Why I Can Live With Romney

Now that Mitt Romney has locked up the Republican nomination, it’s time to explain why I can live with Mitt Romney.  I’ve been saying through this entire campaign that I can live with Romney. Here’s why:

-          In 2008, Mitt Romney was the “Conservative Alternative” to John McCain. As a matter of fact, in 2008, I voted for Mitt Romney in the New York State Primary.  (At the time my choices were John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.)  I cast that vote because I believed Romney was the most conservative candidate available.  This time, there were even more conservative candidates, so I supported one of those. That doesn’t make Mitt a liberal. It just makes him less conservative. 

Do not confuse “less conservative” for liberal, my friends. Romney is by a large margin more conservative than John McCain in 2008, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, and Gerald Ford in 1976, and quite possibly George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.  That my friends is a dramatic shift to the right by the GOP to have Mitt Romney as the “Establishment Candidate.”

-          Mitt Romney is a businessman.  He has run multiple businesses including pulling many proverbial cars out of ditches.  This nation needs a Mr. Fix-It for this economy.  A man who is a business turn-around specialist is a good choice. Romney has the business sense to turn this nation around.

-          Romney has a perception problem. I addressed it above.  People think he’s a “moderate.” People think he’s not as conservative. Most Tea Partiers I speak to in person and online think Mitt is another John McCain.  There is a concern that Mitt won’t be able to ignite the necessary passion under conservatives to get them to fight for him.  Not to get Tea Partiers and other conservatives to VOTE for him…the Republican nominee WILL get the conservative vote…but to get Tea Partiers and conservatives to FIGHT for him.  He needs us to get deeply in his corner to volunteer, to knock on doors, to persuade our friends and neighbors to back him.  I hear you all asking yourselves “OK Chris, what the heck is the point?”

Here it is, friends: Mitt is going to have to choose a very conservative running mate. A Bobby Jindall, a Rand Paul, a Paul Ryan, a Nikki Haley, or a (genuine shivers of excitement) Marco Rubio.  That running mate is going to be the heir apparent in 2020.  Quite possibly the incumbent Vice President and the mighty conservative voice we’ve all been hoping for. Yes, a little bit later, but still that conservative we want and need.  Even if Mitt is a stopgap for a period of time, it’ll be a stopgap with a defined conclusion.

-          Mitt Romney will cut taxes.  Governor Romney has promised a 10% tax cut for absolutely all tax brackets across the board.  Not just certain groups of taxpayers, but every single one of us.  Not a piddling little 2% cut in payroll taxes.  10% of our income taxes.  If you’re in the 35% bracket, you’ll pay 25%.  If you’re in the 25% bracket, you’ll be at 15%. If you’re in the 15% bracket, you’re down to 5%. If you’re in the 10% bracket, you’re no longer required to pay taxes.

To an American family with an income of $50,000, that means you’re now going to have an extra $100 plus in your pocket every month.  Not the $10 or so you’re getting from a payroll tax holiday. Another $100 in an American family’s pocket is a big deal.  It means the ability to go out to dinner or buy more new clothes. It means the ability to buy more wants.  That means a lot. 

To a small business owner who makes $250,000 per year and is a sole proprietorship filing their business taxes personally it means a whole lot more.  A 10% cut in taxes means $62,500.  Do you know what that is?  A manager and one full-time employee and one part-time employee.  Or two full time employees if that owner chooses to continue to run the business themselves. What if ten thousand small businesses in America have that?  That means twenty thousand jobs.  And you know what? It means more than that, because there are more than ten thousand small businesses in America.  There are nearly 25 million of them, most of whom are sole proprietorships.  That will make a huge difference in hiring.

-          Mitt Romney is not Barack Obama. Ultimately, we need Somebody Else in 2012.  I, and so many other conservatives, believe a second Obama term would be disastrous for this country.  Without the check of another election, President Obama will brazenly ignore the Constitution and the best interests of this nation even more than he has already.  He’s already promised Russia to compromise our security once he’s re-elected. He also would likely get one to three Supreme Court appointees and dozens of other lower court justices.  He would be able to put a hugely liberal judiciary in place to legislate from the bench.

I can live with Romney, my friends.  I think you will find you can too. It’s time we get behind Romney, because ultimately we must defeat Obama.

Reactions to the Louisiana Primary

Saturday night, Rick Santorum handily won the Louisiana Primary. It was a nice win for the Senator.  Further, it showed the weakness of Mitt Romney as a Republican nominee. Once again, Mittens has failed to win a Southern state. Finally, it showed that Newt is pretty much out of lives in this game. The only way Newt is the nominee from where I sit is if he somehow ends up as the choice of a brokered convention. (Which isn’t a likely scenario in my opinion.)

It’s not surprising the South is consolidating behind the conservatives. So far, Speaker Gingrich has won Georgia and South Carolina. Senator Santorum has won Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, and now Louisiana.  Mittens has only taken Florida, which, given that half of the state is New Yorkers, hardly qualifies as Southern; and Virginia, which he can’t really claim victory because both Gingrich and Santorum weren’t on the ballot.

Now I do want to correct a major misconception amongst many conservatives whose zeal outweighs their logic sometimes.  If Romney is the nominee I flat out guarantee he will win Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Louisiana in the general election.  A liberal Democrat has about as much chance to win those states as a trout has living in a pond in a grizzly bear’s cave.  (And no, before somebody trying to sound smart brings it up, it’s because Obama’s a liberal. His skin tone doesn’t have anything to do with it.  John Kerry and Al Gore lost in those states…must be because Kerry and Gore are black men, right?)

However, our chances to have a candidate more conservative than Romney are shrinking by the day. I know some of you are big Newt fans…I am too, remember…but I also would rather my second choice than Mittens. Senator Santorum has shown he can win this thing if we consolidate behind him. If we don’t, our only chance of better than Romney is a brokered convention…and that brokered convention also comes with the potential to do worse than Romney.  The choice is ours.

It's Time for Newt to Bow Out

Before Super Tuesday, I said it would likely be Newt's last hurrah.  I then submitted that IF and ONLY IF he could win BOTH Mississippi and Alabama would he have a legitimate argument to be the conservative alternative.  He'd then have four top notch Southern states to his name.  But that did not happen. He came in second place in both states, beating Mittens by 1% or less in both. He also came in third in Kansas.

