Michigan's Delegate Process, Preview of race per Congressional District

There's a lot being said about Santorum taking the lead to some degree in most opinion polls. If Santorum wins Michigan, it will be gigantic from a PR, momentum, and fundraising standpoint. From an actual delegate standpoint, it's more complicated than that.

Michigan loses 50% (30) of the delegates for having the election before Super Tuesday. Part of the reason Michigan moved their primary up is because State Party wanted a primary and not a convention. By law in Michigan, elections are held only four days in a year (in response to MEA and school elections)

You can lose the state, and take more of the districts. From what I can find, delegates are apportioned in this fashion.

Two delegates selected at large proportional based on 15% of the vote. I don't know how that would work with two delegates.

Two delegates each, winner take all per NEW 2012 congressional district. These are the new districts, not the current districts. A map of the new districts are here.

Quick rundowns:

Mitchell Poll - Santorum up 17% in Grand Rapids Media Market, 9% in Non Detroit Media Market, 7% Detroit Media Market.

Detroit News poll - Comment - "Oakland County is an island for him"

MRG Poll - Santorum up 3 over Romney in Lansing media market, Santorum up 45 in the UP, Santorum up 18 in Traverse City Market, 16 in Grand Rapids Market, four in Detroit and Flint media markets. Romney up 8 in Oakland County. Tied in Macomb.


PPP Poll by Area Code:

231 - Santorum up 20. 231 is West and Northwest Michigan from around Muskegon north to Petoskey.

248 - Romney up 14. 248 is Oakland County.

269 - Santorum up 14 over Newt. West and Southwest Michigan from around Hastings to Battle Creek to Kalamazoo to St Joe to New Buffalo.

313 - Santorum up 10. 313 is part of Wayne County. Detroit, Redford, Grosse Pointes, Dearborn.

517 - Paul up 3 over Santorum and Romney. 517 is largely Lansing area, Jackson, Western Livingston County, and Hillsdale.

586 - Santorum up 15 over Newt. (Strongly contradicts PPP) 586 is Macomb County.

616 - Santorum up 13. Grand Rapids, Holland, Ionia.

734 - Santorum up 22. Ann Arbor, Monroe, Ypsi, part of Wayne County (Livonia), small part of Southern Livingston County.

810 - Santorum up 13. Brighton, Flint, Lapeer, Port Huron.

906 - Santorum up 22 over Newt. That is the UP.

989 - Santorum up 20. Saginaw, Bay City. Northern Lower Michigan.

M1-01 - North Michigan. As of now, it looks like Santorum's best district. 906, some 989, and some 231 area codes. It's a very blue collar area outside of parts of the Lake Michigan Coastline. The UP is conservative, but more than anything else despises phonies. McCain won most of this area in 2008. Advantage Santorum

M1-02 - West Michigan Coast, from Holland to Ludington. 616 and 231. Ottawa County is the most republican county in the state. It's going to drive this district. Muskegon County could factor in with crossovers and independents, along with the base. The rest of the district is rural populist. The life issue is BIG here. Advantage Santorum.

MI-03 - Most of Kent County, Ionia and Barry Counties, Calhoun County. 616, 231, 269. Ionia and Barry are rural populist. Grand Rapids suburbs will drive the turnout here. Calhoun County could impact things. Advantage Santorum. 

MI-04 - Rural North and Central Michigan. From Lansing's Northern border up to Cadillac and Roscommon. From Big Rapids to the Saginaw suburbs. Mostly 989, maybe some 231. Santorum should do well here.

MI-05 - This is a blue district, but just as important for delegates. Mostly 810 and 989. Genesee County, Western Tuscola County (important for GOP), Saginaw area, all of Bay County, Arenac County and Iosco County. White union crossovers and independents may be the key here in the Flint suburbs, some Saginaw suburbs, and especially Bay County and the Standish/Tawas area. There's a small GOP base area near Fenton (Frankenmuth's now in the 4th).

MI-06 - SW Michigan. 269 area code. The new MI-06 now has ALL of Allegan County which is just as republican as Ottawa County (Southern Allegan is competitive reducing the county percentage). All of the counties have significant GOP populations (Kalamazoo County is dem, but not ALL dem) to impact this district. District went big for McCain last time. Polls are showing Santorum up here, but it's tough for me to call. Upton wins here too. 

