder=0 width=480 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>

* Santorum’s debate performances were uneven, but in a late January CNN debate he effectively rattled Mitt Romney on Massachusetts’ health-care law.

[video=youtube_share;3t5LrxJdhjI]http://youtu.be/3t5LrxJdhjI[/video]

* Though it didn’t attract widespread notice until February, last October Santorum said that John F. Kennedy’s speech on the separation of church and state “makes me want to throw up.” He initially defended the comment but later said he wished he could take it back.

[video=youtube_share;gf7R6KSgvhM]http://youtu.be/gf7R6KSgvhM[/video]

* Santorum inspired a backlash from some fellow Republicans when he expressed concern about women in combat, saying the “types of emotions that are involved” could compromise a mission. 

[video=youtube_share;MLIZCuSlL8E]http://youtu.be/MLIZCuSlL8E[/video]

* In his concession speech, Santorum noted that he had helped stimulate the economy a little by selling his own American-made sweater vests. Here he is telling CNN the vests represent “the right to bare arms.”

<EMBED height=374 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=416 src=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2012/01/09/exp-erin-santorum-walk-and-talk.cnn wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" bgcolor="#000000">[/QUOTE]</EMBED>

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Elder Stateman or Aging Bozo?

Shouldn't he bet/invest on Mega Lottery for a better result/chance? [/COLOR]

From ABC:

[QUOTE][video=youtube_share;DFDFZLaqCts]http://youtu.be/DFDFZLaqCts[/video]

Gingrich Defends Utah Bounced Check
[I]By Elicia Dover | ABC OTUS News[/I]

NEWARK, Del. - Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich today defended the $500 bounced check his campaign submitted to the Utah elections office as payment for the fee to appear on the primary ballot.

"This is one of those goofy things," Gingrich said after a campaign stop in Delaware. "That check was drawn in December. The account actually was closed by the time they processed it. It wasn't a question of money. That particular bank account was closed."

Utah elections director Mark Thomas attempted multiple times to contact the campaign about the bad check and said that if the matter isn't resolved by April 20, Gingrich will be disqualified from the ballot, ABC News reported Tuesday.

"I went back and checked and it was entirely a technical question of the bank being closed," Gingrich said. "It wasn't that we didn't have the money in the bank but that particular account had been closed as they made a transition to a different bank on January 1," Gingrich said.

The campaign had recently changed finance and accounting staff, although the designated agent who submitted the check, Wallace Woodruff "Woody" Hales, is still employed by the campaign, a source close to the campaign said.

This isn't the first time Gingrich has been connected to a bounced check. An attack ad from the height of the House banking scandal surfaced on the Internet from BuzzFeed in which Gingrich's opponent in the 1992 election, Herman Clark, made Gingrich's 22 bounced checks written to the House bank when he was the House minority whip a central issue of the campaign.

Gingrich won that election by only 980 votes.

The ad is set to the tune of "Old McDonald Had a Farm":

"With a bounced check here and a pay raise there, here a check, there a check, everywhere a bounced check. Newt Gingrich wrote a rubber check to the IRS," the ad stated.

The ad claims that a Gingrich check to the IRS bounced for more than $9,000, and that Gingrich bounced 22 checks for more than $26,000.

As for the bounced check given to the Utah elections office, Gingrich told ABC News, "They apparently have it all worked out."

He confirmed that the campaign will post a little less than $4.5 million debt because of exponential spending in the Florida primary.
[/QUOTE]

From Yahoo:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/fP8VuIfpWrMQR6eR8afpSQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/AP12041117279.jpg[/IMG]
[COLOR="#696969"](Steven Senne/AP)[/COLOR]

Democrats devalue stay-at-home moms.

That's the message of a Mitt Romney campaign fundraising email issued Thursday afternoon seeking to capitalize on the bipartisan outrage over Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney.

Democrats from the White House on down Thursday strongly opposed Rosen's comments that Mrs. Romney can't represent female voters because she's never "worked a day in her life." But that isn't stopping Romney's team from using Rosen's comment to declare war on the entire Democratic party.

[Related: Is there really a "war on women"?]

"If you're a stay-at-home mom, the Democrats have a message for you: you've never worked a day in your life," Romney's senior campaign advisor Beth Myers wrote in a fundraising email titled "War on Moms."

The Democrats have claimed this spring that the GOP is leading a "War on Women." Well, welcome to the age of rebranding.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/reuters/2012-04-25t002032z_1693165703_lm2e84p00y901_rtrmadp_3_usa-campaign-romney.photoblog600.jpg[/IMG]
Brian Snyder / REUTERS
[I]Supporters cheer as they wait for a speech by Mitt Romney in Manchester, N.H. on April 24, 2012[/I].

Updated 9:48 p.m. ET - Mitt Romney declared victory in his quest to become the Republican presidential nominee on Tuesday and kicked off his general election campaign against President Barack Obama in earnest following a clean sweep of primaries in the Northeast.

Romney's performance in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island allowed him to cap a tumultuous GOP primary cycle that extended longer than many expected. Romney's march toward the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the nomination appeared, at this point, to be all but a formality.

And, eager to begin prosecuting his case against Obama, Romney took a victory lap in the general election swing state of New Hampshire -- rather than appearing in any of the states hosting nominating contests tonight or in the future -- to declare, "a better America begins tonight."

"Tonight I can say thank you, America," Romney told a cheering crowd in the Granite State. "After 43 primaries and caucuses, many long days and more than a few long nights, I can say with confidence -- and gratitude -- that you have given me a great honor and solemn responsibility. And, together, we are going to win on Nov. 6."

Romney faced only token opposition from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul in Tuesday's contests. The former Massachusetts governor had all but assumed the status of presumptive Republican nominee two weeks ago, when his principal conservative rival, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, suspended his campaign.

From The New York Times:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/25/us/politics/2sub-romney/2sub-romney-articleLarge.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Cheryl Senter for The New York Times
As Republicans in five other states voted Tuesday, Mitt Romney addressed general election themes in Manchester, N.H[/I].