There comes a time when one needs to be pragmatic.  Do I still believe that Newt is the best candidate to face Obama? Absolutely.  Do I still believe Newt's platform is the most conservative?  Yes I do. But what I no longer believe is that he can win this thing.  More importantly, the longer Newt stays in, the more likely we are to see Romney as our nominee.  He's not even coming in second place. 

When he was in second place, there was a strong argument to say Santorum should drop out and allow the conservative vote to coalesce behind Newt.  I'm no hypocrite...the door swings both ways. Newt is stopping Santorum from beating Romney in many places, and stopping Santorum from squashing Romney in others.

Just to give you some comparison of states, giving the combination percentages of the two conservatives vs. Mittens:

KS - Conservatives 65%, Mittens 20%; AL Conservatives 69%, Mittens 29%; MS - Conservatives 63%, Mittens 30%; GA - Conservatives 66%, Mittens 25%; ND - Conservatives 47%, Mittens 23%; OH* - Conservatives 51%, Mittens 29%; AK* Conservatives 43%, Mittens 32% 

There's far more, but again, Mittens is in trouble when the conservatives consolidate.  Furthermore, it's clear that Santorum has the edge over Gingrich.  Also, Newt is hurting Santorum in the delegate count.

If Gingrich tells his delegates to vote for Santorum, again, this is a big game change.  Currently, Mittens leads Santorum 495 delegates to 252 delegates.  That's a about 50% lead by Romney.  Now if Gingrich's delegates go to Santorum, now Mittens' lead drops to 495 to 383, only a 33% advantage. In raw numbers, Santorum is only a little more than one hundred votes shy of Mitt.

Most of us want better than Romney.  Most of us Newt fans also agree that Santorum would be a pretty decent second choice. It's time to do the math, friends.  You can have a candidate who is 100% perfect for you (Newt) but doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of winning the nomination, a candidate who is 85% perfect for you but can beat Mittens (Santorum) or you can have a candidate who is 50% perfect for you by default.  The choice is yours, my friends.

As for me, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism, I am hereby withdrawing my endorsement of Newt Gingrich.  I am not going to publicly endorse anyone else at this time, because I believe it is far more important to focus on why we must defeat Obama, and so I will focus on the Somebody Else 2012 campaign.

*Denotes State Romney won in a 3 way race

Reactions to Super Tuesday

Tuesday, ten states held their Republican contests. 

The final scorecard was:

 Romney 7 states (198 Delegates) - Santorum 3 states (84 Delegates) - Gingrich 1 state (68 Delegates) - Paul 0 States (21 Delegates)

That puts the delegate count at:

Romney 404 - Santorum 161 - Gingrich 105 - Paul 61

So what does it all mean?  Looking at things candidate by candidate:

Mittens won Ohio, Virginia, Massachusetts, Idaho, Alaska and Vermont. Of those states, only the Ohio win counts as a big one.  Neither Santorum nor Gingrich were on the Virginia ballot, he would've won (in this primary) Massachusetts and Vermont with his eyes closed, and Idaho isn't going to be a swing state and neither will Alaska. Ohio was an absolute squeaker...Mittens won by less than 1% of the vote. 

Here's where Mitt should be worried: He still hasn't carried a genuine southern state. (Yes, I know, he won Florida, but Florida is basically South New York.  There are so many transplanted New Yorkers there it's hard to call it Southern).  This is where Mitt could still lose. 

Rick Santorum won Tennessee, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.  I think it's fair to say, however, that Santorum lost because Newt's still in the race. If (as expected) conservatives weren't split between Newt and Santorum, the Senator could have added Alaska and Ohio to his win column, strongly changing this Super Tuesday's results.  More on that later.

Newt Gingrich carried his home state of Georgia and made a fair showing for himself in Tennessee.  Had Santorum not been in the race, one could expect Newt to have carried Tennessee and Oklahoma. But, one cannot fairly say it's Santorum who should get out given the current polls.  Newt didn't quite have his swan song on Tuesday, but he needs to win Mississippi, Alabama, and possibly Kansas in the next week to stay in this race. Otherwise, he's just guaranteeing us Romney.

I've endorsed Newt, and I still believe he's the best candidate for the job, but sometimes one needs to be strategic.  I'm going to hold back from saying Newt should drop out.  But if he doesn't win at least Mississsippi and Alabama this coming Tuesday, I'm going to have to say that and likely withdraw my endorsement of him for that reason.  Conservatives want better than Romney. That's a fact. The reality is we cannot continue to pretend Newt's got another huge comeback in him at this late stage in the game.  He needs two Hail Mary touchdowns in Mississippi and Alabama, or else the game is over.

Finally, there's Ron Paul.  Congressman Paul didn't win any states, but did pick up a few delegates.  To date, hes' got about 8% of the total delegates so far.  His quest is to push some of his fiscal ideas into the platform. Honestly, he needs more than 8% of the delegates to do it. We'll see what happens, but I do expect Congressman Paul on the ballot for the rest of the campaign either way. 

Super Tuesday is past.  It's time for conservatives to face a harsh truth: We either unite behind one candidate or accept Mittens. I'm on record saying I can live with Mittens. Doesn't mean he's preferable. I prefer dogs over cats.  I have a cat because I live in an apartment and can't have a dog and I want a real pet, darn it. If I could've gotten a dog back in '05 when I adopted my cat, I would've gotten a dog. Right now, we can still have a dog...or we can settle for a cat.  He might even end up being a great cat...one that acts a lot like a dog (like my cat does, by the way). The time to make that decision is now.  We can live with our ideals and be stuck with Mitt, or we can coalesce.  The time is now to decide.  I'm eager to hear your thoughts. 

