The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense

“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Why would we think a candidate who acts like Barack Obama could beat Barack Obama?

Here’s the Nonsense:  Mitt Romney is the candidate who will be the hardest for Obama to beat.  He’s the polar opposite of the President and will give voters a true choice.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  Mitt Romney is more like President Obama than any of the other GOP candidates, so why would a voter choose someone who is like Obama when they can get Obama? 

When Rick Santorum recently decided to use the open primary in Michigan to get an advantage in the primary race it unsettled Mitt Romney.  Santorum chose to have robocalls made with a message to Democrats in the state asking them to vote for him in the Republican primary.  Romney reacted bitterly whining that it was dirty politics.  I’m puzzled how telling Democrats that he’s a conservative, pointing out the truth about Romney’s position on the auto bailout, and asking them to vote for him makes Santorum one who is playing politics.  It smacks more of childish pouting on the part of Romney.  But then again, this shouldn’t be a surprise.  Romney often acts childish when things don’t go his way.  It’s much the same as how President Obama acts when he doesn’t get what he wants.

Whenever President Obama doesn’t get his way or feels cornered he reacts with childish antics like those of an elementary school student.  For example, when asked about the poor performance of the economy it is always the fault of George W. Bush, the evil Republicans, or anyone other than himself.  When questioned about his refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline his administration is quick to point out it isn’t his fault, it’s the fault of the Republicans (I’m still trying to follow that logic).  He bullies his opponents and practices Saul Alinsky’s politics of personal destruction.  The list goes on ad nauseam.  We see a president who acts more like a spoiled child than like the leader of the greatest nation ever conceived by the mind of man. 

In Mitt Romney we see a very similar immature attitude.  He bullies his opponents using those same left wing Alinsky tactics when he feels he cannot walk away with an easy win.  Then if he doesn’t have the success he desires or his opponent has unexpected success, he acts like a child crying that things aren’t fair when they haven’t gone his way.

As I observe this I have come to realize that Mitt Romney has given away the secret to his success.  If you’ve paid attention you’ve learned that he succeeds using a three point plan.  That plan is:

  1. Outspend your opponent by 2:1, 3:1, and even 5:1.
  2. Use the vast majority of that money to bully your opponent using attack ads and the politics of personal destruction to undermine them and avoid discussing the issues and your track record.  (This will also keep you from having to provide any  substantive answers about how you will fix things.  You’ll be able to get by on rhetoric and no one will be able to hold you accountable if you don’t live up to what people think you are saying.)
  3. Whine and act like a spoiled child when things don’t go your way hoping to get sympathy from those who hear you.
A friend of mine taught first grade for over 2 decades.  We have talked about this very thing.  She saw it many, many times over the years while teaching.  Far more times than even parents see it.

When a child is not well disciplined or well behaved and they don’t get their way they throw a tantrum.  They try to use whatever power is at their disposal to get things to turn their way.  With children this is often throwing things at others, blurting out harsh and cruel words, and/or calling upon the power in their lives (usually a parent, older sibling, or a person in authority like a teacher) to take action to make things go their way.  How often have we heard of children saying something like, “I’m going to tell my mother!” or “I’m going to have my brother beat you up!” or whatever? 

In a similar way Mitt Romney does the same thing.  He doesn’t use the same resources a child does.  Rather, this is a man who comes from wealth and is very wealthy himself.  He’s probably never really had people question him because of his money and position in society and business.  As a result, he’s used to things going his way and not against him.  For a person with his background the power he would call upon to make things go his way would be to use his money (which is power) to turn things to his favor. 

And this is exactly what Romney has done against anyone who threatens his lead in a campaign.  We saw him do it to Newt Gingrich and now we’re seeing it with Rick Santorum. 

And also like a child, he whines and cries unfairness to everyone and anyone who will listen.  This is very much the same as the childish antics of our President (who is so childish that he’s earned the nickname of the “man-child" president). 

It appears that with Romney we’d have the same type of president that we have now.  Childishness is not a trait of a true leader.  In fact, it is a disqualifier for being considered a true leader.

Romney's record and positions on the issues should be enough for us to stop, take notice, and seriously think about his viability as a candidate for the GOP nomination.  But if that isn't enough, then we need to ask ourselves about his behavior in the campaign and how that impacts our decision.  We must ask some hard questions.