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Mitt Romney effectively assumed the helm of the Republican Party on Tuesday after five primary victories across the Northeast solidified his stature as the presidential nominee-in-waiting who is trying to unite conservatives and persuade independent voters that President Obama does not deserve a second term.

As Mr. Romney received a significant boost in delegates from New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware, moving closer to the total needed to formally secure the nomination, he marked the milestone by outlining themes of the fall campaign in a visit to this battleground state.

“Americans have always been eternal optimists,” Mr. Romney said during a speech to supporters here. “Over the last three and a half years, we have seen hopes and dreams diminished by false promises and weak leadership. Everywhere I go, Americans are tired of being tired.”

Mr. Romney, who fought back challenges from a Republican field that once included nearly a dozen rivals, has been shifting his campaign toward the general election since Rick Santorum left the race two weeks ago. But as Newt Gingrich indicated a new willingness to reassess his candidacy after his defeat in Delaware, a primary he considered crucial, the formal end to the race finally seemed at hand, giving Mr. Romney latitude to assert control over the Republican National Committee and concentrate on how to confront Mr. Obama.

The Romney campaign, which has been expanding rapidly, is settling on a message for the fall campaign. Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, laid out a succinct argument for his economic leadership and urged Americans to consider whether they are better off now than when Mr. Obama took office three years ago.

“President Obama is not going to run on his record, but we are,” said Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign. He said Mr. Romney would detail his economic vision as he prepared to challenge Mr. Obama, declaring, “It’s not just about the last three years, but the future.”

More than 200 delegates were at stake on Tuesday. With the outcome of the nominating contest no longer in doubt, Mr. Romney barely campaigned in the states, but he was expected to win the lion’s share of the delegates and accelerate his effort to reach the 1,144 required for the nomination.

“Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one?” Mr. Romney asked, ticking through a litany of challenges facing Americans. He added, “If the answer were yes to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements and rightly so, but because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions and distractions and distortions.”

Although Mr. Romney often talks about how he and the president offer competing visions of the country’s future, he will try to turn the focus to a contrast between his vision and Mr. Obama’s record. The campaign will mine details of the president’s actions in office, particularly his stewardship of the economy.

Mr. Romney will also begin introducing himself to a wider audience of voters who have yet to focus on the general election. In addition to having him talk about his background and business experience, the campaign will increase the presence of his wife, Ann, and five sons on the trail. On Monday night, Mrs. Romney headlined a Republican dinner in Stamford, Conn., choking up when she talked about how her husband stood by her side when she was found to have multiple sclerosis.

The Republican primary campaign, which was defined by the acrimony among Mr. Romney, Mr. Santorum and their rivals over the party’s direction, is drawing to a close in an anticlimactic fashion. Some Republicans have done little to mask their tepid response to Mr. Romney, but several party leaders said Tuesday that they did not worry about getting conservatives to rally behind him.

“It’s Obama that’s going to get Republicans jazzed up,” said Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has expressed support for Mr. Romney. “As he gets his positions across and shows the contrast with where Obama’s taken the country and where he wants to take us, people will clearly see what he is talking about.”

As Mr. Romney attends fund-raisers in New York and New Jersey on Wednesday, many of his top aides will gather in Boston for what one adviser described as a day of “serious meetings” to discuss building his campaign into a general election operation ready to take on Mr. Obama. Already, the Romney campaign has started creating a “cubicle village” in the now-empty first floor of its headquarters to accommodate all of its new hires.

One campaign challenge will be keeping Mr. Romney in the spotlight, particularly as he competes with the White House for attention. To that end, his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, is devising a rollout calendar with the intent of introducing national endorsements (former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York on Monday) or big-name campaigners (Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who spent Monday with Mr. Romney in Pennsylvania) almost daily.

The Romney campaign is aggressively looking into all aspects of the Obama administration, with a plan to present the president as a nice and likable but unsuited to solving the country’s economic challenges. Aides said they intended to keep the conversation focused on Mr. Obama’s record in the White House and not his personal biography.

“There is a pretty broad view that President Obama is a good family man and decent guy, but may be in over his head,” said Mr. Gillespie, a former counselor to George W. Bush, who was brought into the Romney campaign this month. He said the argument against re-election would be built around the suggestion that Mr. Obama “has not displayed strong leadership, but failed leadership and weak leadership.”

Mr. Obama offered his take on Mr. Romney during a taping on Tuesday of “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” saying: “I’ve met him, but we’re not friends.”

[I]Ashley Parker reported from Manchester, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington. Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting from Washington.[/I][/QUOTE]

From Reuters:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/t5HrdR3F0zYzQkMQkluH6A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zOTU7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-04-25T013406Z_1619329052_LM2E84P04CU01_RTRMADP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN-GINGRICH.JPG[/IMG]
[I]Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich gestures during a rally in Concord, North Carolina on the night of the New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware primaries April 24, 2012. The primaries on Tuesday could spell the end for another remaining rival, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich. He said on Monday he would reassess his candidacy if he did not win the primary in Delaware, where he had campaigned heavily in recent weeks[/I]. REUTERS/Chris Keane (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)

Can anyone tell us what does this @#@# loser is trying to accomplish?

Although Newt Gingrich lost the Delaware primary by an overwhelming 29 percent to Mitt Romney, the former speaker of the House still did not announce the suspension of his presidential campaign Tuesday night.

Gingrich, who simultaneously lost to Romney in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania on Tuesday, said earlier in the week that if he lost the winner-take-all state of Delaware - where he focused his campaigning - he would "reassess" his presidential bid. On Tuesday night a more subdued and somber Gingrich told a small crowd in Concord, Delaware that while he still wants to take the conservative fight "all the way to Tampa" to the Republican National Convention, he also wants to be pragmatic.

"Over the next few days, we're going to look realistically at where we are at," Gingrich said.

Possibly hinting that he will be returning to regular life as a non-candidate, Gingrich told the crowd at Concord's Vintage Motor Club that he wanted to stand together to defeat Obama.