Before (Actually During) Super Tuesday

Today is Super Tuesday.  A lot is going to be decided.  It seems that every major candidate (except for Ron Paul) is picked to win a couple of states.  Romney is leading the most, but Santorum is nipping at his heels.  Newt needs a splash. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

Mittens really wants a few big victories.  He wants to get his air of inveitability back.  He wants to push his "accept me" routine so he can start focusing on Obama.  It's not going to happen after today's results, but Mittens can surely try. What Mitt needs to do is court conservatives.  He needs to stop running from his supposed conservatism.  Embrace it. Stop believing the Drive-By Media...conservatism does not scare away Independents.  Liberalism does, which is why Liberals have to campaign as centrists.  But conservatism WINS. It's like Novocaine, always works, just give it time.  Every time.

Rick Santorum also wants to make a splash, this time against Mittens' inevitability claims. He needs to focus moving forward on his conservatism. Including his fiscal conservatism.  The moral issues are good and important, but so is the economy.  That's why Mittens is doing so well.  He's an economy guy.  If Senator Santorum gets on that train, he'll do well too.

Then there's my guy.  Newt Gingrich is at a now or never point.  He needs to win a few states, not just Georgia.  We'll see what happens...but if he can't pick up probably at least 3 states, it may be time to drop out and let the conservative vote coalesce behind Santorum  We'll see what happens tonight.

Of course, that leaves Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is trying to gain delegates.  He likely will, especially in the Idaho and North Dakota Caucuses. He's pushing to have his views on the GOP Platform.  Go for it, Congressman Paul, provided it's your economic policies I'm in favor of them!

We're going to know a lot tomorrow morning.  We may see the field winnowed.  We may not.  It's going to be interesting.  On a final note, please know that my official reactions to Super Tuesday will come on Thursday, so there's time to give a good analysis of all the fallout. 

As always, thanks for reading Biblical Conservatism, and, with Super Tuesday in full force, game on.

Reactions to the Florida Primary

Yesterday, Mitt Romney won the Florida Primary by a fairly comfortable margin, thus winning all of the state’s 50 primary delegates.  My candidate, Newt Gingrich, came in second, with Rick Santorum in a distant third and Ron Paul as the official Florida Caboose.

Mittens fought hard to win this one.  Ten days ago when he lost South Carolina, Newt had surged to the front of the Florida pack.  Then the debates happened.  Usually in this campaign, Newt has had Mitt and pretty much everyone else for lunch in the debates.  Yet not this time.  Mitt showed some backbone in the debates and actually showed some fight.  This battle is by no means over, but for Heaven’s sake Mittens, if you end up our nominee, you BETTER take this level of fight to Obama and not wuss out like John McCain did in 2008.  I mean it.  I want to see this kind of fight from you if you’re the nominee, because you will beat Obama if you fight like that.  If you wimp out, however, you can join Bob Dole and John McCain in the losers box at the Republican Conventions for the next three decades.

Speaker Gingrich fought hard in Florida, but it’s important to remember that Florida, regardless of its geography, is not culturally the South.  It’s one of the more moderate states.  So it’s not that surprising that Mittens would do well.  But the next six states are split down the middle between Newt and Mitt.  This fight is going to go on for a while.  As a sign at Newt HQ said last night, 46 States to go.

Which brings us to Rick Santorum.  Senator Santorum, I like you man.  I really do.  But it’s time for real reflection.  Since your win in Iowa, you’ve gotten 9% in New Hampshire, 16% in South Carolina and now 13% in Florida.  My friend, you are doing more to nominate Mitt Romney than pretty much anyone else.  We need to consolidate the conservative vote, and right now you don’t have the money or the support to be the consolidator.  It’s a two person race.  It’s a choice between the conservative Newt Gingrich and the more moderate Mitt Romney.  I’ve gone on record as saying you’d be a great Vice Presidential nominee for Newt.  But I have to say it: It’s time for you to get out and let the conservative vote consolidate. 

This primary showed that once again, this is going to be a long campaign.  It’s not a bad thing.  As I’ve continued to say, Barack Obama is infinitely beatable, as a matter of fact he is landslideable.  It’s ok for the Mitt and Newt to fight this out for a few months yet, the fools in the Democratic Party are going to run Obama!  So let’s fight this out and let the best man win.   

Reactions to the CNN-South Carolina Debate

Last night, the final four Republican Presidential candidates met in South Carolina before the South Carolina primaries on Saturday.  CNN made the decision to kick off the debate by addressing the newest smear on former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.  Newt took it as an attack, and I can see that being the case…but it more seemed to me as CNN giving Newt the chance to clear the air and move on.  (I have minimal faith in CNN to be fair, but it did come across from John King just clearing the air and giving Newt a chance to respond).  Either way, I want to give kudos to Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Ron Paul for refusing to engage in that attack.  Senator Santorum spoke about Christian forgiveness and how we are all fallen people, Mitt Romney refused to discuss it, and Ron Paul talked about Media Bias.  Kudos to all three of those men for living within the boundaries of both Ronald Reagan’s 11^th Commandment and good taste.  Furthermore, CNN did not do what it’s other counterparts in the Drive-By Media has done in debates…they were actually pretty fair and balanced. 

Now, let’s take the time to play a game of Buy, Hold, Sell and Sell All:

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

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Hold):   

Newt started off talking about why he was going on the attack against Mittens.  He did just an ok job at first explaining why he was making those attacks.  I didn’t like that Newt at first seemed like he was admitting to playing spoiler and not trying to win the nomination.

And then Newt turned back into Newt.  When he said regarding the length one can receive unemployment benefits, Newt said (accurately) that 99 weeks is an associate degree.  I also loved when Newt explained conservatism thusly: “Saying to someone I’ll help you IF you’re willing to help yourself is good, and we think unconditional efforts by the best Food Stamp President in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country.”  Bingo.  That’s the Newt Gingrich I endorsed!  Conservatism is not about telling people they can starve, but it’s also not about just giving people benefits forever.  Welfare and unemployment are meant to be an insurance…a just in case situation. 

I have car insurance.  I pay my premiums hoping that I’ll never have to use it again.  I’ve had to use that insurance a few years ago when I was in a bad accident, including receiving short-term disability coverage when I was out of work.  (This insurance was private insurance that I paid for, not government insurance, by the way.)  However, as soon as I was able I went looking for a new job because I was physically unable to perform the job I had at the time.  I went to work as soon as I could.  I didn’t milk it for every penny so I could not work.

