Flip-Flop on Abortion

Many have said that they can not support Mitt Romney because he flip-flopped on abortion.  He once states that he is pro-choice and now he is pro-life just to win the nomination and you can not trust what he will do as President.

Many pro-life people are hoping that one day, there will be a conservative enough supreme court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the decision that eventually led to the overturn of many anti-abortion laws.  Therefore, only a sold pro-life candidate will do.

Mitt Romney declared that he was pro-choice when running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy.  But guess what happened?  There were adds run in Massachusetts by the Kennedy campaign stating that even though Romney said he was pro-choice, as an LDS Stake President he pressured a woman to put her child up for adaption instead of getting an abortion.  (Apparently this woman either left the church on her own, or was excommunicated by her bishop after the abortion.)  The truth is that even though Mitt declared that he was pro-choice, he got burned because he followed the handbook in his duty as a stake president and advised against the abortion.  Therefore, being pro-choice did not help Romney is his campaign for Senate.  That was a hard lesson to learn.

He was still in the pro-choice camp when he ran for governor in 2002.  But he changed.  He consistently fought to keep aborted fetuses out of the line for stem cell research...a very pro-life stance.  And declared himself as part of the pro-life movement once people began the push to use aborted fetuses for this research.  Therefore, when the issue came up as Massachusetts governor, his actions show that he had left the pro-choice camp behind.

Now, when it comes to flip-flopping, sometimes we want people to flip-flop.  Wouldn't be great if all pro-choice people flip-flopped to became pro-life?  Yes, we do want pro-choice people to flip-flop.  It would be a shame to prohibit former pro-choice people from holding elective office.  But some think that this is a reason not to support Romney.  The question is whether or not a person changes the stance depending on who the audience is.  If you find that Governor Romney has done this, please send to me a link to the speech where he has declared his pro-choice intent after becoming the Governor of Massachusetts, and I will post it on this blog.

State by State, Who Can Beat Obama?

Does it matter who the GOP nominee is?  Don't most people vote along party lines?  Let's take a state by state look at what is going on.  Please keep in mind, that there has not yet beet a complete state-by-state poll.  But, there has been generic polling.  And many people judge which state goes to which candidate based upon recent history...at least from 1988 on.  Here is how the current picture looks in the electoral college.

1. Obama is probably going to win these states regardless of who the GOP nominee is, unless something really bad for Obama happens...

California (55)
Connecticut (10)
Delaware (3)
DC (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (20)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (11)
New Jersey (14)
New York (29)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (12)

Therefore, Obama can count on at least 175 votes in the electoral College.

2.  The eventual GOP nominee is can probably count on the following states, unless something really bad for the GOP happens.

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arkansas (6)
Georgia (16)
Idaho (4)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (8)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (9)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (38)
Utah (6)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

The GOP nominee can count on at least 159 electoral votes.

3.  These States are leaning toward Obama but could turn to the GOP.

Iowa (6)
Maine (4)
Michigan (16)
Minnesota (10)
Nevada (6)
New Mexico (5)
Oregon (7)

If these states hold for Obama, that would put him at 229 electoral votes.

4.  These states are leaning toward the GOP nominee.

Arizona (11)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (10)

If these states hold for the GOP, that would put the GOP nominee at 191 electoral votes.

5.  At this time, these are the battleground states.

Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
New Hampshire (4)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)
Pennsylvania (20)
Virginia (13)
Wisconsin (10)

There are 270 needed to win.  The GOP will need to win 79 electoral votes in the battle-ground states in order to win the election and hold the states that are usually GOP states.

Here is how things are going in these battle-ground states...

Colorado
Obama vs Gingrich
Obama vs Romney

The latest polls show Obama has a lead over both, but Romney is closer to Obama than Gingrich is.  That gives Obama another 9 electoral votes...which puts the election at 239 to 191 for Obama regardless of who the GOP nominee is.