"So we want you to know that as citizens, we are going to be right there standing shoulder by shoulder with you and that as we think through about how we can best be effective citizens over the next week or two - we are going to rely on you for help and you for advice," Gingrich said.

One man shaking Gingrich's hand on the rope line pleaded with him to stay in the race.

"I think there's a point where we have to be realistic about what you can accomplish. But as a citizen, I'm not … I'm going to stay at it," Gingrich told the man.

Another telling sign the Gingrich campaign was possibly moving on Tuesday was that Callista Gingrich's stump speech, which has not varied much since she began introducing her husband, left out a key component: she did not refer to him as "the next president of the United States."

Gingrich told the crowd he wanted to be clear that he was going to continue to campaign in North Carolina as he evaluates his place in the GOP race.

"We have, I think, 23 events all together here in North Carolina this week. We will be at 23 events here," Gingrich said.

Gingrich conceded that Romney was "going to have a very good night."

"It is a night that he has worked hard for, for six years. And that if he does end up as the nominee, I think every conservative in the country has to be committed to defeating Barack Obama," he said.

Gingrich told one reporter that he would not make any decisions before Sunday.[/QUOTE]

[I]Apr 16, 2012 12:00 AM EDT[/I]

Handicapping the race for secretary of state.

Next to guessing whom Mitt Romney will pick as his running mate, there’s no more delicious fruit on Washington’s tree of gossip than the identity of the next secretary of state. It remains a position of transcendent importance, especially in a new world where everyone seems to live and throw garbage in everyone else’s backyard. The prospects generally lack the public presence and star power of most Foggy Bottom occupants—Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, for example. And they certainly don’t rival Hillary Clinton, who is determined both to stay until January and not be a lame duck. Doubt not that she has the will, standing abroad, and popularity at home to walk from office with head high.

The contenders for both President Obama and Romney are basically inside professionals, very well known and respected by peers and foreign leaders. But they lack the stage presence of their immediate predecessors.

Obama’s list centers on John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice; and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon. According to insiders, Obama is thinking Kerry would travel a lot and successfully, and interfere least with policymaking. Susan Rice’s blend of soft and hard line sits well in the Oval Office. Donilon is regarded as the wisest policy and political head.

The Republican contingent is somewhat elusive, because Romney’s attention has been on the primaries, and because his international experience mainly revolved around his key role in the 2002 Winter Olympics held in exotic Mormon Utah. In other words, he is not intimate with the foreign-policy crowd, even compared with Obama four years ago, who at least sat for two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Almost certainly, however, Romney’s possibles include Robert Zoellick, the outgoing president of the World Bank; Stephen Hadley, national security adviser to George W. Bush; and Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (an organization familiar to this author). All held senior jobs in recent Republican administrations.
Don’t count out two big surprises, neither identified with a political party: William Burns, the current deputy secretary of state; and Nicholas Burns, who held the No. 3 job at State under Condi Rice. Bill and Nick—both Irish, but unrelated—have impressive skills.

[IMG]http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/2012/04/15/washington-whispers-about-who-will-be-next-secretary-of-state/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1334391817104.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Clinton, respected abroad and popular at home, will be a tough act to follow[/I], Stephen Crowley / The New York Times-Redux

The competition for this storied position follows carefully established informal rules. It takes place in whispers, careful put-downs (larger ones might get back to the prospect), and considered maneuvers. It is said (notice the circumlocution) that Donilon suggested to Obama naming Susan Rice to replace Zoellick at the World Bank. It was a justifiable move, given America’s difficulties in holding onto the bank’s presidency. But it would also have removed Rice, perhaps Clinton’s likeliest successor at this point, from the race. Hadley is taking the route above party politics. He’s serving on Clinton’s policy advisory board and not attaching his name to partisan attacks on Obama. But his Republican credentials are so solid that he is widely regarded as Romney’s likeliest choice. John Kerry has adopted a low profile to avoid controversy.

For all the attention paid to who will be the next president’s face in foreign affairs, being secretary of state isn’t what it used to be. Frightening problems still flourish. There’s always the danger of being sucked into hellholes like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. The Middle East seems more explosive than ever. China now looms as the challenging superpower.

At seminal moments in American history, the secretary of state stepped forward to formulate the nation’s strategic path. The memorable strategists include George Marshall for President Truman, Henry Kissinger for Nixon, James Baker for George H.W. Bush. But for almost two decades now, policymaking power has been concentrated increasingly in the White House–under George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney and today very much in the controlling hands of Barack Obama. The secretaries do the diplomacy and the execution, but the policy is made in a very centralized manner in the Oval Office.

In fact, the American cognoscenti should be focusing much more on who will be the next treasury secretary than next secretary of state. In 21st-century international affairs, GDP counts more than military might in most situations. Clinton has been acutely aware of this and is endeavoring to frame a new foreign economic policy for her successor. Old habits, however, die hard, and the most influential lips in Washington still whisper about the next Hillary rather than the next Tim Geithner.

By Kevin Bohn, CNN Senior Producer

[QUOTE][I]updated 8:43 PM EDT, Thu April 26, 2012[/I]

Washington (CNN) -- For months now, his name has gone hand-in-hand with that of Newt Gingrich.

But as the former House speaker prepares to leave the Republican nomination race next week, Sheldon Adelson has to decide what political causes -- and which candidates -- to support.

Adelson's not wasting time. The Nevada billionaire and mogul and his wife, Miriam, are two of the hosts for a fundraiser on Friday for House Speaker John Boehner's re-election campaign at Adelson's casino, The Venetian, along with fellow magnate Steve Wynn and the American Gaming Association.

The Adelsons have made a big political splash, giving $20 million to the super PAC Winning Our Future that was largely responsible for keeping Gingrich's candidacy alive in the past few months. That includes a $5 million contribution late last month.

"You'll see him continue to be active," one Nevada Republican operative predicted.