Another place where Newt nailed it was this: “I’d like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue and not raise revenue to meet the government.  He also had a great point to Juan Williams’ attack on Speaker Gingrich’s point on letting kids work to help clean their schools.  His story that his daughter worked cleaning their church at 13 and was pleased to do that job and learn that when you work you get paid.  It’s a great point. 

When I was younger I was taught that work pays.  As I child I created a few “businesses” making crafts and things which I sold and even enlisted neighborhood kids to help me sell those items, splitting the sale with them. Many times my father gave me the opportunity to work for a few hours with him at his office sorting papers and other odd jobs in exchange for some money.  My mother once paid me to clean the living room carpet rather than paying a professional.  I was a babysitter for a while as well.  When I was 14 my father gave me a job for 5 hours per week doing data entry for his company.  When I was 16 I got a part-time job and have worked ever since. 

Jobs are good for kids.  They have to be responsibly regulated.  When we talk about kids doing janitorial work at their school, that should mean things like sweeping and mopping, not doing maintenance on the boiler.  But it’s a good policy.

Best Newt moment of the night: “I know among the politically correct you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable,” to Juan Williams.

This debate was exactly what I meant when I said that the debates could give Speaker Gingrich a boost.  Let’s see if it pans out, but I do believe you could see Newt win South Carolina and reinvigorate his campaign, especially if he has this strong of a debate on Thursday night.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Newt said: A 15% Flat Tax.*

First of all, Newt hit the cover off the ball with his response to the “open marriage” accusations from his ex-wife.  The reality is exes can say false things because divorce can be a painful thing.  But he answered it perfectly. He shut down this so fast it should give the Drive-By Media whiplash.  The Media will try their best to pin this story, but it simply is a distraction and Newt is going to give the Drive-Bys the kind of smackdown they deserve and that most conservatives fail to give.  He got a standing ovation from the live audience for his response.  It was absolutely the best response to such attacks I have seen in now 19 years and nine national elections of paying close attention. 

Beyond that, Newt had another very good debate.  His moments were excellent.  He really showed himself to be the Newt that I endorsed three weeks ago.  I would love to see him debate Obama, and I believe he will mop the floor with the Bamster in 2012 if he’s our nominee.  Don’t buy into the “unelectable” line, friends.  The same type of pundits said Reagan was unelectable.  Conservatism wins, and Newt will win if he’s the nominee. 

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):        

Let’s be honest with ourselves as to why Congressman Paul is in this race. He wants to get his policies onto the eventual Republican platform.  Provided he realizes that his foreign policy doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in July of being part of the GOP platform, I would LOVE to have Congressman Paul’s policies in our ticket.  I want Ron Paul’s economic policies to become part of the platform.  Make no mistake about it: The Tea Party has pushed the GOP to the right, and people like Ron Paul deserve a share of the credit for that.

In the debate, however, Ron Paul did his usual out of touch with the GOP foreign policy statements.  Again, this is why he won’t be the nominee.  The audience booed him in many places, then others cheered his desire to end wars.  It’s a great example of the Ron Paul phenomenon: 75% of the room boo his foreign policies, 25% cheer.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Congressman Paul said: We should have the lowest tax we’ve ever had and up until 1913 it was 0%, what’s so bad about that? (Note: This would require reinstituting widespread tariffs, but hey, sounds good to me!)

Hey…Ron Paul was at this debate!  I kid, but Congressman Paul was somewhat to the side of the three way battles that happened between Gingrich, Santorum and Romney, and sometimes he contributed some really great points.  Like his statement about the cost of a Made in China product vs. a Made in America product.  (I’ve noted before that a Made in America iPod, for example, would cost over $1000, and that’s for a 2 GB one.)  It was an excellent metaphor for the Paul campaign.  He’s here to promote ideas.  I think Congressman Paul knows that he’s not going to be the nominee, but he’s in this to rack up as many delegates as he can to force his ideas onto the platform, and provided they are the economic policies I want Ron Paul ideas on the platform. 

Side note: I never realized Dr. Paul practiced medicine as an OBG/YN…in my mind’s eye I saw him as a family practice doctor…and honestly (and yes, I know this is silly, I don’t hold any credence to this thought)…it’s just a weird thought to wrap my head around. 

Mitt Romney– Buy (Buy):   

I want to go on record as saying I do not buy into the attacks on Bain Capital being levied against Mitt and I think they are bad for the country.  I think it was good that Speaker Gingrich retracted and instructed his Super PAC to back down from this attack. 

Mitt was under fire tonight.  He did a pretty decent job responding to the attacks.  I find it interesting that Mitt was absent in a lot of places in the debate.  He was steady and strong, and as I’ve said before I can live with Mitt, but I want better.  I do think Mitt had a weak debate.  I do not believe he scored as many points as he could have.  Mitt was Presidential in the debate.  His best moment was when he talked about the difference between himself and President Obama (and also Ron Paul) in foreign policy.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Mitt said:  I’d like to get it down to 25%.

Mitt kicked off this debate talking about capitalism.  He reminded me again why, if I can’t have my preferred candidate, I can live with Mittens. He did an excellent job of articulating the difference between conservatism and what President Obama believes.  We believe that it’s good to take risk with money and make a profit.  We believe it’s good for those who take risks to make a profit, because that profit goes into purchasing goods and services and often gets reinvested into that company and that means jobs either way.  Capitalism and investment are good things.  Business is what create jobs, not government. 

Mitt said something last night that I’ve been waiting for him to say: “I’m not going to apologize for being successful.”  Amen!  Mitt should not apologize for succeeding.  He is a man who has worked hard, taken risks, and succeeded, and he should be proud of it.

Rick Santorum - Hold (Buy):

Senator Santorum was steady tonight.  He had a couple good moments, but he was otherwise kind of tepid.  I do love that Senator Santorum stands up for marriage and for strengthening the American family.  His statement from the Brookings Institute Study that people who do 3 things have a 98% chance to avoid poverty: Those things are 1 – Work 2 - Graduate from High School 3 – Get married before you have children.  Aside from the fact that “people who work are less likely to be in poverty” is a DUH statement, it’s a great point.  The traditional path for life is one that leads people to be functioning, self-sufficient members of society. 