MI-07 - South Central and Eastern Michigan. 517 and 734. This district no longer has Calhoun County and picks up Monroe County. Monroe is quite populist and often hostile to a Romney type Republican. They usually (not 2010) like John Dingell types of democrats and Randy Richardville types of Republicans.  Much of the district is populist independent conservative. Romney's best hope here is a good showing by Ron Paul.

MI-08 - 517, 810, some 734, and 248. The 8th district changed some. It keeps Ingham County and Livingston County, but adds more of Oakland while dropping Shiawassee and Clinton Counties. That MAY help Romney. The question is this. Where in Oakland County, is Romney's strength? Is he leading based on across the board strength, or is it concentrated in the Bloomfields and getting drilled in places like Clarkston. The new 8th covers "North Oakland" is a lot different than what people think of when they think of Oakland County. There isn't a lot of difference between North Oakland and Livingston County when it comes to politics, even though Livingston has a much more conservative reputation. Both of those areas are social conservative, BUT also are fiscally conservative as well. I think the 8th is up for grabs. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses for this district. 

MI-9 - This is the new 9th, much like the old 12th. 248 and 586. It's now Macomb County based, while also taking in the white parts of SE Oakland County, as well as Bloomfield Township. This may have been Mitt's old home (or it could be the 11th). The question here is which poll is accurate with Macomb County. This is a blue district, but with a couple of significant GOP populations. Bloomfield Township, parts of Sterling Heights, and parts of St Clair Shoes and Clinton Townships. There's much more GOP vote here in Macomb County. If Mitt gets the GOP votes in Oakland all out and his way, he's going a chance at this. I bet he's up BIG in Bloomfield Township and Southfield Township (Bingham Farms). Edge Romney due to that.

MI-10 - 586, 810, maybe 989. This district is the home of Reagan Democrats. Northern Macomb County, and the thumb. Most of the votes here are in Macomb, but the thumb is also very important. Lapeer is a base county. St Clair is competitive. The rest of the thumb is conservative, but not necessarily Republican. I think Santorum will take the 10th.

MI-11 - 248, some 734. This district is a mix of mostly the old 11th and old 9th. Advantage Romney. It's mostly in Oakland County, along with some western Wayne County suburbs. It drops a lot of the union territory to Dingell or Conyers. This district has Troy, Bloomfield Hills, and Birmingham which gives Romney an advantage. Livonia's tougher to read and is a little more Reagan Democrat. Canton's very tough to read. Plymouth, Novi, and Northville areas are on paper more Romney friendly. I think the South Lyon, Highland, and Milford areas will be a little tougher for him. I'll be shocked in Romney loses here through.

MI-12 - 734, some 313. This district stretches across Southern Wayne County from Dearborn and Downriver to Ann Arbor. I was a little shocked to see Santorum win big in 734 territory according to PPP, but I think a lot of the republican vote here will be from West Dearborn and South Downriver. I think crossovers will decide this district. For whom is the question. Ann Arbor will likely cross over for Ron Paul. Downriver for Santorum (stick it to Romney).

MI-13 - 313, 248. This is a VRA district, but has a small and significant GOP base for a primary of this type. The Grosse Pointes. There's significant GOP minorities in Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield as well. I think Romney takes this district unless enough blacks cross over.

MI-14 - 313, 734. This is also a VRA district, but does into the more populist Western Wayne County suburbs. There's significant (for this district) republican minorities in Redford, Dearborn Heights, Westland, and Garden City. I think Santorum has an advantage there.

If things stand as they do today, I'd pick Santorum to win districts 1-7, 10, and 14. I'd have Romney winning 9, 11, and 13. I'd have the 8th and 12th up for grabs.

Is Santorum leading in Michigan?

The big news is that in Mitt Romney's birth state, Rick Santorum apparently took the lead in two polls. This means possibly two things. One, the polls are accurate. Two, the polls are not accurate. If they are accurate, then this is a snapshot of the electorate at this time. It does not mean that this will be the results on February 28th. At worst, this is great momentum for Santorum today. The future will be undetermined. Remember what I said about how early polls don't matter six months down the road. A lot of things change. Even in two weeks before I vote for Santorum.


Looking at the two polls - The first poll, by ARG, a Republican polling firm, has this:

Overall:
Santorum - 33%
Romney - 27%
Gingrich - 21%
Paul - 12%
7% undecided
+/- 4% margin of error. 4% is not bad for margin of error.