Can we really trust good decisions will be made by someone who is so childish?  Why would we vote into office a candidate who is much like the one we want to vote out?  Romney resembles Obama in childish demeanor, bullying campaign tactics, policies and positions on issues, and his political track record.  That is not a winning candidate.  If someone wants that they’ll be more likely to vote for Obama than his clone.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Why Gingrich Needs Another Look Before Deciding To Throw His Candidacy On The Ash Heap Of History

Here’s the Nonsense:  Newt Gingrich has had his day in the sun, but his polls have fallen so low that he should no longer be considered a viable candidate for the nomination.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  According to Reagan economists and a Senior Economic Writer for the Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich’s economic plan will provide more growth for the U. S. economy than other candidates.  With that information voters would be crazy not to rethink Gingrich as the nominee.

Stephen Moore, Senior Economic Writer for the Wall Street Journal is reporting that former Reagan economists Peter Ferrara and Gary Robbins say that Gingrich's policies would balance the budget within the first term of his presidency.  His economic plan will create 6 million jobs in two years.  With the U. S. economy worse than any since the Great Depression and real unemployment numbers showing 23% unemployed (see America needs a fixed economy and we need it FAST.

If you don’t understand that America faces imminent collapse if we don’t turn things around immediately starting with the 2012 elections, then you have not done your homework.  The ridiculous simpleton ideas and solutions that Congress (including most in the GOP) have put forth as solutions are not worthy of an elementary school student. 

Art Laffer, creator of the Laffer Curve and also a Reagan economist is quoted in an article by Henry J. Reske at, “Mr. Gingrich's tax proposal is not revenue-neutral, nor should it be,” Laffer writes. “If there's one truism in fiscal policy, it's this: Wasteful spending will always rise to the level of revenues. Whether you're in Greece, Washington, D.C., or California, overspending is a prosperity killer of the first order. Mr. Gingrich's flat tax proposals — along with his proposed balanced budget amendment — would put a quick stop to overspending and return America to fiscal soundness. No other candidate comes close to doing this.”

The WSJ article quotes Mr. Ferrara as saying “There's no doubt Newt is the real supply-sider in this race.  And now we have evidence the numbers actually add up."

People still try to bring up Newt’s mistakes from his past.  We’ve been down this road before talking about those things.  Those who are still against him are either:
  • Democrats who are scared to death of what he has to offer along with his tremendous debating skills;
  • The Republican establishment who know that he’ll shake up Washington with change that will threaten their power base if everything isn’t left as is;
  • Voters who won’t look at the efforts he’s made to remake his life and turn it around and the success he’s had at doing so;  or
  • Voters who have not learned what he has to offer.

 America is in a crisis on a scale that we have never before seen in our history.  What we do about it will either make or break our nation.  We need to set aside the small issues and focus on big issues with big ideas that will turn America around.  No other candidate has the experience making big ideas work like Newt does.  And no other candidate has the successful track record getting people on both sides of the aisle to work together.  Before we throw Newt’s candidacy overboard we need to reconsider the value of what he has to offer or we might be missing our best option to save our nation.

You can take a look at Newt’s plan here.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

When Debates Really Matter

Here’s the Nonsense:  The GOP primary race has had more than enough debates.  They now serve no further purpose.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  The voters and the country will be hurt as the debates wind down to an end in the GOP primary race.

The candidates are trying to get their messages out and there are basically 3 methods that are used to do that.  Candidates run political ads, the media report on the campaigns of the various candidates, and there are debates between the candidates.

With debates the voters get to see the candidates speaking in their own words, responding to each other and to questions directed at them.  The voters can clearly and directly hear what they are saying.  If candidates only make superficial comments and give sound bite answers they are making a mistake.  The debates give them the only opportunity to give substantive explanations of their positions on issues and their plans for the country directly to the voters.  If they don’t take advantage of it then it is their loss because voters should see through that and reject them as candidates.

Political ads are often misleading and even deceptive.  They are either painting a less than complete, maybe even untrue picture of the candidate or they are tearing down their opponents which only tells us that the candidate knows how to attack someone, not where they stand on the issues or what their specific plans are to address America's problems.