Adelson previously told some supporters of Mitt Romney he would back his candidacy if he became the Republican nominee, according to sources familiar with the matter. What is not clear is how much he and his wife will end up donating or when. Associates have said a major motivation for him is preventing the re-election of President Barack Obama. He thinks Republicans would be stronger proponents for Israel's safety, which friends have said trumps all other concerns for him.

"When the presidential campaign started he said his goal was to defeat Barack Obama, and he was going to do whatever he could to do that," one friend told CNN.

The future financial support from Adelson is something Romney and his allies would like to see and have sought. The two men met right before the February 4 Nevada caucuses and have spoken on the phone many times.

About a dozen donors to the super PAC backing Romney, Restore Our Future, met with Adelson in Las Vegas late last month while they were in town for the Republican Jewish Coalition to convince him to "come on board." He indicated to them, according to one of the participants, "it is just a matter of time."

While he was complimentary of Romney in that session, according to one source familiar with the matter, he also has publicly criticized him as not being a bold decision-maker.

"He's not the bold decision-maker like Newt Gingrich is. He doesn't want to -- every time I talk to him, he says, 'Well, let me think about it,' " he told JewishJournal.com at the end of March.

Adelson has been a prolific donor to Republican causes in past years. Earlier this year, he and his wife each donated $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a group dedicated to keeping the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

Adelson was a bundler for John McCain's 2008 presidential candidacy, helping to bring in $219,000 for that campaign. He and his wife contributed almost $215,000 to the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, aimed at electing GOP candidates.

Nevada Republicans also expect Adelson to be involved in some fashion to support Republican Sen. Dean Heller's re-election effort against Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, according to one Nevada Republican source, and he and his wife last year maxed out their allowed donations to Heller and U.S. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nevada.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks the role of money in politics, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson rank as the top individuals funding outside spending groups this election cycle.

In February, when Gingrich looked to have a serious chance at getting the Republican nomination, he told Forbes magazine he might give as much as $100 million to support the former House speaker. What is unclear is whether he will follow through with that amount and where it may go now that Gingrich will no longer be in the race.

In that interview, he defended his donations and said he had nothing for which to apologize.

"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to influence elections," he said. "But as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like (George) Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy, and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through 10 different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do, and I'm not looking to escape recognition."

The Adelsons came under some criticism from Republicans for their support of the super PAC backing Gingrich, especially when it was airing bitter ads in January questioning Romney's record at Bain Capital and also when it became clear that Gingrich's candidacy stalled.

Adelson reacted to the critics in the Forbes interview: "Those people are either jealous or professional critics." He added: "They like to trash other people. It's unfair that I've been treated unfair -- but it doesn't stop me."

Adelson was longtime friends with Gingrich from the time he served as House speaker, and the two shared common beliefs regarding Israel and the need to protect it.

"I am in favor of Newt Gingrich because I like people who make decisions. He is a decision-maker," he told the Jewish Journal publication.

He also was motivated because he did not want Rick Santorum to become the nominee.

"Rick Santorum ... is too social," he also said. "This man has no history creating anything or taking risks." He said he knew Santorum and liked him, but "I don't want him to run my country."

A spokesman for Adelson did not return calls seeking comment on the plans for future donations.[/QUOTE]

By Peter Wallsten [Washington Post]:

[QUOTE]Gaby Pacheco, a vocal immigrant activist, accepted a tantalizing invitation last week from an unlikely source: Republican Sen. Marco Rubio wanted her to help craft a bill that could legalize the children of some illegal immigrants.

Two hours later, Pacheco and other activists got a different pitch from their more familiar White House allies. Be wary of Rubio and his plan, two of President Obama’s top advisers told them in a meeting. It wouldn’t go far enough and wasn’t likely to succeed.

The group was polite but noncommittal. “We’re not married to the Democratic or Republican parties,” said Pacheco, 27. “We’re going to push what’s best for the community.”

The events of that day illustrated how the new effort by Rubio (Fla.) has upended the immigration debate in Washington, exposing tensions in both parties as Obama and the GOP assess how the issue might sway the crucial Hispanic vote in November.

In recent days, Rubio has quietly reached out to a number of immigrant advocates who are usually White House allies but have grown frustrated with some of the president’s policies. Some of the activists say they are open to Rubio’s effort — even though it would stop short of a provision in the Democratic-backed Dream Act to create a path to citizenship — because it would at least provide some relief to people at risk of being deported.

Rubio has not put his plan on paper, but his office describes it as an “alternative” to the Dream Act that would legalize certain young people who came to the United States while they were children. The measure would grant non-immigrant visas so qualified young people could remain in the United States for college or to serve in the military.

The plan puts Obama in a box. Democrats are reluctant to see Rubio’s efforts as anything other than a political gambit to repair his party’s tarnished image with Hispanics and boost his own profile as a potential vice-presidential pick or future White House contender.

But if Obama does not at least try to work with Rubio, he could risk losing a centerpiece of his appeal to Hispanic voters — that he is their fiercest ally in Washington and that the GOP is to blame for lack of action on fixing the country’s immigration ills.

White House resistance to Rubio threatens to escalate criticism from Obama allies frustrated that he was unable to deliver on a broad immigration overhaul and angry that his administration has deported more than 1 million illegal immigrants.

A White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity called it “ludicrous” to suggest that the president would be an obstacle to helping the young people or their advocates. The official noted that Obama would happily have signed the Dream Act into law in 2010 had Republicans not blocked it and that he remains in favor of a broader plan that would create a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million to 12 million people in the United States illegally.

The official said that the president welcomed any serious effort from Republicans to forge a bipartisan approach but that it was impossible to fully judge Rubio’s plan until it appears in writing as a bill.

Obama seemed to disparage the Rubio effort during an interview this month on the Spanish-language network Telemundo. “This notion that somehow Republicans want to have it both ways, they want to vote against these laws and appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment . . . and then they come and say, ‘But we really care about these kids and we want to do something about it’ — that looks like hypocrisy to me,” Obama said.