I’m coming back to my belief that Santorum is more likely to be Vice President than President.  (Again, if the Vice Presidential nominee comes out of the field of candidates, I believe it’ll be either Senator Santorum or Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann).  But I don’t think he gained any points tonight.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Santorum said: My plan has two rates, 10% and 28% which was the highest rate under Ronald Reagan.

Santorum gave Mittens a smack on Romneycare and really nailed it.  He also went after Newt on the topic.  I felt the punch landed with Mittens and hit the gloves on Newt. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, in boxing when a boxer blocks an incoming punch from his opponent.  Newt blocked it.)  When Newt responded, I watched the split screen between Newt and Santorum, and Santorum had a look of “oh darn he handled that” when Newt responded. 

Overall, Senator Santorum had a strong debate. He was good.  He came across as strong and solid, and believe me I would be fine with a President Santorum.  I did like Senator Santorum’s response to the tax release question: “I do my own taxes and I’m not at home.  They’re on my computer.  When I get home you’ll get them.”

I’ve commented that Governor Romney sounds Presidential.  Senator Santorum sounds like a great #2.  He sounds like a Vice President.  I do like the idea of Rick Santorum as Vice President.  He’d be a good strategic move because he can bring in Pennsylvania.  The only better Vice Presidential options I can think of are Michelle Bachmann (who can truly bag the Tea Party vote), Herman Cain (if he’s not so damaged after the baloney smear scandal) and…legitimate shivers of excitement…Senator Marco Rubio.  If I get my wish and Newt Gingrich is the nominee, a Vice Presidential nominee like Santorum would be a good balance.  If Mittens is the guy, we’ll need someone like Bachmann. 

One final note on Senator Santorum.  I realized something last night: Of all the candidates remaining, I do believe I LIKE Rick Santorum as a person the best.  He does seem like a genuinely kind, good hearted Christian man, the type of person who I’d love to have as my next door neighbor.  In a different time (like following a transformational President who got this country going strong again) he’d be a good President. 

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

Tomorrow is the South Carolina Primary, and last night’s debate made one thing clear…the primary is going to be CLOSE.  My gut says that Newt could win, and will at the very least come in a strong second place.  This race isn’t over, not by a long shot.  There’s a lot to happen.  But at the end of the day I want to say without a doubt that I will take any one of these four men remaining over Barack Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday (yes, even Ron Paul).  Every one of these candidates would be a far better President than the one we have now. 

Debate Winner: Rick Santorum

Rassmussen Shows Newt Rebounding Post-Debates

It's been a rarity in this election, but for once, I was right. Two weeks ago, I predicted that Newt Gingrich would rebound after six debates in three weeks.  Yesterday, Rasmussen showed I was correct.  In a new Rasmussen poll of Likely GOP Voters, Mitt "Mittens" Romney is gaining 30% of the national vote to Newt Gingrich's 27% (a virtual tie given the +/- 3% margin of error).

As of this poll, Mitt's still winning in South Carolina by 14 points, but remember, Rasmussen has not conducted a South Carolina poll since the debates.  Given that Newt has gained 11 points in Rasmussen's national polls, it is reasonable to guess that he has gained at least proportionally in South Carolina (if not more, since South Carolina is a staunchly conservative state and is the neighbor to the north of Newt's home state of Georgia. 

There's still another debate coming tonight before South Carolina, so there's time for Newt to continue his precipitous climb.  A few things need to happen to see Newt climb back into the driver's seat:  He needs to win or come in a close second in South Carolina; and Rick Santorum needs to recognize that his win in Iowa is unlike to be repeated given the inability of the Senator to continue his retail politics plan that worked in Iowa.

If we can do that and combine the "Not Mitt" vote behind one candidate (and I continue to believe Gingrich is the best Not-Mitt available - since he has a significant lead over Santorum in SC and nearly twice Santorum's support in FL) we can still see a major challenge to Mittens. It won't happen in South Carolina, but in Florida it could make a big difference.  Take the current Real Clear Politics Florida Average and do a little math.  Rick Perry dropped out today and endorsed Newt, and I think you can expect the vast majority of Perry's votes to go to Newt.  Hypothetically, if Santorum drops out and 3/4 of his voters go to Newt and 1/4 to go to Mittens (I don't expect solid conservatives to float to the libertarian Ron Paul) , then figure Jon Huntsman's voters split evenly between Mittens and Newt, you're looking at Newt with 42.5% and Mittens with 46%.  That can be overcome, especially with two debates leading up to Florida. 

Bottom line, my friends, is we can still combine the Not-Mitt voters and defeat Mittens in favor of a stronger conservative. But I am telling you now that if we're going to beat Mittens, it's going to be Newt.  Either way, Newt is on the incline. Game on.

Biblical Conservatism Bids a Fond Farewell to Jon Huntsman’s Campaign

Hours before this week’s Fox News Presidential debate, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman ended his campaign and (shock of shocks) endorsed fellow moderate Mitt Romney. So in honor of the departure of my favorite wimpy moderate Republican joke target, here are the highlights of my past teasing of Governor Huntsman with humorous links as placebos for actual analysis since Huntsman was never worth it.

But before you do, please click this video

 

for the appropriate background music (wait for the preceeding commercial before you start to read):

 

(After the 9.8.11 MSNBC Debate)

Seriously…I’m a busy man with stuff to do. I’m not wasting my time with Hunstman when I could be defrosting my freezer or scrubbing my cat’s litter box. He’s a waste of time in this campaign. Jon Huntsman was a bad candidate when he was named John McCain, and he was a bad candidate when he was named Bob Dole. We don’t need a moderate wimp.

On the issue of man-caused Global Warming, Huntsman shot himself in the foot, twice, and managed


to leave only one bullet hole. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means he shot himself in the foot so thoroughly that he hit the first hole a second time.)

(After the 9.13.11 CNN Tea Party Debate)

Seriously. Huntsman is a joke. He spent tonight quoting Nirvana songs and waxing intellectual as a biased moderate. I’m not even bothering making a joke about how much of a non-issue Huntsman is at this point.