Florida
Obama vs Gingrich
Obama vs Romney

The latest polls show Romney can beat Obama in Florida, but Gingrich is well behind.  This means that if Obama is going against Gingrich, Obama is up 268 to 191.  If it is Romney, Obama is now up 239 to 220.

New Hampshire
Obama vs Gingrich
Obama vs Romney

Here is another state which Romney appears to deliver for the GOP that Gingrich can not.  If Gingrich is the nominee, Obama has now won the election with 272 electoral votes to 191 for Gingrich.  If Romney is the GOP nominee, Obama is now up 239 to 224.

North Carolina
Obama vs Gingrich
Obama vs Romney

If Gingrich is the nominee, this is another Obama State.  Obama is now up 287 to 191 if Newt becomes the GOP nominee.  If Romney becomes the GOP nominee, the state is still a toss up.  All polls are within the margin of error, except there are a couple that show Romney ahead by 9 points or more.  Let's, for the sake of argument give this one to Romney.  Obama is still at 239 and Romney is now at 239.

Ohio
Obama vs Gingrich
Obama vs Romney

Ohio goes to Obama regardless of who the GOP winner is.  If Newt, Obama is now ahead 305 to 191 and the election is entering landslide stage.  Romney is still in it.  Obama is now leading 257 to 239.

Pennsylvania
Obama vs Gingrich
Obama vs Romney

It's still early, but polls shows Obama ahead of Romney in Pennsylvania, but it is within the margin of error.  However, at this point, Pennsylvania goes to Obama.  If Newt, it is now a landslide.  Obama is ahead 325 to 191.  If Romney, it is 277 to 239.  If Romney wins Pennsylvania, he is ahead 259 to 257.

Virginia
Obama vs Gingrich
Obama vs Romney

Romney appears to be the victor in Virginia vs Obama, where this is another state that Gingrich loses to the President.  If Newt, Obama is more than comfortably ahead 338 to 191.  If Romney, the gap is closed, it is now 277 to 252.  If Romney wins Pennsylvania, he comes close to winning it all.  He win it all 272, where at this point Obama would only have 257.

Wisconsin
Obama vs Gingrich--No Data
Obama vs Romney

I will give this state to Obama.  That puts the final score at 338 to 191 for Obama if Newt is the nominee.  287 to 252 for Obama if Romney is the nominee.  Obama beats Newt by 147 votes and Romney by 35 votes and that is a big difference.  If Romney wins Pennsylvania, the final count would be 272 to 267...a razor-thin victory.

Does it make a difference?

A landslide Obama victory, where the GOP nominee does not win any key battle-ground states, means an Obama mandate no matter what happens in Congress.  If the election is close and the GOP holds on to the House and takes the Senate, the mandate from the people is not clear and Obama will have to moderate his policies to make his second term meaningful.

Now, do you understand why the GOP establishment is worried about having Newt as the nominee?  In fact, according to Real Clear Politics, Gingrich would be the worst person for the GOP to nominate.  Paul, Santorum and Romney are clearly much better than Gingrich going against Obama.

Popular Vote.

In the national popular vote, Obama is ahead of Romney by 2.4%, which is within the standard margin of error of 3%.  
Obama is ahead of Ron Paul by an average of 5.8%, which is not an insurmountable lead with 9 months to go.
Obama is ahead of Rick Santorum by an average of 10%.  Again, not an insurmountable lead at this point.
Obama is ahead of Gingrich by an average of 12%.  Not an impossible lead, but at this point, Newt is the weakest candidate the GOP can nominate to run against Obama.  But Newt, as we have shown, loses in every key battle-ground state.

Romney will need every vote he can get to beat Obama, but most important to Romney is Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Virginia.  Most important to Obama is Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  That is where this election will be won or lost.

Mr. Bishop Sets the Record Straight on SOPA

I received the following letter from the Honorable Rob Bishop of Utah's 1st Congressional District.

Dear Mr. Hunt:

Thank you for your letter concerning HR 3261 the Stop Online Privacy Act.