The issue also presents a quandary for likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who has alienated many Hispanic voters with his hard-right positions and rhetoric on immigration during the Republican primary campaign.

He now must weigh how to undo the damage without angering conservatives who are on the lookout for a flip-flop by a candidate known for his evolving views.

At a Monday campaign event with Rubio, Romney did not take a position on the plan.

“I’m taking a look at his proposal,” Romney said. “It has many features to commend it, but it’s something that we’re studying.”

Several conservatives have already blasted Rubio’s plan as a form of “amnesty,” but aides to the senator say he is lobbying key players and media personalities on the right to hold their fire.

Many Democrats have dismissed the push by Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who was elected in 2010 as a conservative darling after adopting hard-line positions on illegal immigration. Some critics on the left say his proposal would create a second class of Americans, permitted to live in the United States but unable to achieve the full rights of citizenship.

But his efforts appear to be further driving a wedge between Obama and his restive Hispanic activist supporters.

The senator conferred Wednesday afternoon with several leading members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, for example, including Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal critics of Obama’s deportation policies.

Last week, Rubio sat at a dinner party beside Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, one of the country’s most prominent Hispanic advocacy groups, and the two discussed ways to work together on policy.

“It’s clear that there wouldn’t be an effort to be talking about this right now if it weren’t for Senator Rubio engaging on this,” Murguia said. “We need to know whether the president can use this as an opportunity.”

Rubio’s outreach to Pacheco — who was brought to the United States illegally when she was 8 — and other young undocumented immigrants came after they had been asking for months without success for a chance to meet with Obama. The senator first called Pacheco on her cellphone, and the two spoke for about a half-hour. He later met with a small group at Miami-Dade College.

“He said, ‘If you feel at any point that this is something you guys cannot support, let me know,’ ” Pacheco recalled.

The president’s challenge has been evident in recent days during tense encounters between top White House aides and Hispanic leaders, who have continued to press for the president to simply sign an executive order preventing the deportations of any people who would qualify for the Dream Act. In one heated session last week between Congressional Hispanic Caucus members and domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) grew so frustrated that she walked out, according to people familiar with the meeting.

In their meeting with Pacheco and other young activists, Munoz and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett offered warnings that going along with Rubio’s plan put at risk other efforts to pass the full Dream Act with a path to citizenship. They told the activists that Rubio had not demonstrated he could win support from fellow Republicans and that the president would use his clout to push an immigration plan next year. “They said, ‘Be careful we’re not lowering the bar. Citizenship is important,’ ” Pacheco recalled.

But Pacheco, who remains undocumented even after graduating from college, said Obama should see the situation as more urgent. “We’re at a point of desperation, at a point where we cannot continue to live the way we’ve been living,” she said.[/QUOTE]

[I]Brentin Mock [The Nation] on April 26, 2012 - 10:21 AM ET[/I]

[QUOTE]It’s becoming more difficult for people to see how their vote is going to matter in the 2012 election. When states are increasingly passing voter ID laws that mandate voters prove they are citizens or that they are legitimate voters at the polls, while Super PACs are able to field millions of dollars, often from unidentified people, to influence elections, then democracy becomes less of a real thing to many people. A new survey from the Brennan Center for Justice shows majorities of Americans seeing Super PACs as corrupting forces on elections. There’s enough Super PAC distrust in the survey that many said they likely won’t vote. Evidently Bonnie Raitt isn’t the only person who feels, as she said in Rolling Stone, that “we have an auction instead of an election.”

Voters of color certainly feel that way. In the Brennan survey, African-Americans and Latino Americans were more likely than whites to say they feel discouraged from voting due to the outsized influence of Super PACs, and who can blame them? In many states, voters of color will have to go through the often user-unfriendly process of excavating birth and marriage documents, and then hoping there’s a DMV office close by that they can get to between shifts or after work hours, all to get ID cards that they otherwise wouldn’t need. Once done, they better hope their address doesn’t change (hope they’re not evicted, foreclosed upon or otherwise homeless), or that their name doesn’t change (hope they don’t get divorced), or if they are Latino, hope that their name is recorded correctly, or else they may get turned away after a long wait in line because the ID information doesn’t match with the registers.

But before all of that, they have to overcome the idea that their one vote is going to matter as much as the $1 million gift to a Super PAC. They have to also overcome the idea that as a voter they may not have the same access to the elected candidate as the million-dollar donors—many donors who by the way do not have to be identified to the public when voting by bank account, nor do they have to wait in long lines because they’re making payments online.

When only about 20 percent of Americans believe the average voter has the same access and influence on candidates as Super PAC big donors, as reported in the Brennan Center survey, and when over a quarter of respondents say they are less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence, there is evidence that democracy isn’t working for everybody. Voter ID laws, which supposedly clean up fraud in the system, won’t solve that problem, especially when fat-cat donors aren’t subject to the same identification regimens.

“I would think that people who are raising so many questions about possibilities of fraud entering the system are as concerned about millions of dollars poured into the system to influence votes,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for the Brennan Center.

Skaggs pointed out that while rules around donor disclosure to Super PACs are in place to make sure that the public knows who it is that’s making it rain on independent expenditure committees, there is a way around that by donating to 501(c)4 non-profits, which aren’t subject to the same disclosure rules. And many Super PACs have set up nonprofits that act as money launderers, allowing individuals and corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs, but washed through the nonprofit cycle so that people don’t know who the sources are. Skaggs says the Supreme Court “got it wrong” in the Citizens United decision when they reasoned that corporate expenditures would be fair and transparent because they have to report donor information to the Federal Election Commission. But the justices didn’t figure that nonprofits could be set up as middlemen to bring in anonymous donations.

As a result, we have a situation like the Crossroads Super PAC, which has a PO-box nonprofit called Crossroads GPS. The website offers no information on the activities on this “grassroots advocacy organization” because there are none to speak of, unless you count their political ads. The only page on their website that matters is the “Please Donate” page, where Crossroads is happy to inform us that “There are no limits on the amounts that may be contributed to Crossroads GPS by an individual, corporation, union or trade association.” And while donations over $5000 require reporting to the IRS, Crossroads reminds the donor that “the IRS does not make these donor disclosures available to the general public.”