(After the 9.23.11 Fox News Google Debate)

Take me out to the ballgame, take me out to the crowd, buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack, I don’t care if I ever get back! Let me root, root, root for the home team, if they don’t win it’s a shame! For its one, two, three strikes you’re out at the old ballgame! (Huntsman is such a waste of time I decided to sing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” instead of wasting time on him.)

(After the 11.12.11 Washington Post Bloomberg Debate)

I think the kids in those Peter G. Peterson Foundation commercials explaining how economics work would make better candidates than Jon Huntsman. Also, who names their kid Peter Peterson? Moving on.

(After the 11.10.11 CNBC Your Money Your Vote Debate)

I’m kind of glad Huntsman is in these debates. It gives me a chance to use the bathroom or make a sandwich.

(After the 11.14.11 CBS South Carolina Debate)

Rather than wasting time talking about Jon Huntsman and his magenta tie, I’ve decided to provide a link to a video of Abbott and Costello doing their classic routine “Who’s On First.”

(After the 11.23.11 CNN Heritage Foundation Debate)

Well, a pig flew by tonight because I agreed with Huntsman on one statement: We do need term limits for Congress. Then he proceeded to drive me so crazy through the debate that I felt I couldn’t just make a fun joke about Governor Huntsman. I’ve seen pieces of wet one-ply toilet paper with more tensile strength than John Huntsman’s spine. He’s a wimp, and we’ve already got a wimp in the White House.

(After the 12.12.11 ABC Your Money Your Vote Debate)

Huntsman’s absence left me without opportunities to use the bathroom or get myself a beverage. Of course, it did mean there was more real debate happening.

(After the 12.16.11 Fox News Iowa Debate)

Instead of wasting time on Jon Huntsman, I’ve decided to link to a video from one of my favorite sites, “How it Should Have Ended.” So here is How Wizard of Oz Should Have Ended for your viewing pleasure.

(After the 1.19.12 New Hampshire Debates) 

Huntsman didn’t even bother with Iowa. He had one Caucus supporter though at least, which Ron Paul drolly noted on Twitter. He’s thrown all his chips into New Hampshire and I believe he’s headed for a disappointment. He was called by the Drive-By Media a “serious” candidate before he entered, which is Liberalese for “wimpy moderate we can definitely defeat.” I also believe it was sad and incorrect that Huntsman was given as much time as he was in Saturday’s debate.


So again, rather than wasting my time with Jon Huntsman analysis, here’s a favorite stand-up comedy bit of mine, “Noah” by Bill Cosby.

So Jon Huntsman is out of the race. It was inevitable really. Even when he came in 3rd place in New Hampshire, it was still a nonissue. Huntsman never had a shot. This year’s election is about strong conservatism (as proven by the fact that this year’s Establishment Candidate was last election’s Conservative Alternative). So we at Biblical Conservatism wish the Governor a fond farewell. I hope life treats you well, Governor Huntsman. You seem like a decent human being. Thank you for the sandwich making and restroom breaks in the debate. Sincerely. Best of luck in all your future endeavors.

 

Reactions to the Fox News-South Carolina Debate

Last night, the five remaining Republican candidates met for a debate in South Carolina.  It was good to see the candidates play a home game for a change, debating on Fox News.  If it was up to me, of course, Fox would get basically all the debates rather than subjecting ourselves to the gotcha game from the Drive-By Media.  (Then again, we did have Juan Williams playing the gotcha game.)  The format was different also because we’re down to five candidates, as opposed to the nine we had on the stage at one point.  The fewer candidates allowed for longer responses by candidates so we could get a better view of each candidate.

One final note:  In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to remind everyone that, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism, I have endorsed Newt Gingrich. 

So let’s play a round of everyone’s favorite debate analysis game, Buy, Hold, Sell or Sell All.  As always, my reaction to the candidate's LAST debate performance (or in this case performances, from the two back to back New Hampshire Debates last week) are in italics above.

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

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Hold):   

It’s been a tough few weeks for Newt.  He lost his frontrunner status in the polls and finished a disappointing fourth place in the Iowa Caucuses.  He made a mistake in trying to stay positive instead of responding to Mitt Romney’s attack machine. 

Saturday:  Newt did a good job of going after the attacks on him.  He took it to Ron Paul early on his attacks and I feel he did a fine job of refuting those attacks.  Newt is great in debates.  Unfortunately for Newt, this debate spread out the speech time oddly (why in Heaven’s name did Jon Huntsman get more time than Gingrich, based on their poll numbers, for example).  Yet I do believe he is going to rebound because of these debates. 

Newt stated my personal view on marriage fairly well by saying that we can create another vehicle for homosexual couples to join in some sort of legal union without attempting to forcibly change the definition of marriage to shoehorn in couples that do not fit that definition.  I also cheered when Newt slammed the Drive-By Media for their double standard against Christians and the bigotry against people of faith.

Newt also nailed it on the issue of Iraq and Iran, specifically by saying get rid the Iranian influence and Iraq will be fine.

Sunday: Newt did what he really needed to do by going after Romney and his other competitors.  I felt like he didn’t get his fair share of time from the moderators (big shock coming from NBC), especially given the amount of time they gave Jon Huntsman even though Huntsman has a fraction of Newt’s support nationally. When he did talk, he showed the sort of fight that I believe will cause Newt to rebound.  I hope he does, because I still believe Newt has the strength and the conservative record to be able to install a true, Reagan conservative who will pass a flat tax, a Balanced Budget Amendment and truly make this nation a country that is the Shining City on a Hill. 

Newt started off talking about why he was going on the attack against Mittens.  He did just an ok job at first explaining why he was making those attacks.  I didn’t like that Newt at first seemed like he was admitting to playing spoiler and not trying to win the nomination.

And then Newt turned back into Newt.  When he said regarding the length one can receive unemployment benefits, Newt said (accurately) that 99 weeks is an associate degree.  I also loved when Newt explained conservatism thusly: “Saying to someone I’ll help you IF you’re willing to help yourself is good, and we think unconditional efforts by the best Food Stamp President in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country.”  Bingo.  That’s the Newt Gingrich I endorsed!  Conservatism is not about telling people they can starve, but it’s also not about just giving people benefits forever.  Welfare and unemployment are meant to be an insurance…a just in case situation. 