The mainstream media only offer their twisted version of where each candidate stands because their self-appointed purpose is to shape the debate and manipulate the voters’ opinions so that their chosen candidate will win.  The days of objective and investigative journalism are gone when it comes to the mainstream media.

Most voters don’t watch every debate like those of us who deal with it every day.  They usually wait until either something in the news gets their attention and they want to know where the candidates stand on the issues.  Or they wait until closer to the time of their own state’s primary or caucus to start watching.  Debates are the only time that most voters really have an opportunity to listen to the candidates unless they happen to be lucky enough to be able to attend one of their campaign tour events.  And even though debates still only give a limited education, it is better than no education or just relying on the media and the advertising to form their opinions.

Those of us who are involved in commenting, analyzing, and reporting on politics are pretty tired of all the debates this primary season.  I can certainly think of other ways I’d prefer to spend my evenings.  On the other hand, this isn’t about what makes pundits, journalists, and politicians happy.  This is about what is best for America, and what’s best for America is educated voters. 

Most voters learn little on their own about the candidates for which they choose to vote.  Sure, we all have an obligation as citizens to do our homework, but unfortunately most people make their choice for the wrong reasons (i.e.; they’ve always voted for that party, their parents voted for that party, the candidate looks good, the candidate gives them a tingle up their leg, he was a successful businessman, he’s got a great family, etc.).  None of those are measures of a true leader, let alone an analysis of what the candidate may believe are the solutions for the problems the nation faces. 

Recently I watched a political talk show on TV.  They had a panel of people to speak about the GOP primary race.  The host asked one lady which candidate she liked and when the woman named her choice the host asked her why she supported that candidate.  The woman’s response almost knocked me over when she said, “Because he likes to watch the same professional sport I do.  I’m a big fan of that sport.”  That was it?  That was the reason she’d use to choose the next leader of the free world, the most powerful position on the planet?  And this was supposed to be an “expert” that they were talking to?  No wonder America is in such sad shape.

When there are great lapses between debates we even see the damage that the media reporting and attack advertising does.  Attack ads, unfortunately, are very effective probably because people want to believe the worst about people.  Unfortunately in our society once someone is accused of something it rarely matters any longer what the truth is.  What matters is who can scream their side of the story the loudest and longest (which means that the candidate with the most money to drive their message home will probably be the one who benefits).  Only debates have shown to have success in beating money for attack ads and buying the race.

Every voter needs to be as educated as possible.  They need to learn what each candidate stands for and how that will impact the country.  Without voters getting involved and making educated choices our nation faces a crisis on a scale the likes of which we’ve never seen in our history.

The debate formats are poor, at best.  But even so they still allow us to hear the candidates directly.  What is needed is a new format for the debates that creates more substance instead of being a format for the mainstream media to set up the candidates for gotcha questions.  It seems that a format that is not controlled by the mainstream media (including Fox News) or either political party would offer a far better setting for voters to get the most information.

Before we start listening to the pundits, journalists, and politicians that are saying that there are too many debates, we need to stop and think about it from the voters’ perspective.   If we want the best for our country, then we should want voters to be as educated as possible.  And getting their education from media sound bites and slick marketing campaigns is far from the best way for voters to learn any real truth about the candidates.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Is It Down To Mitt Or Rick?

Here’s the Nonsense:  Newt Gingrich is out of the picture.  Mitt did him in with multi-millions of dollars spent on running thousands and thousands of ads to destroy him. Now it’s down to Mitt or Rick for the GOP nomination.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  Gingrich might be down.  He might even be out… but I sure wouldn’t bet on it yet. 

With Romney’s attack machine warming up to go after Santorum and the media’s hatred of Santorum’s social conservatism and religion it is very possible Santorum could find himself back in third, or even in fourth place again.

On the other hand, if Romney stumbles in Michigan and even in Ohio it could be a death knell for his candidacy.  He’s been campaigning for 5 years and still can’t close the deal.  Conservatives see through his phony claims to conservatism and the Midwest could be his undoing. 

If either of these happen it is very possible that Newt Gingrich could rise again.  Newt is a fighter and he’s not given up yet.  With more debates on the way they could be just the opportunity Newt “Super-Debater” Gingrich needs to re-emerge.