Technically, all nonprofits are subject to the nondisclosure provision. But there are nonprofits that have been doing actual social welfare work for decades that people can donate to so that that work can be continued; and then there are nonprofits created purely to funnel Super PAC money. Why would wealthy donors give to Super PAC–sponsored nonprofits as opposed to directly to Super PACs? Because they don’t want to be identified. It’s the same reason companies participate and pay thousands in dues to nonprofits like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—as Brendan Greeley wrote in Bloomberg Businessweek, they value the secrecy. They want their money to influence policy and candidates, in favor of conservative interests, but they can do without the transparency and accountability.

It’s unclear, though, that Super PACs themselves are complying with disclosure rules. The Washington Post reported this week about a mysterious $400,000 donation to the Mitt Romney–supporting Super PAC Restore Our Future. At first, the Super PAC refused to disclose the names of the donors, who made contributions in their company’s name. Only after news organizations prodded were the actual donors’ names finally revealed. A Restore Our Future spokesperson said the reason the names weren’t disclosed before was because of “a clerical error.”

Clerical errors happen all the time when voters are being registered and their votes are counted. But when that happens, it’s not called a “clerical error.” It’s called “voter fraud.” And it’s called voter fraud by the same people who are champions for Super PAC unlimited spending—wealthy conservatives. It doesn’t matter how damaging this is for democracy, or that the balance of political power is tipped in favor of the 1 percent, who already had an unbalanced advantage to begin with.

I agree with Skaggs that the non-profit loophole needs to be closed. Considering that legitimate nonprofits have a right to still have undisclosed donations, for legitimate nonprofit social welfare work, he suggests that nonprofits have separate accounts, especially for those who are giving upwards of tens of thousands of dollars for campaign purposes, and that the names of those donors be disclosed to the public. The rules should be adjusted so that those nonprofits that haven’t been engaged in campaign spending manipulation aren’t penalized. But “as to whether there should be full disclosure on who is spending on ads clearly aimed at voting for or against a candidate, we absolutely should have full disclosure,” said Skaggs.

A coalition of voting rights groups signed onto a letter asking Congress to pass The DISCLOSE Act. The letter states, “It is a cardinal rule of campaign finance laws that citizens are entitled to know the donors financing campaign expenditures to influence their votes, and the amounts they gave.” Maybe the Supreme Court didn’t see these problems coming when it made its Citizens United decision, but now the floodgates are open, and if adjustments are not made, democracy will become, as Raitt noted, a series of auctions. Most importantly, though, if conservatives want people to place onerous restrictions on how voters identify themselves at the polls, then they should identify who they are when making fat campaign donations.[/QUOTE]

People of Color Less Likely to Vote Because of Super PAC Influence
Brentin Mock on April 26, 2012 - 10:21 AM ET
It’s becoming more difficult for people to see how their vote is going to matter in the 2012 election. When states are increasingly passing voter ID laws that mandate voters prove they are citizens or that they are legitimate voters at the polls, while Super PACs are able to field millions of dollars, often from unidentified people, to influence elections, then democracy becomes less of a real thing to many people. A new survey from the Brennan Center for Justice shows majorities of Americans seeing Super PACs as corrupting forces on elections. There’s enough Super PAC distrust in the survey that many said they likely won’t vote. Evidently Bonnie Raitt isn’t the only person who feels, as she said in Rolling Stone, that “we have an auction instead of an election.”

Voters of color certainly feel that way. In the Brennan survey, African-Americans and Latino Americans were more likely than whites to say they feel discouraged from voting due to the outsized influence of Super PACs, and who can blame them? In many states, voters of color will have to go through the often user-unfriendly process of excavating birth and marriage documents, and then hoping there’s a DMV office close by that they can get to between shifts or after work hours, all to get ID cards that they otherwise wouldn’t need. Once done, they better hope their address doesn’t change (hope they’re not evicted, foreclosed upon or otherwise homeless), or that their name doesn’t change (hope they don’t get divorced), or if they are Latino, hope that their name is recorded correctly, or else they may get turned away after a long wait in line because the ID information doesn’t match with the registers.

But before all of that, they have to overcome the idea that their one vote is going to matter as much as the $1 million gift to a Super PAC. They have to also overcome the idea that as a voter they may not have the same access to the elected candidate as the million-dollar donors—many donors who by the way do not have to be identified to the public when voting by bank account, nor do they have to wait in long lines because they’re making payments online.

When only about 20 percent of Americans believe the average voter has the same access and influence on candidates as Super PAC big donors, as reported in the Brennan Center survey, and when over a quarter of respondents say they are less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence, there is evidence that democracy isn’t working for everybody. Voter ID laws, which supposedly clean up fraud in the system, won’t solve that problem, especially when fat-cat donors aren’t subject to the same identification regimens.

“I would think that people who are raising so many questions about possibilities of fraud entering the system are as concerned about millions of dollars poured into the system to influence votes,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for the Brennan Center.

Skaggs pointed out that while rules around donor disclosure to Super PACs are in place to make sure that the public knows who it is that’s making it rain on independent expenditure committees, there is a way around that by donating to 501(c)4 non-profits, which aren’t subject to the same disclosure rules. And many Super PACs have set up nonprofits that act as money launderers, allowing individuals and corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs, but washed through the nonprofit cycle so that people don’t know who the sources are. Skaggs says the Supreme Court “got it wrong” in the Citizens United decision when they reasoned that corporate expenditures would be fair and transparent because they have to report donor information to the Federal Election Commission. But the justices didn’t figure that nonprofits could be set up as middlemen to bring in anonymous donations.