I have car insurance.  I pay my premiums hoping that I’ll never have to use it again.  I’ve had to use that insurance a few years ago when I was in a bad accident, including receiving short-term disability coverage when I was out of work.  (This insurance was private insurance that I paid for, not government insurance, by the way.)  However, as soon as I was able I went looking for a new job because I was physically unable to perform the job I had at the time.  I went to work as soon as I could.  I didn’t milk it for every penny so I could not work.

Another place where Newt nailed it was this: “I’d like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue and not raise revenue to meet the government.  He also had a great point to Juan Williams’ attack on Speaker Gingrich’s point on letting kids work to help clean their schools.  His story that his daughter worked cleaning their church at 13 and was pleased to do that job and learn that when you work you get paid.  It’s a great point. 

When I was younger I was taught that work pays.  As I child I created a few “businesses” making crafts and things which I sold and even enlisted neighborhood kids to help me sell those items, splitting the sale with them. Many times my father gave me the opportunity to work for a few hours with him at his office sorting papers and other odd jobs in exchange for some money.  My mother once paid me to clean the living room carpet rather than paying a professional.  I was a babysitter for a while as well.  When I was 14 my father gave me a job for 5 hours per week doing data entry for his company.  When I was 16 I got a part-time job and have worked ever since. 

Jobs are good for kids.  They have to be responsibly regulated.  When we talk about kids doing janitorial work at their school, that should mean things like sweeping and mopping, not doing maintenance on the boiler.  But it’s a good policy.

Best Newt moment of the night: “I know among the politically correct you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable,” to Juan Williams.

This debate was exactly what I meant when I said that the debates could give Speaker Gingrich a boost.  Let’s see if it pans out, but I do believe you could see Newt win South Carolina and reinvigorate his campaign, especially if he has this strong of a debate on Thursday night.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Newt said: A 15% Flat Tax.*

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):         

Paul finished third in Iowa, which, as I said last week, is a disappointment for him.  Caucuses will be Paul’s best bet, and if the best he can do is third in a Caucus state he’s simply not going to win the nomination.  His beliefs on foreign policy I believe have lost him any chance, which is too bad because his economic policies are perfect.

Saturday:  Congressman Paul did a lot of sputtering and rambling.  I respect the Congressman but in many places he was scatterbrained.  More importantly, the Congressman’s foreign policy mentality is simply out of line with the conservative base of the Republican Party and that will stop him from being the nominee.  In addition, I would like to make a note about something Congressman Paul has continued to say:  the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “undeclared” only in technicality.  Both wars were undertook with legal resolutions from Congress.  Whether or not the official document was a “declaration of war” in the most technical facets it is false to say that Congress was denied their proper role in going to war. 

Sunday:  Paul didn’t do as much sputtering but he didn’t come across as positive and someone who can succeed.  As Senator Santorum stated, Congressman Paul has minimal record of actually passing major legislation in his career.  I simply don’t expect Congressman Paul to do better than third or maybe squeak a second place finish or two in one or two states, which means he’s not going to be the nominee.  He’s got his supporters but the rest of us remain wary of him, and even more wary than mainline conservatives are of Mittens…which is saying something. 

Let’s be honest with ourselves as to why Congressman Paul is in this race. He wants to get his policies onto the eventual Republican platform.  Provided he realizes that his foreign policy doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in July of being part of the GOP platform, I would LOVE to have Congressman Paul’s policies in our ticket.  I want Ron Paul’s economic policies to become part of the platform.  Make no mistake about it: The Tea Party has pushed the GOP to the right, and people like Ron Paul deserve a share of the credit for that.

In the debate, however, Ron Paul did his usual out of touch with the GOP foreign policy statements.  Again, this is why he won’t be the nominee.  The audience booed him in many places, then others cheered his desire to end wars.  It’s a great example of the Ron Paul phenomenon: 75% of the room boo his foreign policies, 25% cheer.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Congressman Paul said: We should have the lowest tax we’ve ever had and up until 1913 it was 0%, what’s so bad about that? (Note: This would require reinstituting widespread tariffs, but hey, sounds good to me!)

Rick Perry – Hold (Sell All):             

Perry finished a disappointing fifth in Iowa.  I expect him to stay in the race for a bit because he’s got the money to do it, but barring a miracle I don’t think he’s got a shot. 

Saturday:  The moments when Perry spoke were strong, but he’s off the radar.  I believe he’s got a better chance to be the Republican Presidential nominee NEXT TIME.  Note – NEXT TIME (which by the way will be 2020, because I am very sure we will win the Presidency in 2012).  He said great things but, unless he does very well in South Carolina I don’t think he’s going anywhere. 

Sunday:  Perry showed glimmers of why he just might make a splash in South Carolina and get back into things.  I still don’t think there’s quite enough time but maybe.  And again I do think there’s a good possibility for Perry to be a great candidate in 2020 if he still wants it.  There’s also a possibility that come 2020 Perry’s chance will be gone because the great up and comers like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Nicky Haley will be ready to step onto the nation stage.

Perry had a strong debate.  Judging by the reactions he received last night, I can see a chance for Rick Perry to forge a comeback.  It’ll be hard, don’t get me wrong.  But Perry really effectively communicated conservatism last night.  I wish Perry had gotten this strong back in August when he got into the race, because I do believe he was one of if not the most conservative candidate in the race. 

I’m rating Perry as Hold for now for one reason:  South Carolina is a home game for Perry, and in a home game occasionally you get a surprising upset.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Perry said: A 20% Flat Tax*

Mitt Romney– Buy (Buy):     

Mittens would be a Dwight Eisenhower type President.  He’s a nice guy, he’d be steady and solid and he’d be fairly conservative, but right now we have an opportunity to be better than that.  We can get absolute conservatism, we need to take that opportunity to nominate someone who can fire up the electorate about conservatism, and I don’t think Mitt’s the one to do it.  He’ll win if he’s the nominee (as will Gingrich, as will Bachmann, as will Foghorn Leghorn (R) if they face Obama).  However, I don’t think Romney will be the transformational conservative, like Ronald Reagan.  He’ll be a good nominee, we can have a great nominee.