All three candidates have their problems, and any of them could find themselves out of the race.  Briefly here’s what each one faces:

Romney is masquerading as a conservative and that is not going over well with voters.  Some voters are falling for the line that because he's a successful businessman that he's therefore a conservative.  But most see through the fallacy of that.  Voters are also seeing that his method of campaigning is constant vicious attacks on other candidates instead of telling how he will fix things and they want solutions, not a disparager.

Santorum’s faith and morals will be the center of attacks (as they always are for people who live what they believe).  Ironically those could also be what boosts him even further in the polls.  Social conservatism has caused more successful elections for Republicans since the 1930s than economic issues have.

Gingrich’s negatives along with many lies about his past have been aired to death. Voters may be tiring of them and also seeing through the Romney attack machine's modus operandi.  And Gingrich spells out what he will do with more clarity and effectiveness than all other candidates combined.  The key for him is to be heard by the voters.  When he is heard he wins.

We can’t be sure what’s going to happen among these candidates.  But there is one other thing to keep in mind.  We know that if Romney fails, he establishment Republicans will push to bring someone else into the race.  They do not want a conservative candidate.  One of the names the establishment Republicans will consider quite seriously is Jeb Bush, which would be a huge loser for the Republican Party.  Not because of anything about Jeb, but because of his name.  No candidate could live down the Bush name and history of his father and brother in the presidency the way the Democrats will portray them.  

Whether Jeb is a good man or not is not the point.  Jeb would be a bigger gift to the Democrats campaign than anything else that could possibly happen.  But then again, the establishment Republicans are known for a consistent record … of losing.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

How to Keep Gingrich Down

Here’s the Nonsense:  Debates don’t matter. People are tired of them. And even with them Newt Gingrich would never have a chance at rising again in the polls.

Here’s the Horse Sense: Gingrich is a star speaker and debater.  Given another chance to debate on the national stage he would have a very good chance of impacting poll numbers and seeing his numbers rise before Super Tuesday.

Anyone who’s paying attention knows that when you’re competing with Newt Gingrich the last thing you want to do is let him speak, especially in a debate format.  It is clear that he is a very skilled speaker and debater.  Easily the best of the four GOP candidates left in the race for the nomination.

Santorum and Romney are in the lead.  Santorum’s conservative ideas have propelled him into a top spot in polls (the lead in some) and Romney’s attack machine has kept him in the lead even though his ideas are not connecting with voters.  The best thing for both of them is to keep Gingrich down.  Santorum because he needs the GOP conservative base to rally behind him to put him in a clear lead.  Romney because Gingrich’s sheer ability to debate, as seen numerous times before, can do more damage to Romney and do it faster than anything else.

So how do you keep Gingrich down prior to Super Tuesday so that he can’t regain the ground he lost form Romney’s over $15 million spent in thousands of attack ads in Florida?  It’s very simple.  You don’t debate him.

For Santorum, while he hasn’t gotten into the attack ad business that is about to hit him from the Romney machine harder than he can imagine, you take advantage of Romney’s announcement that he won’t be in the March 1st debate and say you won’t debate either. 

For both candidates it’s easy to say they’re too busy with too many states to campaign in before Super Tuesday.  But what ended up happening was that not only were they then not put in a position to debate Newt, CNN canceled the debate since it only had the two candidates with the lowest poll numbers left to debate.  Whether the debate had happened between Gingrich and Paul didn’t matter.  The move on Romney’s part, quickly taken advantage of and joined by Santorum, simply kept Gingrich out of the way and weakens his chance of moving up with voters.

Was it shrewd?  Yes, even if it wasn’t planned that way.  This puts great stress on the Gingrich campaign even though it is having some significant fund raising success suddenly.  And it gives both Santorum and Romney a chance to stay in the lead.

But I wouldn't conclude anything from this yet.  This is politics.  You never know what will happen next.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Romney Wins CPAC Straw Poll – Does This Prove His Conservatism?

Here’s the Nonsense:  Romney winning CPAC Straw Poll proves he’s a conservative.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  The CPAC Straw Poll is interesting, but has no significant meaning in the race for the GOP nomination.

As soon as it was announced that Romney had won the CPAC Straw Poll people began claiming that this was final proof that he’s a conservative.  That makes about as much sense as saying he’s a conservative because his wife said so. 