They also had crosstabs, and that's where it gets interesting between this poll and PPP's poll later:

Republicans (72% of the poll):
Santorum 42%
Gingrich 24%
Romney 18%
Paul 11%

Independents and Democrats
Romney 48%
Paul 15%
Gingrich 13%
Santorum 11%

Tea Party
Santorum 33%
Gingrich 28%

-------------------

PPP's numbers are different, and it shows most with Newt Gingrich:

Santorum 39%
Romney 24%
Paul 12%
Gingrich 11%
+/- 4.9% margin of error.

Republicans: (70%)
Santorum 38%
Romney 26%
Gingrich 12%
Paul 10%

Democrats: (4%)
Santorum 31%
Paul 31%
Gingrich 13%
Romney 11%

Independents (26%)
Santorum 42%
Romney 22%
Paul 16%
Gingrich 8%

One thing I found interesting was the area code polling. It's on page 47 of the crosstabs

231 - Western and Northwestern MI, Traverse City, Muskegon, Petoskey, Charlevoix
248 - Oakland County
269 - SW Michigan, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, St Joe, Hastings, and Benton Harbor.
313 - Detroit, Redford, Grosse Pointes, Dearborn.
517 - Lansing, East Lansing, Howell, Charlotte, Coldwater
586 - Macomb County
616 - Grand Rapids, Holland, Ionia
734 - Ann Arbor, Monroe, Wayne, Ypsi
810 - Brighton, Flint, Lapeer, Port Huron
906 - The UP
989 - Saginaw, Northern Lower Michigan

It's going to be an interesting two weeks here. Santorum is making a run here. Romney's coming back here to try and salvage something he thought was going to be easy here. We'll find out when the results are in. If I'm Santorum, I'd be going after the absentees now. The voting actually begun for the 2-28 primary.

I'm voting for Rick Santorum in the primary

It's down to four people. Nobody will likely drop between now and the 28th. The four left are Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum.

Perry's out, and I'm not going to vote for a dropped candidate. That's like voting for uncommitted which is out of the question. Uncommitted means I'm passing my delegate vote off to someone unpledged. An unpledged delegated will support whoever he's asked to support. The only time I'd vote for uncommitted is if I don't care.

It's no secret my views towards Mitt Romney. The more I think about Gingrich, the most I just can't do it - for the same reason as Romney. Newt has a better record, but he's flipped so many times as well. I can't forget him and Pelosi together yapping about global warming. I can't forget about his scandals either. I can't trust him.

And trust is the biggest issue when appealing to all groups of voters. Romney and Newt are only electable if Obama beats himself. That's probably true to a degree for all candidates. A poll nine months out does not show anything about electability IN NOVEMBER. What some Romney defenders and Fox News types say is that he needs to move left to get independents. Bullshit. You don't move left - OR right - for independents or moderates. You move competent. Most independent voters and moderate voters care most about competence issues. The social liberal independent voters will sometimes vote for social conservatives - as long as the person is viewed as a competent individual and doesn't run his mouth too much. The mouth is what sometimes hurts social conservatives. The votes do not. Mike Rogers is not a social liberal. He's won Lansing before. City of. He's won Meridian Township, better known as Okemos. Social conservative and economic populist voters don't like panderers either and also care about competent issues. I throw trust in with competence issues.

Romney's record consists of tax/fee raising, gun bans, flip-flops and Romneycare. No deals. Newt's past I can forgive as a person. That's between him and God. However, that doesn't mean I trust him to keep his word to the voters. He's flipped too many times as well. He's out.

That leaves Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. I personally like both of these guys as people. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like Santorum and I'd love to take about 50% of each of these two or split the difference on some of their issues and combine them into a candidate. I'm not nearly the foreign policy hawk Santorum is, nor the dove Ron Paul is. The last one I agree with more than not on policy was Reagan. For all the talk, there hasn't been a lot of difference on that from Bush 1 down to Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Santorum would be little different there outside of talk.

I prefer Ron Paul on spending, although Santorum has voted for a balanced budget in the 1990's being part of the class of 94. He also supported Bush's budgets which aren't a good thing. I prefer Santorum on life issues. Ron Paul isn't bad there, but Santorum will go that extra step. Both are pro-2nd Amendment, but Paul will vote against good bills because they aren't perfect. I understand being a stickler of procedure at times, but national reciprocity is a big deal. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is where I split with Ron Paul. Pragmatism. Take what you can get with the circumstances, move in the right direction, and get the touchdown on a 2 yard run instead of the 80 yard pass when it isn't there. I don't forget bad votes on things like national reciprocity. All that does is codify full faith and credit.