Saturday: Mitt won the Iowa Caucuses, barely, when he was previously expected to not do well at all.  There’s a lot of consolidation of the Republican vote behind him because we’ve begun to believe the line that Mitt has the best chance to beat Obama.  As I’ve said before, Foghorn Leghorn (R) will beat Barack Obama.  The big test for Mitt is can he get above 30% of the vote. 

On Saturday, Mitt was calm, comfortable in his skin and, dare I say it, Presidential.  That is his strong suit.  Mitt doesn’t have a lot of charisma.  What he does have his a steady, confident leader quality.  I recently made the comparison between Romney and Dwight Eisenhower.  Mitt reminds me of speeches I’ve seen and heard from Ike in the 1950s and what I know about the Eisenhower Administration.  Here’s where I continue to be unsure of Romney:  A guy like Mitt might be the perfect President in a booming economy like the 50s…a nice guy who will be a gentle leader in good times.  We aren’t in good times right now. 

Mitt channeled Newt Gingrich when responding to Snuffleupagus on the whole birth control issue.  It was a stupid question and I was thrilled to see Mitt to tell him to shut up on it.  On marriage, Mitt said something that made me cheer regarding homosexual couples forming long term relationships: “It doesn’t mean you have to call it ‘marriage.’ ”  On a final note, Mitt got passionate (for him) when he got on the topic of what makes America great. 

Ultimately, Mitt showed me why, if I can’t have my preferred candidate, why I find Mitt at least palatable.  Some of my fellow bloggers and fellow Tea Partiers argue this point.  Some think Mitt is no better than Obama.  Romney is infinitely better than Obama.  We have better choices, but Mitt isn’t the worst.

Sunday:  Mitt was back on his heels.  Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum especially were hitting him hard early on.  One thing I’ve noticed about Mitt is that he starts to get frustrated in a manner that’s reminiscent of Lou Pinella arguing against a clearly incorrect call from an umpire.  He didn’t kick dirt, but he gets this look of “I can’t believe you’re bringing THAT up” whenever he’s asked about his questionable conservative record.  Where Mitt gets it right is when he continues to hammer the reality that government is not the solution of the problem. 

I want to go on record as saying I do not buy into the attacks on Bain Capital being levied against Mitt and I think they are bad for the country.  I think it was good that Speaker Gingrich retracted and instructed his Super PAC to back down from this attack. 

Mitt was under fire tonight.  He did a pretty decent job responding to the attacks.  I find it interesting that Mitt was absent in a lot of places in the debate.  He was steady and strong, and as I’ve said before I can live with Mitt, but I want better.  I do think Mitt had a weak debate.  I do not believe he scored as many points as he could have.  Mitt was Presidential in the debate.  His best moment was when he talked about the difference between himself and President Obama (and also Ron Paul) in foreign policy.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Mitt said:  I’d like to get it down to 25%.

Rick Santorum - Buy (Buy):

Saturday:  Senator Santorum, welcome to the club of candidates that I was wrong about.  I’d like to introduce you to our other members: Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.  I had written him off.  I still don’t know if Santorum’s success will stick, however, because retail politics don’t work nationally and won’t be possible leading up to days like Super Tuesday. 

I have issues with Santorum’s definition of conservatism.  Or, at the least, I believe Santorum is doing a poor job so far of communicating conservatism.  I do agree with him that there are certain things government should be spending on.  These things include provision for a common defense (which includes both military and police) as well as, on the local level, such public works as roads, water mains, etc.  I do not believe Ron Paul is perfectly accurate when he calls Santorum a “big government” guy.  I think the problem is that Santorum has not yet figured out how to communicate that point.  I think Santorum is also incorrect when he says “I’m not a libertarian, I’m a conservative” because it creates a poor definition of conservatism.  As a general rule the places where genuine libertarians and genuine conservatives differ is social issues and not the issues of what things government should do.  We generally agree with the topics government ought to do. 

Now I confess I need to do my homework on Santorum.  I have considered him a candidate without a prayer.  What I genuinely need to know is if Santorum’s issue is failure to communicate conservatism or failure to be conservative.  I will give him huge credit for calling out Romney when he even mentioned “middle class” because I agree with Senator Santorum: the Republican Party is not about class.  We are about people.  All people.

Sunday: Senator Santorum did a good job of handling the gotcha questions against him and also getting after Mittens.  He’s answered well and the Senator seems comfortable in his skin.  He had great moments and really didn’t have bad moments.  He did still seem a little too safe in his answers.  As I said above, I need to do some research into the Santorum plan, and I feel like I owe both you my regular readers and frankly myself a study on the Santorum plan.  So look for a “Here Comes Rick Santorum” post in the coming week and we can discuss that further.

Senator Santorum was steady tonight.  He had a couple good moments, but he was otherwise kind of tepid.  I do love that Senator Santorum stands up for marriage and for strengthening the American family.  His statement from the Brookings Institute Study that people who do 3 things have a 98% chance to avoid poverty: Those things are 1 – Work 2 - Graduate from High School 3 – Get married before you have children.  Aside from the fact that “people who work are less likely to be in poverty” is a DUH statement, it’s a great point.  The traditional path for life is one that leads people to be functioning, self-sufficient members of society. 

I’m coming back to my belief that Santorum is more likely to be Vice President than President.  (Again, if the Vice Presidential nominee comes out of the field of candidates, I believe it’ll be either Senator Santorum or Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann).  But I don’t think he gained any points tonight.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Santorum said: My plan has two rates, 10% and 28% which was the highest rate under Ronald Reagan.

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

Debate Winners:  Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry

This debate was very interesting.  Mitt Romney was just ok, Santorum was just ok, Ron Paul was his usual crazy self, and Newt and Rick Perry were truly excellent.  I liked that the conservatives rose to the top.  We’ve got another debate on Thursday before the South Carolina primary on Saturday.  One statement though: This race isn’t over, yet.  Mitt Romney is not our nominee, yet.  Newt could still make a run, and if Perry can pull off an upset then he could make a run too.  Game on. 

*Rick Perry’s 20% Flat Tax provides more deductions and a higher standard deduction that Newt Gingrich’s 15% Flat Tax plan, so it actually would mean less taxes for the average American.