Winning the CPAC Straw Poll really means very little in the GOP race for the nomination.  It’s not a poll that awards delegates.  Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan’s former campaign director, made it clear on Sunday's Fox and Friends that it is a poll about a candidate’s organization and not much more.  When a politician has been running a long time, has money, and has put together an effective organization they can have the most impact on this poll.  And the substance of its effectiveness can be summed up by the fact that the past two years Ron Paul won the poll but look where he’s at today.

Romney’s still trying to convince people that he’s conservative.  If you listened to his CPAC speech it was a push to make listeners believe it by simply claiming he’s a conservative...over and over and over again.  But his record doesn’t show it.  Sure, he was a conservative businessman, but that doesn’t make him conservative politically.  Many businesspeople operate their businesses very conservatively doing things like cutting costs, watching spending, etc., but that doesn’t make them conservative politically.  I would imagine that a serious study of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Warren Buffet’s business practices would reveal that their business methods were very conservative.  Yet they are liberal politically.

There should be concern by the electorate when we hear that Mitt Romney showed up early to CPAC to meet with leaders in an effort to convince them that he is conservative.  His conservatism should be clear in his record and if it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny then people should wake up and smell the coffee.

But there are two things that disturb me the most about the constant effort to rebrand Romney as a conservative when he is not.  First, his claim that he grew up in a conservative home with a conservative father is very deceptive.  Sure, his home was conservative in that it was a good Mormon home that believes in family values that included such things as faithfulness in marriage, raising your children with sound morals, hard work, no drinking or smoking, etc.  But on his political side George Romney, Mitt’s father, was a far left Rockefeller Republican who even suggested that it was good to listen to Saul Alinksy’s teachings.  There’s nothing politically conservative about that!  Alinsky is the person from which Barack Obama gets his views.

The second thing that bothers me is the dishonesty of Romney’s approach.  He’s not a conservative.  He even seems to me to be to the left of many moderates.  I see him as a liberal Republican much in the mold of other establishment Rockefeller Republicans.  The dishonesty is him trying to pass himself off as something he’s not and doing it with a smile and expecting people to fall for it.  If he were honest he’d admit he’s not conservative.  If he were to say to the conservatives in the Republican party something like, “I am not a conservative, I’m a moderate.  And while we do not agree on everything, we do agree in many areas.  We need to turn this country around and I believe we have enough common ground that we can work together to rebuild our nation.  Please work with me to defeat Barack Obama in the next election and together we can save this nation.”  If Mitt Romney said something like that he might get an honest and open discussion that could help him learn what he has to do to get support from conservatives.

If you paid attention to the CPAC speeches and presentations it was very interesting.  Listening to Romney compared to Gingrich and Santorum was very revealing.  Romney simply made a series of claims that he is conservative.  Santorum was an inspiring speech about conservative values and goals for America.  Gingrich hit a home run by actually spelling out in detail what no other candidate has done to date.  He spelled out his plan for the start of his administration and walked the audience through what would actually happen hour by hour of his new administration.  One line of many that garnered great applause was when he said that by the time President Obama’s plane would touch down in Chicago taking him home from Washington, Gingrich’s administration would have already undone 40% of the damage Obama has done to the country.

Gingrich and Santorum offer true change back to what America was intended to be.  And all candidates should take a lesson from Gingrich and put out plans that are just as specific so the voters can see exactly what it is they will do and when they will do it.  That is how to truly show the voters what they would get by electing each candidate.  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