As a result, we have a situation like the Crossroads Super PAC, which has a PO-box nonprofit called Crossroads GPS. The website offers no information on the activities on this “grassroots advocacy organization” because there are none to speak of, unless you count their political ads. The only page on their website that matters is the “Please Donate” page, where Crossroads is happy to inform us that “There are no limits on the amounts that may be contributed to Crossroads GPS by an individual, corporation, union or trade association.” And while donations over $5000 require reporting to the IRS, Crossroads reminds the donor that “the IRS does not make these donor disclosures available to the general public.”

Technically, all nonprofits are subject to the nondisclosure provision. But there are nonprofits that have been doing actual social welfare work for decades that people can donate to so that that work can be continued; and then there are nonprofits created purely to funnel Super PAC money. Why would wealthy donors give to Super PAC–sponsored nonprofits as opposed to directly to Super PACs? Because they don’t want to be identified. It’s the same reason companies participate and pay thousands in dues to nonprofits like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—as Brendan Greeley wrote in Bloomberg Businessweek, they value the secrecy. They want their money to influence policy and candidates, in favor of conservative interests, but they can do without the transparency and accountability.

It’s unclear, though, that Super PACs themselves are complying with disclosure rules. The Washington Post reported this week about a mysterious $400,000 donation to the Mitt Romney–supporting Super PAC Restore Our Future. At first, the Super PAC refused to disclose the names of the donors, who made contributions in their company’s name. Only after news organizations prodded were the actual donors’ names finally revealed. A Restore Our Future spokesperson said the reason the names weren’t disclosed before was because of “a clerical error.”

Clerical errors happen all the time when voters are being registered and their votes are counted. But when that happens, it’s not called a “clerical error.” It’s called “voter fraud.” And it’s called voter fraud by the same people who are champions for Super PAC unlimited spending—wealthy conservatives. It doesn’t matter how damaging this is for democracy, or that the balance of political power is tipped in favor of the 1 percent, who already had an unbalanced advantage to begin with.

I agree with Skaggs that the non-profit loophole needs to be closed. Considering that legitimate nonprofits have a right to still have undisclosed donations, for legitimate nonprofit social welfare work, he suggests that nonprofits have separate accounts, especially for those who are giving upwards of tens of thousands of dollars for campaign purposes, and that the names of those donors be disclosed to the public. The rules should be adjusted so that those nonprofits that haven’t been engaged in campaign spending manipulation aren’t penalized. But “as to whether there should be full disclosure on who is spending on ads clearly aimed at voting for or against a candidate, we absolutely should have full disclosure,” said Skaggs.

A coalition of voting rights groups signed onto a letter asking Congress to pass The DISCLOSE Act. The letter states, “It is a cardinal rule of campaign finance laws that citizens are entitled to know the donors financing campaign expenditures to influence their votes, and the amounts they gave.” Maybe the Supreme Court didn’t see these problems coming when it made its Citizens United decision, but now the floodgates are open, and if adjustments are not made, democracy will become, as Raitt noted, a series of auctions. Most importantly, though, if conservatives want people to place onerous restrictions on how voters identify themselves at the polls, then they should identify who they are when making fat campaign donations.

[I]From Washington Post
[/I]Updated: Sat., May. 5, 2012, 6:14 PM
Last Updated: 6:14 PM, May 5, 2012
[I]Posted: 2:42 PM, May 5, 2012[/I]

[QUOTE][IMG]http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/05/05/news/web_photos/obama_michelle--300x450.jpg[/IMG]
AP
[I]President Obama waves, as Michelle looks on, after a campaign rally at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio today[/I].

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Plunging into his campaign for a new term, President Barack Obama tore into Mitt Romney on Saturday as a willing and eager "rubber stamp" for conservative Republicans in Congress and an agenda to cut taxes for the rich, reduce spending on education and Medicare and enhance power that big banks and insurers hold over consumers.

Romney and his "friends in Congress think the same bad ideas will lead to a different result or they're just hoping you won't remember what happened the last time you tried it their way," the president told an audience estimated at over 10,000 partisans at what aides insisted was his first full-fledged political rally of the election year.

Six months before Election Day, the polls point to a close race between Obama and Romney, with the economy the overriding issue as the nation struggles to recover from the worst recession since the 1930s. Unemployment remains stubbornly high at 8.1 percent nationally, although it has receded slowly and unevenly since peaking several months into the president's term. The most recent dip was due to discouraged jobless giving up their search for work.

Romney has staked his candidacy on an understanding of the economy, developed through a successful career as a businessman, and his promise to enact policies that stimulate job creation.

But Obama said his rival was merely doing the bidding of the conservative powerbrokers in Congress and has little understanding of the struggles of average Americans.

Romney "doesn't seem to understand that maximizing profits by whatever means necessary, whether it's through layoffs or outsourcing or tax avoidance, union busting, might not always be good for the average American or for the American economy," the president said.

"Why else would he want to cut his own taxes while raising them for 18 million Americans," Obama said of his multimillionaire opponent.

While Romney has yet to flesh out a detailed economic program, he and Republicans in Congress want to extend all the tax cuts that are due to expire at year's end. Obama and most Democrats want to let taxes rise for upper-income earners.

The president's campaign chose Ohio State University and Virginia Commonwealth University for the back-to-back rallies. Obama won both states in his successful race in 2008, although both have elected Republican governors since, and are expected to be hotly contested in the fall.

Obama has attended numerous fundraisers this election year, but over the escalating protests of Republicans, the White House has categorized all of his other appearances so far as part of his official duties.

The staging of the events eliminated any doubt about his purpose.

He was introduced in Columbus and again in Richmond by first lady Michelle Obama, and walked in to the cheers of thousands, many of them waving campaign-provided placards that read "Forward."

While the president is notably grayer than he was four years ago, he and his campaign worked to rekindle the energy and excitement among students and other voters who propelled him to the presidency in 2008.

"When people ask you what this election is about, you tell them it is still about hope. You tell them it is still about change," he said. It was a rebuttal to Romney's campaign, which has lately taken to mocking Obama's 2008 campaign mantra as "hype and blame."