The other issue is who can beat Romney and Obama. Ron Paul is an 10-25% guy in most states. He has his core following and is who he is. I think he needs to be taken seriously, especially on economic matters. Small "l" libertarians are, have been, and need to be part of the Republican coalition. A little respect - both ways - would go a long way of not blowing this opportunity to grow the party and the movement. However, he has shown so far that he can't beat Romney based on election results this year.

Santorum's weakness is 2006. He was crushed statewide in Pennsylvania. That was and is my major concern with him. However, he also won that same state twice, once in a non-republican year (in PA). 2000. He also won a democrat district (now Mike Doyle's) in the Pittsburgh Penn Hills area. You can make a case either way with electability with multiple wins and a bad loss in a bad year. The thing Santorum is showing now is that he's working his ass off with little money, and still winning some states. He recently got the hat trick. Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. He also won Iowa after the fact. Those are four very different states with very different demographics. He gaining, and Romney once again like in 2008 can not close the deal when everything is set up for him.

Next is Arizona and Michigan. Michigan's primary is an open primary despite what some say. You just have to declare a ballot. In 2000 there was about 20% crossover votes from democrats and I expect about the same here. Delegates are won based on the both proportional (statewide) and winner take all by congressional district. I believe the congressional districts for this are the new ones, not the old ones. There's also a second election on Feb 28th in the OLD 51st district. Paul Scott was recalled thanks to the very shady folks known as the MEA-PAC. Joe Graves should make this recall all for nothing outside of a three month vacancy. From what I've heard, he's good people and will do a good job. That election will increase turnout in the 51st district and the 5th Congressional District.

If I'm Santorum, I'd campaign across the entire state. However, I'd pay extra attention in these areas if I'm going to make a run for the delegates.

1. The 1st district. Most of it was neglected and did not vote for Romney in 2008. With independents able to vote, this will be a key area.

2. The 6th District. Another McCain/not Romney district in 2008. There's an opportunity there.

3. Ottawa, Kent, Livingston, Hillsdale, North Oakland, North Macomb, Lapeer, Allegan, and West Oakland Counties. That's the base area. It goes without saying that it will be important primary day. We all know that. I'm being Captain Obvious here.

4. The blue districts. Don't neglect them. Why? Because it's winner take all by congressional district. Even with an estimated 20% crossover vote (based on 2000 numbers) will have less votes and count more for the district delegates. Detroit won't have a lot of votes in the primary, but winning the two Detroit based districts will count more than say the 8th district, even though Livingston County alone will probably have more votes than both of them. Proportional delegates count too, but it's the districts.

The blue districts are as follows.

5th - Open with Dale Kildee retiring. This one is especially important with the increased turnout in the 51st, which includes much of the Republican base in the district. The other key areas are independents and social conservative crossover democrats in Flushing, Davison, Bay County (all of it now), and even Tawas City. There's an opening for a working class guy to appeal to some of these areas that Romney will likely have problems.

9th - Levin. This now is dominant in Macomb County. Romney will clean up Bloomfield Twp as it was his home, but there's some crossover votes and a sizable republican minority in Southern Macomb County. Posthumus won Clinton Township and St Clair Shores. Warren is 60% Dem, but has over 100,000 people. Sterling Heights is competitive.

12th - Now Dingell's district. Santorum will struggle in Ann Arbor for obvious reasons, but Downriver has a sizable Republican minority. Downriver is closer to 40-46% GOP compared to 20-25% in Ann Arbor.

13th - With the switch, John Conyers and a couple of challengers. It's about a 15% Republican district, so it won't take a lot of votes to win. Westland, Garden City, Redford, and Dearborn Heights are exceedingly important here, along with your minority of black republicans. There aren't a lot of them, but they do exist. A lot of them are social conservatives. Santorum is pro-life. The 3-10% here who do sometimes vote Republican can make a big difference in this district.

14th - With the switch, Hansen Clark with Gary Peters and Brenda Lawrence. This is also about a 15% district, but a little different than the 13th. There is a small GOP base here in the Grosse Pointes. Advantage Romney. Advantage Romney in West Bloomfield as well. This is the toughest blue district I think for Santorum to win.

Santorum should do well with pro-lifers. He'll probably split the gun vote with Ron Paul, although that reciprocity vote should damage him. It will be an uphill climb with Romney's top level organization and money. I think it's Romney's to lose, but I don't think he'll take all the congressional districts, and I think it will be much closer than people think.

