SANTORUM SHOCKER: 7 Takeaways From Last Night's Three-State Sweep

by: ColoradoPeakPolitics
Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:18 23 MST

Last night's three state Santorum sweep was a shocker to say the least. While his wins in Minnesota and Missouri were somewhat expected based on prior published polling, Santorum's out-of-nowhere victory in Colorado stunned pundits and politicos across the board.

We had been predicting for a few days that Santorum would have a strong finish at the caucuses, stronger than many in the chattering class had accounted for in their analysis. Yet even we didn't see the win coming.

He worked the state harder than anyone, positioned himself as the true Romney alternative and rode a last minute wave of momentum into a momentous victory.

Here are 7 takeaways we took from last night's Santorum shocker.

1. Colorado conservatives' independence: Just as Colorado conservatives sent a clear message to John McCain in 2008 that they weren't willing to sign on to his inevitable candidacy, overwhelmingly voting for Romney, in 2012 they reminded the country of their rugged Western independence, giving the race to 2012's version of 2008 Romney, Rick Santorum. Romney did not work the state hard enough giving voters a reason to support him, but rather was trying to ride the wave of inevitability. That doesn't fly here.

2. Endorsements matter, just not from politicians: While Romney had all of the statewide elected officials, 16 state legislators and the full stable of former elected officials like Hank Brown and Bill Owens, Santorum had the folks that conservatives really care about. In 2012, Michelle Malkin's endorsement matters far more to conservatives than Mark Waller's or Larry Liston's. Malkin, who has twice as many Twitter followers as Santorum's Presidential campaign, and has been ranked the most influential blogger in politics, was an enormously powerful force in branding Santorum as the leading anti-Romney. In the future, we suggest candidates spend less time seeking John Suthers' endorsement and more trying to convince those that the grassroots listens to.

3. Newt Gingrich is dead in the water: Just as we predicted the day of the caucus, perhaps the most significant long-term impact of last night's results is that Gingrich has lost the mantle of the conservative alternative to Romney. He wasn't on the ballot in Missouri, finished a distant fourth in Minnesota and was a complete non-factor in Colorado's race. With $600,000 in debt, his campaign will watch in agony as Santorum sucks up millions in grassroots fundraising over the next couple of weeks that they direly need to run ads in the expensive media markets of Super Tuesday. Santorum now has the Mo', the money and the mantle. And Gingrich won't even have a debate to shine in for another two weeks.

4. PPP sucks at polling Colorado: Democrat polling firm, Public Policy Polling (PPP), has an atrocious track record in Colorado. Last fall they polled the state but oversampled Democrats by 8-points, rendering their results meaningless. The night before Colorado Republicans went to their precinct cacucus, PPP released a Colorado poll with Romney at 37, Santorum 27, Gingrich 21, and Paul at 13. The real results? Santorum 40, Romney 35, Gingrich 13, Paul 12. PPP got it embarrassingly wrong. Note this for when they show polls with Obama leading in Colorado in the next couple of months.

5. Ron Paul's supporters aren't voting Republicans. As AP reporter Kristen Wyatt noted on Twitter, Ron Paul's rallies had more people than he got votes last night. As we've seen in other states that have elections closed to only registered Republicans, Ron Paul vastly underperformed expectations. That seems to be because his support comes from a young demographic that doesn't tend to be registered as Republican. While he surpassed his showing of 8.4% in 2008, he still came in a distant fourth place. As voters had to be registered as Republicans since December, they had to prepare months in advance, something not conducive to the younger demographic. In Iowa, voters could change their registration the day of the caucus, which likely boosted Paul's finish there significantly. In Colorado, he had no such luck.

6. Romney can't nail it in anywhere. With no TV ads, little direct mail, and only a modest ground effort, Romney thought he could win with a light Colorado foot print and he was so very wrong. Some pundits have said that he can only win with negative TV blitzes, forgetting that Presidential elections are almost entirely defined by negative ads on TV. Even the supposed positive campaign of Obama ran more negative ads than any Presidential campaign in history. Santorum is certainly going to see his fair share of attack ads in the coming weeks, but Romney will need to not forget the lesson he keeps learning, which is that he can't take anything for granted.

7. This race still has some juice left in it. While Romney was hoping February would be a coronation, it instead is shaping up to be a hard fought slog. Romney is still the nearly prohibitive favorite to be the nominee, but last night put a serious chink in his armor of inevitability. He has not closed the deal with the base by a long shot. Conservatives have not been convinced that he can champion their cause in his campaign. After his gaffe on the 'very poor,' even establishment Republicans began to doubt his image as the more professional disciplined candidate to take on Barack Obama. Between needing to prove his conservative bona fides and demonstrate his superiority as a candidate through message discipline and campaign organization, Romney has some serious challenges ahead of him before he can claim the nomination.