America To Washington: We Don’t Want What You Have To Offer

Here’s the Nonsense:  Romney's primary and caucus losses on Tuesday mean nothing.  The conservative base is moving to Romney and has accepted him for the GOP nomination.
Here’s the Horse Sense:  Contrary to what the media and establishment Republican Party want to make you think, conservatives do not accept Romney as one of their own.
Rick Santorum blew away his competitors Tuesday in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.  And as quickly as they could, Romney’s campaign immediately started damage control with the media right behind them to help.  Reports went around that while it was nice that Santorum had done well, the states where he’d won weren’t really important and it really didn’t mean anything about the acceptance of Romney by conservatives.  Between the press and Romney’s campaign scrambling to downplay the losses it was almost reminiscent of how the Obama campaign and the media reacted to any losses they had in the 2008 primaries.  But then again, I shouldn’t forget that George Soros thinks Romney and Obama are essentially the same so why should I be surprised if the reaction to the election results is similar?
Rick Santorum truly is a man on a mission with little more than friends, faith, and a following that’s growing.  He certainly doesn’t have money.  Romney’s campaign is funded far beyond all the other three GOP campaigns put together.  Many of Romney’s donors are the same big money Wall Street contributors that financed Obama’s 2008 campaign
What is interesting is that had the spending in Florida and Iowa been like it was in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri, the results would clearly have been different.  Romney so far outspent his competitors in Florida and Iowa that no one else had a chance at winning Florida and Santorum’s Iowa margin of victory was limited only because he couldn’t spend the vast amounts of money Romney did there.   After all, money can and does buy elections.  And Romney may very well end up buying this nomination and even the general election. 
Like I mentioned in my last post, Romney’s actions are much like Obama’s.  He uses the same Alinsky-style politics of personal destruction that Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats do.  He has no record to stand on other than a liberal one.  The only difference between him and Obama is that it is very clear that Romney does love America and wants it to succeed.  He does want his children to have the same opportunities that he had.  And the Mormon faith does have those who believe in a Mormon prophecy that they will save America. 
So while he, as part of the Rockefeller Republican establishment are on the same path as the Democrats that will destroy this country, at least the establishment Republicans are on a train to get to that destination, not a jet like the Democrats.  That means that we have a little more time to turn things around if a Rockefeller Republican like Romney is elected.  But we still have to make drastic changes to save this country, which is something that Romney will not do unless there is a strong conservative Senate and House to hold him accountable.
But is it possible that the message from voters in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri on Tuesday really represents what the conservatives truly feel?  They still want a true conservative as the nominee, not a liberal establishment Republican like Bush Dole McCain Romney (sorry, the establishment Republicans are so predictable in the kind of candidates they choose that I sometimes forget which candidate we’re dealing with this time). These election results may just be the beginning of a much larger message that is going to be heard across the nation as the primaries and caucuses take place in other states.

Rick Santorum really does fit the description of a man of the people.  This may be a message from the people in the heartland of America that they are fed up with both Democrat and establishment Republican politics as usual.  Rick Santorum might be a candidate that becomes a message not only to President Obama, but to the establishment Republican Party that Americans don’t want what Washington has to offer…from either side of the aisle.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

It’s Over. The Nomination Is Locked Up. We Can All Go Home Now.

Here’s the Nonsense:  Mitt Romney won the Nevada Caucus thereby locking up the GOP Presidential Primary Race and will get the nomination.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  Mitt Romney has won 8.8% of the delegates needed to win the nomination.  There’s a long way to go, a lot of voters who are not happy with him, and plenty of time for things to change.

The last time I checked 8.8% of something wasn’t enough to lock up anything.  Try making an 8.8% payment on your mortgage and see if you get to keep the house without paying anything else. 

Mitt Romney has won 3 of the 5 primary/caucus contests so far.  There are a total of 56 primaries and caucuses (Don’t forget Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, District of Columbia, Northern Marianas, and Guam in addition to the 50 states). 

A candidate must have 1144 delegates to win the GOP nomination.  Mitt has won 101 delegates so far (That’s according to the Wall Street Journal.  They show the highest number I could find for him as of this writing.  The numbers vary depending on where you look.).  Those 101 delegates are only 8.8% of the delegates he needs to be nominated.  Far from enough to claim that anything is a sure bet.

But let’s be more generous.  Let’s give Mitt the benefit of all doubt and assume he wins 100% of the delegates from Minnesota (40 delegates), Colorado (36 delegates), and Missouri (52 delegates), whose races are Tuesday, Feb. 7th. (Yes, Missouri is non-binding and their delegates won’t be awarded until March 17th, but once again, we’re giving Romney the benefit of the doubt.)  Between those 3 states that would add another 128 delegates. 

And if he wins 100% of the delegates from Maine, whose caucuses end Feb. 11th, that would give him another 24 delegates on top of that.  Of course because of proportional awarding of delegates he won’t get 100% of the delegates unless no one else gets any votes whatsoever.  But if no one else got any votes and he did get 100% of the delegates, then adding them to his current total of 101 would give him a total count of 253 delegates.  That’s still only 22.1% of the total he needs to win the nomination. 