Santorum didn't raise taxes. Romney raised "fees" as governor. Santorum is pro-2nd Amendment. Romney signed a gun ban. Romney implemented Romneycare. Romney's record on jobs is mixed at best. Romney became supposedly pro-life when he ran for president. Santorum not only votes pro-life, but lives it. He'd also appoint good justices to SCOTUS. Santorum was part of the late 90's growth where Clinton got the credit. Santorum was part of the class of 94 and Contract with America. He was there. Romney was a son of privilege. Santorum was a working class son of immigrants who earned a law degree and worked in private practice.

I don't have a perfect vote in the primary. I don't even have an easy vote. Perry and Pawlenty dropped. Of the four that's left, Santorum's the best we got and the best chance to upset Obama (yes, Obama is the favorite against all of them) this November.

I'll be voting for Rick Santorum on February 28th.

Who is the actual RINO? (2012 primaries)

I have a hit or miss view when it comes to Joe Scarbrough. Sometimes he gets it dead on and sometimes he is way off. This one here is quite good.

From Politico

The insult du jour for Republican candidates this election cycle is being labeled a RINO, a Republican in Name Only. Unfortunately, the insult has been so overused lately it’s been rendered meaningless. The insult is even emptier because it is so detached from actual statements, campaign promises and voting records.

A candidate like Newt Gingrich can get away with supporting the biggest socialist scheme in American government over the past 30 years because he says nasty things about the press and calls Barack Obama a Marxist. Jon Huntsman, on the other hand, can have a stellar conservative record as Utah’s governor, be anti-abortion and adored by the NRA. But if he refuses to spit out angry screeds against Obama, he’s dismissed as a RINO, the facts be damned.

So as a public service to POLITICO readers, I, your humble conservative servant, have put together a “Who is the Real RINO?” test. based on voting records, candidate quotes and facts! (Shocking, I know.)

Good luck!

1. Who said, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose. I am not going to change pro-choice laws in any way”?

A. Mitt Romney

C. Newt Gingrich

C. Jon Huntsman

I got all but two of them right. Politico didn't line up page two properly, so one of the answered I picked Newt was Mitt. I also got the Rockefeller State Chair wrong.

It's biased, heavily towards Huntsman. However Newt is hit or miss, and we all know how Romney panders to every audience. Huntsman isn't AS BAD as his reputation which he got by taking a job as ambassador. That doesn't mean he's perfect. He's on board the global warming bandwagon and supported Cap and Trade in Utah which is an automatic two strikes against him. He spent too much as governor, although he did cut taxes. (Growth helped him in Utah) He supports civil unions for gays which I mildly oppose (tax money paying for it), but really don't have strong opinions about one way or the other on that issue. Many do. I do think he's the most electable in the general election however, and have said that since the beginning. I'm worried he's a Bush Republican, but we'll see.

Back in September, I was on board the Perry camp. It was an "anybody but Romney" move. I also didn't expect to see a collapse and implosion after the immigration comments and gaffes in debates over and over again. What I was looking for was the best alternative to Romney who can beat Obama. That's where my vote is going to go. Anybody but Romney who can beat Obama. Maybe Perry can recover. We'll see.

I'm not the only one in that boat. Especially post Obamacare/Romneycare, Romney, despite his money, organization, and an attempted coronation by the political class, so far can not bust through the ceiling. A lot of candidates are jockeying for position in this horse race, but Romney has in only one poll in November broke 30%. He did that once in October, three times in July, and once in June. At least 68% are looking for an alternative if you take his high recent numbers. That going off a bunch of polls showing similar results, not just a cherrypicked one. The 32% was high number.

In July, Bachmann and Romney were 1 and 2. Bachmann collapsed. In September, Perry consistently led. When Perry collapsed, Cain took the lead. When he collapsed, Newt's taking the lead. Newt Gingrich of all people is now the "anti-establishment" candidate. How is a former speaker and pundit non establishment? Because he's not Romney, the choice of the beltway. He was also their choice last time, more than McCain.

Some say the national polls don't matter. It's state polls. The real polls start in Iowa and New Hampshire in a little over a month. The state opinion polls aren't as often as national, but the results have generally been this:

Iowa (1-3) - Newt over Romney recently, before that Cain over Romney consistently. Ron Paul gets consistently 15%-20%. Romney peaks at 20%. Newt leads around 30%

New Hampshire (1-10) - Romney leads big. Almost all polls (one outlier has Newt leading) have him at around 40% A lot of Massachusetts transplants live in New Hampshire. Despite the reputation, polls had them voting for Bush twice. Other state transplants and natives costs Bush in 2004. The "Massholes" as they are often called are going to be deciding this one.