If the economy is a potential ally for Romney, Obama holds other assets six months before the vote.

Unlike Romney, who struggled through a highly competitive primary season before recently wrapping up the nomination, Obama was unchallenged within his own party. As a result, his campaign's most recent filing showed cash on hand of $104 million, compared with a little over $10 million for Romney, and has worked to build organizations in several states for months.

But in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court rulings, modern presidential campaigns are more than ever waged on several fronts, and the effect of super political action committees and other outside groups able to raise donations in unlimited amounts is yet to be felt.

Already, while Romney pauses to refill his coffers, the super PAC Restore Our Future has spent more than $4 million on television advertising to introduce the Republican to the voters.

Romney had no public events Saturday after spending much of the week campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania.

A campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, responding to Obama's speech in Ohio, said, "While President Obama all but ignored his record over 3 1/2 years in office, the American people won't. This November, they will hold him accountable for his broken promises and ineffective leadership."

With his rhetoric, Obama belittled Romney and signaled he intends to campaign both against his challenger and the congressional Republicans who have opposed most of his signature legislation overwhelmingly, if not unanimously.

After a spirited campaign for the Republican nomination, Obama said the GOP leadership found a nominee — in Virginia he called Romney their champion — "who has promised to rubber stamp" their agenda if he gets a chance.

Romney is a "patriotic American who has raised a wonderful family," and has been a successful businessman and governor, the president said. "But I think he has drawn the wrong lessons from that experience. He sincerely believes that if CEOs and investors like him make money the rest of us will automatically do well as well."

In addition to depicting Romney as a threat to the middle class, Obama also tried to blunt the impact of what is likely to be the Republicans' best campaign issue.

"The economy is still facing headwinds and it will take sustained persistent efforts, yours and mine, for America to fully recover," the president said. He noted that jobs are being created and urged his audience not to give in to what he predicted would be negative campaign commercials designed to "exploit frustrations."

"Over and over again they'll tell you that America is down and out and they'll tell you who to blame and ask if you're better off than the worst crisis in our lifetime," he said. "The real question ... is not just about how we're doing today but how we'll be doing tomorrow."

Scarcely more than a dozen states figure to be seriously contested in the fall, including the two where Obama campaigned Saturday.

They include much of the nation's industrial belt, from Wisconsin to Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Nevada, Colorado and, the president's campaign insists, Arizona; the latter three all have large Hispanic populations. Both campaigns also are focusing on Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire. Together, those states account for 157 electoral votes.

Barring a sudden crisis, foreign policy is expected to account for less voter interest than any presidential campaign since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Since taking office, Obama has made good on his pledge to end the war in Iraq, announced a timetable to phase out the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan by 2014 and given the order for a risky mission by special forces in which Osama bin Laden was killed in his hideout in Pakistan.

One recent poll showed the public trusts Obama over Romney by a margin of 53-36 on international affairs.

While the battleground states tend to be clustered geographically, the state-by-state impact of the recession and economic recovery varies.

In Ohio, for example unemployment was most recently measured at 7.6 percent, below the national average. It was higher, 9.1 percent and rising, when Obama took office, reaching 10.6 percent in the fall of 2009 before it began receding.

In Virginia, it was 5.6 percent in March, well below the national average. It was 6.6 percent in February 2009 and peaked in June of that year at 7.2.

In a measurement that shows an economy recovering, yet far from recovered, the Labor Department reported this month that 54 metropolitan areas had double-digit unemployment in March, down from 116 a year ago. By contrast, joblessness was below 7.0 percent in 109 areas, up from 62 a year earlier.

No matter the change, Romney attacks Obama's handling of the economy at every turn.

"If the last 3 1/2 years are his definition of forward, I'd have to see what backward looks like," he said late last week in Virginia.

The first lady, who accompanied the president during the day, has attended more than 50 fundraisers since his campaign filed formal candidacy papers with the Federal Election Commission 13 months ago.[/QUOTE]

[I]By Olivier Knox | The Ticket:[/I]

[QUOTE]Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice endorsed Mitt Romney late Wednesday at a fundraiser in California.

"We care about the future of this country and the future of the world and I'm delighted to join so many friends here in supporting and, in my case, endorsing Gov. Mitt Romney for president of the United States," Rice said at a private dinner for 300 well-heeled donors at a sprawling estate near San Francisco. "We have to defend the country, not just from (a position of) strength and power but from a sense of values of who we are."

Guests paid from $2,500 to $50,000 to attend the event at the Hillsborough, Calif., home of Charles and Ann Johnson, which the San Francisco Chronicle called "one of America's most lavish private homes."

Romney also picked up the endorsement of another former secretary of state, George Schultz, at the dinner.

"Gov. Romney is not just going to get elected … but he is going to be a great president," Schultz said. "And we need a great president right now."

Romney called the endorsements "very humbling," and said he was "buoyed by your confidence and your commitment, not only those who have spoken, but those who spoke with checkbooks."

The high-profile show of support comes the night after Romney mathematically secured the Republican nomination for president.

Rice was the first woman to serve as White House national security adviser, a position she held during President George W. Bush's first term before becoming his secretary of state. She has been teaching political science at Stanford University since Bush left office in January 2009.

Rice has repeatedly and forcefully denied interest in being Romney's running mate. But a mid-April CNN poll found her topping the list of people Republicans want to run for vice president, with 26 percent. (Former senator and erstwhile Romney rival Rick Santorum came in at 21 percent.)

It was not immediately clear how much of a campaign role Rice would take.Romney has already unveiled a list of foreign policy advisers, but some Republicans in Washington worry that he lacks a single, high-profile surrogate to defend his approach to world affairs. President Barack Obama is expected to hammer Romney on the issue, notably citing the withdrawal from Iraq and planned draw-down from Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden. Rice's predecessor at the State Department, Colin Powell, has criticized Romney's approach to foreign policy.

[B]Update 12:00 a.m PT[/B]: [I]This story was updated to include details of the Rice and Schultz endorsements.[/I][/QUOTE]