How To Ruin A Business

Today I was shocked when I went into the local Goodwill to find some of their prices have gone up over 300%! Back in the day shopping at thrift stores used to be a place to find great bargains but corporate management in the Goodwill organization has decided to make the free donations they receive priced so high that poor people cannot afford them anymore. When I spoke to them, their argument was the economy was doing poorly and they also wanted to have the same prices as their chief competitor, Value "something". I argued that tripling their prices overnight will only cost them customer and that I wouldn't be back but their attitude was they could care less. This outrageous move by Goodwill deeply offends because people donate their goods to this organization for FREE; Goodwill should respond by not charging an arm and a leg for these items in their stores. I will now avoid Goodwill Stores like the plague and shop more reasonable thrift shops like St. Vincent de Paul or Salvation Army. You watch, in 10 years Goodwill will be closed because of this greedy increase in prices; the perfect way to ruin a business that's been around for decades.

Also, my family went out recently to eat at a mom-and-pop Mexican joint, only to discover they bought their supplies from the local grocery store like we do. The lady working the counter pulled out soft-shell wraps that clearly showed an Albertsons label, making my sister very angry. Why in the world should we pay 4 times the price for food we can easily buy in our local supermarket? When you go out to eat, you want something special, something great, not food you can simply buy yourself for a cheaper price. To all store owners: if you are going to buy stuff from the local grocery store, at least take it out of the original package before serving it up in front of your customers. One of the reasons I love love love Chipolte Shops is they make everything right in front of you, the delicious smells of spicy foods surrounding you as you wait. Try a Chipolte today, they do it right!

Gen Y: "What Chelsea Doesn't Know"

I am writing this in response to the savage personal attacks by my in-law's kid Chelsea against my sister who supports traditional marriage.

In the state of Washington the out-of-contact-with-reality clique that rules from the capital building in Olympia is passing "gay marriage", regardless of what the people of the state want. This unilateral act comes in the face of two decades of the legislature giving gays equal rights: from all sorts of legal protections to civil unions, gays have gained political ground in Washington. The state's underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will. In 2009, the Legislature passed, and voters later upheld, a bill that greatly expanded those rights and was known as the "everything-but-marriage" bill. In light of these advances for gays, the affront against traditional marriage by shoving it down Washontonians throats is unacceptable. The law will surely be overturned by popular amendment in the next election cycle.

In California, opponents of gay marriage overturned the law through the democratic process and faced savage attacks, verbally, physically, and emotionally, from gays and their supporters, including terroristic attacks of fake anthrax against the Mormon Church in Utah. In the months leading up to the election in California, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stated in a speech regarding same-sex marriage: "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." This arrogant attitude galvanized voters in the Sunshine State.

Since the election, the FBI is still looking into the phony bioterror mailings but they should look into the vicious campaign waged against those that supported Proposition 8 AFTER the vote was concluded. Gay fanatics took information using state information on donors who financially supported Prop8 and began a personal and vile terror campaign designed to silence those that believe in traditional marriage. From boycotting Christian businesses to down-right death threats, pro-marriage supporters have been attacked since the vote in November 2008 using fascist tactics not seen since the Nazi campaigns against the Jews in WW2. This sort of behavior is unAmerican and criminal and people in the state of Washington have begun to seriously think about changing the laws in this state so that a campaign of harassment cannot occur here.

Gay marriage is really a joke; most gay men will NEVER be married, nor support it. Its only being used as a tool and tactic to attack and destroy the people who support it the most: Christians, Mormons, and Catholics (religious people). This is part of a broad Left-wing effort to silence those on the Right. Its a technique right out of Saul Alinsky's book on how to destroy people who disagree with you. Gen Y kinds, who know nothing and have experienced nothing in life, have been suckered into believing that traditional marriage should be trampled on, an institution that has been the same for thousands and thousands of years. Ask yourself, why should something that has remained sacred to many for thousands of years be changed? Sadly, the college professors who brainwash the Gen Y crowd don't ask this important question; they cloak these ideological campaign in spurious information like high divorce rates somehow negate traditional marriage.

In the end, respect for other people is being destroyed by destructive personal attacks like these and should be avoided by open-minded people who don't have ideological blinders on.