South Carolina (1-21) - The state that won it for Bush and McCain. Romney and Cain battled in October. This month it is Newt and Cain. Newt leads in the last poll, and Cain led before that. There's still a lot of movement in this state.

Florida (1-31) - No recent polls, but Romney and Cain have battled here for awhile.

Nevada and Maine (2-4) - Caucuses. Maine has no recent polling. October had one with a 6%+ margin of error with Cain over Romney, but 6% is almost worthless. Another October poll has Mitt and Cain battling in Nevada.

Colorado and Minnesota (2-7) - Nothing recent in either state before October.

Arizona and Michigan (2-28) - One recent poll in Arizona had Newt up 28-23 over Romney with Cain at 17% Michigan is Romney's old home and where his dad was governor in the 60's. He won here last time 39-30%. EPIC/MRA had a 6.1% margin of error poll that had him leading Newt 34-20. That could mean 40-14 or 28-26. Michigan has a quasi-open primary, so that will factor in.

March 6th is Super Tuesday. It'll be likely decided by then.

Back to Romney, why isn't he catching on? People don't trust him. People also do not trust political establishments. This goes back to the end of the Bush era with the spending, bailouts, and the like. Obama the Peter Principle in Chief is deeply unpopular, but so is much of the GOP establishment, and Romney is getting the brunt of it. Some of that goes back to his record as Massachusetts governor. Some of that is due to the consultant proxy battles between Romney/McCain/Palin in the post 2008 blowups. Much of that goes down to trust. People don't trust Romney. He campaigned and was a liberal, and all of a sudden "became a conservative" when he ran for president. I don't think so. Actions not words. People don't trust a tax raising, gun grabbing, Romneycare enacting individual. If organization and money equal automatic wins, Romney would have already won. He's king there, and he still trailing nationally.

There's a big opening for someone to take out Romney. However, somebody has to take it. Either someone new has to come in (Newt rising from the ashes, Huntsman, or maybe even Ron Paul, but he'll likely get his 5-15%) or someone who collapsed has to rehab enough to get a couple of upsets. Bachmann, Perry, Cain. That is what has to happen, and it may or may not happen. Much like 2008, nobody is running away with this. Too bad that Mitch Daniels didn't run.

Right now the search is on for who can beat Romney - but also can beat Obama. (for the record, I think Obama beats Romney easily unless Obama beats himself) The search is ongoing. Anybody but Romney in the primary.

AFP: Opening Speaker - Newt Gingrich

Our first speaker is Newt Gingrich. Remember when we had a balanced budget? Thanks, Newt.

Gingrich made the point. With Obama's election, this was "their moment." "Their moment" was Henry Waxman (elected in 1972) and Nancy Pelosi. The dems are moving heavily to the left. The Stimulus is the 1st warning. It had to be passed immediately so that we would not read it. Socialism - the left - has been defeated - in Europe. Italy, Germany, and even France. The socialist wing of the party will lead the dems to defeat.

In 1977, real change as happened. Carter was wildly popular, more than Obama. Then inflation, unemployment, gas shortgage created by government, Soviet invasion of Afghanastan.

An example of the poor policy was the gas shortage was the rule on who could fill up the gas tank based on license plate. A father gave his 13 year old son a screwdriver to swap license plates to the car that needs to be filled up. A conservative would repeal the program. The liberal would hire license plate police.

Newt has a few points.

1. Have to have candidates every level to new solutions and apply principles. All elections. From city to president. Recruit someone new. In the end, real power comes from ballot box. Non partisan. Primary and general.

2. Learn to campaign effective. Better than left in organizing. Don't write off neighborhood. Don't write off people. 365 days a year. Not last 60 days.

3. Win the argument. Thatcher - win argument and then vote. 1993 and 1997 - President make argument so starkly that people say that's wrong. Obama needs to be on all talk shows....to help us.

Newt says that good advertising kills bad products faster. Great orator with wrong philosophy teaches faster that the policy is wrong. (Increase energy costs? with 9.8% unemployment) The Feds can't organize flu vaccine but want to take over health care?