Try driving 110.5 miles of the Indy 500 (that’s 22.1% of the 500 mile race) and claiming victory in the race.  Somehow I don’t think you’ll get the prize.

No matter how you measure it, this race is far from over.  Yes, Romney has more money than any of the other candidates.  Sure the GOP establishment is using all their power to try to force him on the voters as the nominee.  (They’ve even gotten some so-called conservatives to buy into this and throw their support behind him.  And I say “so-called” because supporting him when there are still actual conservatives available in the race shines a light on the veracity of their claim to be conservative.)  Yes, the Democrats and the media are pushing him to be the nominee by trying to use reverse psychology on the voters.  Any and all of these things could drive some of the other candidates out of the race.  

Romney may even win a number of the primaries and caucuses in a row.  But in February 2008 Barack Obama won a string of primaries in a row and yet Hillary Clinton made a very strong comeback in March throwing Obama a curve in the race.  Ultimately Obama won, but how many times in life have we seen someone come back from behind to win a contest?  There is still quite a bit of time for things to happen to shake up this race even more than it already has been.

The media, the Democrats, and the establishment Republicans want this nomination process over and want voters to accept Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee.  But we don’t have to.

In recent days more and more voters are expressing their disgust at being forced to accept a nominee they don’t want.  Voters are sick and tired of being told who their choice is going to be. 

Mitt Romney is not making the inroads with voters that his campaign is trying to claim that he is.  He runs ads saying something like “Romney’s the true ally of social conservatives.”  Of course, what the marketing wizards he’s hired don’t realize is that the public aren’t buying it.  They know the difference between him being a social conservative and being an “ally” of social conservatives.  They realize that an ally that isn’t trustworthy can abandon you the minute conflict arises.  (Yes, a true friend never abandons their friend, but the U. S. was a true friend to Israel until this administration and we’ve watched as this old, trusted best friend we have in the Middle East has been thrown to the wolves by the U. S., it’s ally and “friend.”  So when another liberal like Mitt “Barack” Romney says he’s a true ally of social conservatives can it really be trusted?) 

Upon winning the Nevada Caucus it was claimed that he’d made inroads with conservatives because they are the ones who primarily voted for him there.  I am doubtful that that is the case.  They ask voters if they’re conservative and get a “yes” for an answer.  Well, if you ask Romney if he’s conservative he says yes, and his record screams liberal.  Just because someone claims to be something doesn’t mean it’s true.  Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic but her positions on the issues are in direct conflict with the Catholic Church thereby proving that she cannot be a devout Catholic, no matter what she may claim or think.

Voters realize that Romney’s record is not conservative.  They realize he is not what he’s claiming to be.  In fact, they see in him exactly what they saw in Barack Obama, a man who has moved to the political center to get elected.  Maybe that’s why George Soros said that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are basically the same.

Rick Santorum is speaking out and getting noticed.  He may have more of a future than many of us (me included) thought he did.  Newt Gingrich is, as I’ve said here before, like a Timex watch that takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’, so we shouldn’t count him out yet either.

And Ron Paul is up to something which we see from an article by Amy Gardner in the Washington Post on Feb. 1st recent reports that he and Romney have been working towards an alliance on some things.  So the message to you Ron Paul supporters is don’t think he’s much different from other politicians.  It sounds like he’s making his deals, too.

So here’s what you should do during this primary season before you decide it’s all over:
  • Fight hard for your candidate in the primaries and support them with all your heart. 
  • Remember that what you are being told by political parties and the media is designed to manipulate you into doing what they want and is not there to help you make an informed decision.
  • Don’t believe all the numbers and polls you read.  There are efforts being made to skew poll results to try to manipulate what the voters will do.
  • Keep an open mind and learn about all the candidates.  Don’t believe everything someone else says.  Listen to the candidates and hear things from them directly, not through rumors or their competitors.
  • When it’s all done and a nominee is chosen, just remember that this is the last chance we have to turn this nation around. The United States is about to fail and take us all down with it. Even if your candidate didn’t win the nomination in the end, just remember that any of the remaining GOP candidates will be far superior to what we have now and can help stop the collapse.  That will buy time so we can work towards more needed change in the next election.

Remember, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.