1)Christians and the Mormon Church faced terrorist attacks for standing up for marriage in California

2)Divorce rates do not nullify the value and importance of marriage to many

3)Ramming your ideology down someones throat is unAmerican

The Questions

15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican


During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We've heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt's angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won't lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald's say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn't do what you said it would, shouldn't you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you've demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren't you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that's appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don't you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you've worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you've said things like, "But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking." Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don't you think it's irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on -- to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, "Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years." Since you plan to raise taxes if you're elected and you've had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn't every American expect a tax increase if you're reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we've had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn't that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?

Reelect Obama? WHY?

Obama and the Unions (and Big Business)

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

These guys: Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.

Rather than "Hope" and "Change", Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:

* The Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control

* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda

* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)

* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists

* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to our country, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs, this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack.

Will China Listen in on YOUR Phone Calls Today?

Pentagon fears listening posts from China; tech firm tied to nation’s military
By Eli Lake
The Washington Times
Thursday, September 1, 2011


A Pentagon report has found that a multibillion-dollar Chinese telecommunications company that has been seeking to make major inroads in the U.S. market has close ties to China's military, despite the company’s denials.

The Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on China's military, released last month, identifies Huawei as a high-tech company linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

“The shipbuilding and defense electronics sectors, benefiting from China’s leading role in producing commercial shipping and information technologies, have witnessed the greatest progress over the last decade,” the report states. “Information technology companies in particular, including Huawei, Datang, and Zhongxing, maintain close ties to the PLA.”

That last sentence prompted Huawei’s vice president for external relations, William Plummer, to write a letter last week urging Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to rescind the allegation.

“This reference has no basis in fact and unjustly perpetuates an aura of doubt and distrust around Huawei that has the effect of prejudicing potential U.S. customers away from the products and solutions that will modernize our communications infrastructure,” Mr. Plummer wrote.

At issue for Huawei is widespread concern among U.S. military and intelligence agencies that Huawei’s switches, chips and firmware contain “back doors” that can give China's military the equivalent of listening posts all over the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.

Huawei’s defenders have countered that the company is being singled out because it is based in China and that U.S. companies such as Cisco Systems contract the development and production of their equipment to foreign countries and are at the same risk for back doors as the gear sold by Huawei.

In the past four years, Huawei has tried to acquire American high-tech companies and win contracts to build up the U.S. 4G wireless network. The company’s efforts, however, have run into resistance from the U.S. government.

In 2008, the Treasury Department-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States blocked a proposed sale of the software company 3Com to Huawei, based on national security concerns.

Last year, representatives of the National Security Agency urged major telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Sprint to cancel a deal that would put Huawei firmware and hardware on the cell towers of the 4G wireless network.

“U.S. businesses and government entities should be very wary of entering into business with any of the companies identified by the Pentagon’s report on Chinese military power as having ties to the People’s Liberation Army,” said Dan Blumenthal, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former China policy official at the Pentagon.

“The report is vetted by the secretaries of state and defense and the national security adviser. It represents the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” Mr. Blumenthal said.

In his letter to Mr. Panetta, Mr. Plummer said: “Huawei has always operated and continues to operate, independent of any ownership, control, or linkage with the Chinese government or military.”

He added that Huawei’s equipment has “been audited and passed the security requirements of 45 of the top 50 global telecommunications operators. No customer or government has ever found any variance from international standards at any time, including those material to national security.”

Huawei was founded in 1988 by Ren Zhengfei, a former PLA engineer. The company has provided wireless network products to many countries in the Third World and more recently has helped build the wireless network for the United Kingdom.

War with Mexico Coming

Okay for decades I heard these weird conspiracy theorists blab about how the Mexicans wanted to take back part of the USA, the southern part, mainly California. As seriously screwed up as Cali currently is right now, can anyone say we'd miss them?! Haha. However I ignored these weird Doomsayers, these odd Cassandra's, but boy was I foolish in doing so. A hispanic reporter in Phoenix proudly posted the upcoming War With Mexico, and how and when it will happen. Its a shocking post that I am reposting below. Read it and BELIEVE it my friends, they have plans for dismembering the USA. What really upsets me is that Mexico truly has no claim on any of America. The native American Indians that owned the lands still live on them to this day: the Choctaw, the Apache, the Cherokee, etc. Only the Spanish conquistadors attack on these people before the white man came allows them any claim, and its a BS claim at that. Central American tribes have no claim on North American tribal land....period. Oh and if they want a war, they've got one: North Americans are heavily armed. :)


Latino group claims Aztlán war in next five years
Miguel Perez
Phoenix Civil Rights Examiner
August 27, 2011

Phoenix-based Nuestros Reconquistos claims that there will be a war very similar to the Civil War fought in the next five years. “La Raza and MEChA have already talked to Latinos and Phoenix and explained that Latinos need to arm themselves for war,” says Nuestros Reconquistos President Manuel Longoria.