Newt on Obama in Copenhagen - Danger of admin. "I remember when Atlanta got olympics. Andy Young worked for months. Atlanta team worked for years. If Obama had steady consistant plan, Chicago might have won. You can't lead by spur of the moment. Smiling and oratory not substitute for work and preperation." Eisenhower first to go to summitt. Firm rule. Months of preperation. Reagan prepped for months. Dangerous to provide leadership out of hip pocket. Serious challenge.

When 9.8% and part timers and lookers. The real number combinging them may be 20% in California. There needs to be economic plan that works and is not a burden like stimulus. Real stimulus - Premise - in world market competing with China and India.

Newt's bold ideas and real solution.

1. 2 year - 50% in FICA including employer match.
2. Compete with China. Match capital gains tax of China. Zero.
3. American companies compete in market. No taking away secret ballot or stregthening trial lawyers. Irish tax rate 12 1/2%
4. Abolish death tax.

In addition to taxes, there needs to be an American energy policy using American energy. Bowing to Saudi King not energy policy. If we had 300 billion in energy in US - revenue and economic results would be a step to most economic and prosperous country.

Newt said that we can balance the budget. As speaker for 4 years, the budget was balanced, with a liberal democrat in WH. During those four years, smallest federal growth since Coolidge.

Overall, these are good ideas, and should all be considered.

Election Aftermath and Newt's warning of 08 disaster

In Brighton Schools, Krause and Leach won despite low turnout. Usually the union candidates win low turnout and that didn't happen yesterday. Hillary Clinton narrowly won Indiana and was trounced in North Carolina. The fight continues.

Newt Gingrich rips the DC GOP leadership, and rightly so with the special election losses and the trend since 06. From Human Events:

House Republicans Should Call an Emergency, Members-Only Conference
Faced with these election results, the House Republicans should hold an emergency members-only meeting. At the meeting, they should pose this stark choice: Real change or certain defeat.

If a majority of the House Republicans vote for real change, they should instruct Republican Leader John Boehner and his team to come back with a new plan by the Wednesday before the Memorial Day recess. This plan should involve real change in legislative, communications, and campaign strategy and involve immediate, real action, including a complete overhaul of the Congressional Campaign Committee. The House Republican Conference would then vote for the plan or insist on its revision.

If a majority of the House Republicans are opposed to acting then the minority who are activists should establish a parallel organization dedicated to real change. This group should focus its energies on creating the changes necessary to survive despite a conference with a minority mindset that accepts defeat rather than fights for real change (which is what we had when I entered Congress in 1978).

Nine Acts of Real Change That Could Restore the GOP Brand
Here are nine acts of real change that would begin to rebuild the American people's confidence that Republicans share their values, understand their worries, and are prepared to act instead of just talk. The Republicans in Congress could get a start on all nine this week if they had the will to do so.

Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending so that the transportation infrastructure trust fund would not be hurt. At a time when, according to The Hill newspaper, Senator Clinton is asking for $2.3billion in earmarks, it should be possible for Republicans to establish a "government spending versus your pocketbook" fight over cutting the gas tax that would resonate with most Americans. Lower taxes and less government spending should be a battle cry most taxpayers and all conservatives could rally behind.


Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market. That oil would lower the price of gasoline an extra 5 to 6 cents per gallon, and its sale would lower the deficit.


Introduce a "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman "tax and trade" bill which is coming to the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks (see my newsletter next week for an outline of a solid pro-economy, pro-national security, pro-environment energy bill). When the American people realize how much the current energy prices are actually a "politicians' energy crisis" they will demand real change in our policies.


Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.


Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically. The recent announcement that the Census Bureau could not build an effective hand-held computer for $1.3 billion and is turning instead to 600,000 temporary workers to do a paper and pencil census in 2010 is an opportunity to slash its budget, shrink its bureaucracy, and turn to entrepreneurial internet-based companies to build an information-age census. This is an absurdity that cries out for bold, decisive reform (see my YouTube video "FedEx versus federal bureaucracy" for an example of what I mean).


Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system. The problems of the Federal Aviation Administration are symptoms of a union-dominated bureaucracy resisting change. If we implemented a space-based GPS-style air traffic system we would get 40% more air travel with one-half the bureaucrats. The union has stopped 200,000,000 passengers from enjoying more reliable air travel to protect 7,000 obsolete jobs. This real change would allow the millions of frustrated travelers to have champions in congress trying to help them get places better, safer, faster.


Declare English the official language of government. This real change is supported by 87% of the American people including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Latinos. It is an issue of national unity that brings Americans together in a red, white, and blue majority.


Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot. The vast majority (around 81%) of Americans believe that American workers have a right to have a secret ballot election before they are forced to join a union. Last year the House Democrats passed a bill that would strip American workers of the secret ballot. A new bill should be introduced reaffirming that right, and it should be brought up again and again until marginal Democrats are forced to vote with the American people against the union power structure.


Remind Americans that judges matter. Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House. This issue has three advantages. It reminds people that judges matter and that a leftwing radical Supreme Court would be bad for the values of most (70 to 90 percent, depending on the issue) Americans. It shows the Democrats are not engaged in fair play. It arouses the activism of those who have been disappointed by Republicans and have forgotten how bad a liberal Democratic Presidency would be.
What Is at Stake
No Republicans should kid themselves. It's time to face up to a stark choice.

Without change we could face a catastrophic election this fall.

Without change the Republican Party in the House could revert to the permanent minority status it had from 1930 to 1994.

Without change, the majorities of Americans who support the Republican principle of smaller, more efficient, smarter and fairer government will be in for a rude awakening.

It's time for real change to avoid a real disaster.

Newt's right, and I've been saying this since 06 on leadership. They should have apppointed a leader to lead the GOP house. John Shadegg and Mike Pence would have been much better choices.

Bush is no leader. That's not an attack, but a fact. He goes in his direction and damn the torpedos. That's not leadership. It's better than being a follower, but it doesn't always work, and rarely works if you can not communicate an effective plan - and the latter is Bush's biggest weakness. Right or wrong, he gets the blame for all the problems out there. He can be a part of the solution in the next six months with a veto pen, or he can be a problem. I think he wants to retire, and that can be a problem here.

I thought putting Boehner and Blunt back in charge was a big mistake in 06 since he was establishment. I told you so. The big government establishment was not working, is not working, and will not be working. Screw K Street. Screw the establishment money being everything. Screw Washington DC values and strategy. It's drying up anyway, because nobody wants to fall off the cliff. So what do you do when the truck is driving off the cliff. You don't panic. You don't keep driving in that direction giving up. You turn the damn thing around and go into a different direction. That's not happening right now. I told you so in 06 that without a change, we lose big again and replace big government with gigantic government statism. Beltwayitis is a fatal disease in politics. The GOP has split control - 1 out of three branches. They are acting like they have no control, and too many in the general public think they have control because of Bush. That's a horrific combination. Perception is reality, and they need to start leading and acting like they are in the majority, since center-right limited government conservative values are the view of the majority of the population. They got 6 months to impliment a good plan..But..but but...the committees won't bring it up for a vote. Then Bush needs to veto everything or the senate needs to fillibuster until it does. He needs to admit some bad decisions were made, and come through with this plan, as do the house minority, as do the biggest jokers of all which is the senate.

McCain gets on my nerves at times, but he's carved himself a niche as an independent thinker. That may just save the White House in 08. It won't do a damn thing downticket. I've never believed in coattails unless there is a 15 point win. Reagan had them. Bush I didn't. Clinton didn't. Bush II didn't in 2000. Bush II sort-of-did in the senate with a geography advantage since Daschle went national and forgot where he came from. Wins in Missouri, South Dakota, and the two Carolinas aren't really coattails in that sense.

Go back to the 1994 strategy. It worked for a reason. The economy was shaky. Clinton lost his signature policy. The country was in the wrong direction. Government was getting bigger. Scandal after scandal was going on. Sound familiar?

If the GOP put me in charge of strategy and message, I'll cut our senate losses at least in half (I have us down 6 there), and the house would be close to even or even a couple of gains. I'd even do this at a discount compared to what the DC consultants charge. Even better, Tom Cole needs to have Newt Gingrich run the NRCC.

Now back to my real work.

Updates

Newt's not running. From MSNBC:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.

“Newt is not running,” spokesman Rick Tyler said. “It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president.”

Also, the budget is still in negotiations. Lansing pushed for a SECOND tax IN ADDITION to the income tax. Remember the taxes on services? That's making a real nasty comeback. No republicans voted for it, but head's up.

To say my guard is up right now is an understatement. The worst part is that we have three years of that idiot Granholm unless we recall her - and I'm damn well up for that recall.

Newt Gingrich's speech at Mackinac (A must see)

Special Thanks to Right Michigan for posting this on his site.

Newt stole the show at Mackinac. Click on the link above to see why.