Cecilia Maldonado of Chicanos Unidos Arizona isn’t hoping for any sort of war, but believes it may be unavoidable. “For generations, our people have prepared us to take back the lands of the Southwest that were stolen from our Mexican ancestors. Because of the bad economy and many racist laws, Latinos will be forced to fight sooner than later,” says Mrs. Maldonado.

Latino groups believe they have enough people in states such as California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to successfully wage a war on the United States. Who’s side will you be on?

Devilish Downgrade

To Be Fair, Obama’s Responsibility for the Downgrade Is only 15 Percent
August 7, 2011 by Dan Mitchell


It was a strange experience to read the comments and emails generated by yesterday’s post on the “Obama downgrade.”

Democrats and liberals were upset that I blamed Obama for the downgrade, as you might expect. Republicans and conservatives, however, were agitated that my first sentence pointed out that Bush bore significant responsibility for the spending binge that created the fiscal crisis.

This got me thinking about the underlying causes of America’s long-term fiscal problems and whether it might be possible to come up with some sort of reasonable estimate on which Presidents are most responsible for fiscal crisis.

So I decided to look at the most recent long-run forecast from the Congressional Budget Office. As you might suspect, entitlement programs are THE reason why the United States is in deep trouble.

What does this allow us to say about various presidents? Well, it turns out that Social Security is a relatively minor part of the problem, so even though President Roosevelt’s policies exacerbated and extended the Great Depression, the program he created is only responsible for a small share of the fiscal crisis. To give the illusion of scientific exactitude, let’s assign FDR 13.2 percent of the blame.

The health care numbers are much harder to disentangle because it’s not apparent how much of the increase is due to Medicare, Medicaid, Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, and Obamacare. A healthcare policy wonk may know these numbers, but the CBO long-run forecast didn’t provide much detail.

So with a big caveat that these are just wild estimations, I feel reasonably comfortable in saying that both Bush and Obama made matters worse with their reckless entitlement expansions, but that they merely deepened a fiscal hole that was created when President Johnson imposed Medicare and Medicaid.

With that in mind (and ignoring, for the sake of simplicity, the role of other Presidents – such as Nixon – who expanded the size and scope of health entitlements), here is my ranking of presidential responsibility for America’s fiscal decline.

This does not mean, however, that it was unfair yesterday to apply the “Obama Downgrade” label.

In part, he is responsible because the downgrade from Standard & Poor happened on his watch. But the real reason he earned that label is that he doubled down on the reckless policies of his predecessors and demagogued against lawmakers such as Cong. Paul Ryan who actually have tried to solve the problem.

MUST REPOST!

The Myth of the Anti-War Left, or “No Blood For Incompetence!”

Posted by Eric Olsen at 12:05 am - August 8, 2011.
Filed under: Arrogance of the Liberal Elites,Democratic demagoguery,Democrats & Double Standards,Liberal Hypocrisy

In an earlier thread, I observed the distinct absence of the sort of vitriolic, unrelenting protests against America’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama took office in 2008, and logically postulated that as a result, what the MSM regularly referred to as “the anti-war movement” was in reality, nothing more than a sustained, petulant tantrum directed at a Republican president.

Indeed, even those few on the far-left who still can’t rid themselves of their Bush Derangement Syndrome recognized a long time ago just how utterly devoid of character their fellow progressives really are:

Progressives have made a deal with the devil. And the bargain is this: they’ll shut up about murdering innocent Afghan and Pakistani civilians, about US assassination squads, and about the wholesale assault on our civil liberties, if they can get the goodies they want here at home: more government spending, more government employees, and more government period. After all, who cares if a lot of foreigners get killed? As long as they get theirs.

Oh, so true.

The Best Video EVER

Amazing businesswoman rails against Obama's disastrous economic policies, watch it, its EPIC!













Note what she says at 1:47; she acknowledges the president inherited a mess, but points out that as a CEO of a company, she inherits a mess everyday. ”That is my job title, to fix problems, to get people to work together in harmony for one common goal.” Finally, she says the president needs to put together a plan asks the president, “Why can’t you put together a plan.”