This bill is currently in the House Committee of the Judiciary, of which I am not a member.  However, if HR 3261 appears on the House Floor, I will not support it.

The Internet has proven to be a venue for extensive innovation and growth, which is very important and relevant in our society.  The Internet is largely unregulated by the federal government, and allowing federal oversight may hinder the continual progression and innovation created through the free use of the internet.

One of the driving forces behind the US economy is its ability to protect the property rights of its citizens.  Unfortunately, many foreign nations fail to respect those same rights overseas.  The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) may be a well-intentioned tool to protect intellectual property,  but I oppose it in its current form.  The Internet has seen an explosion of innovation and growth in large part because it has been void of the heavy hand of the federal government.  While I share the goals of protecting the freedom of the Internet and defending the rights of intellectual property owners, I have concerns that SOPA could lead to too much government intervention and control.

Again, thank you for your e-mail and please feel free to contact my office in the future.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop
Member of Congress.

Will The Republicans Learn From History?

Barrack Obama's disapproval rating is historically high for an incumbent president, and that means that the GOP candidate, whomever he is, should have an easy time in November, right?  Not so fast.  Recent history shows that approval polls are not a predictor of success when going for a second term.  Here are a couple of examples.

Going into 1980, Jimmy Carter's approval ratings were at 56%.  Given that, he should have won a second term in a landslide.  But there were some problems that Carter has leading up to the election.  First, he faced a strong in-party challenge from Ted Kennedy.  He lost confidence from many moderate voters with his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis.  He boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics.  And he had a stagnant economy to deal with that was struggling with high inflation and high unemployment...or stagflation.  Finally, he had a challenger from the GOP who could really connect with people.  Historically, he should have easily won, but it did not happen.

In 1972, Richard Nixon's approval ratings were at 49%, just one point higher than Barrack Obama.  Nixon should not have won a second term, but he did.  Nixon had some foreign policy successes in China and the Soviet Union.  Nixon was unopposed from his own party during the primaries.  He had a very liberal challenger in George McGovern, who lost a lot of moderate voters to the Republican incumbent.  The main mistake the democrats made in 1972 was in who they nominated to challenge Nixon.

So why isn't Obama going to be so easy to defeat in November.  First, he has not been challenged from within his party.  No other democrat has stepped up to offer an in party challenge.  Second, not all of Obama's endeavors have been a failure.  For example, he ended the war in Iraq and brought Osama bin Laden to justice.  The economy may be sluggish, but does show signs of improvement.

Most important of all is that the Republicans need to nominate someone who can put up a formidable challenge.  The race is now down to 4.  Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.  Three of those four men are viewed as being too extreme.  Mitt is the moderate one.  And now Gingrich is attacking Romney's business record, of all things.  Really?  Don't we all wish that our income was solely from capital gains?

There was a poll this week that showed Ron Paul ahead of Obama in a hypothetical race.  But I find Paul's policies appealing to the emotional republican and not to the logical one.  I also don't think that Paul has a serious shot at winning the nomination.

Santorum would be the 2012 GOP analog or George McGovern.  His views are too extreme and that is the reason why he is a former senator and not a current senator.  As Seth Meyers at Saturday Night Live said, "Rick Santorum is so anti-gay, he can't even dress well."

Newt is making this race interesting.  But he has hurt his chances at winning the White House by the way he has attacked Romney.  He is attacking capitalism by attacking Romney's business record.  It will do more than hurt him a little bit when going against Obama, it will cost him the main battering-ram that Republicans are using to attack the President.  How can one argue for a freer business environment when one argues against someone benefiting from it?  The fact that this attack is working against Romney in the Primary Election Cycle shows that it will work against Republicans in the General Election.  It will not only cost Gingrich a chance at beating Obama in the fall.  It will play right into Obama's hands when asking for more democrats in the House and Senate.  As one mind superior to mine, Charles Krauthammer at Fox News said, "It is suicide for the Republicans to take this angle against Romney."

What Newt should be doing is saying, "He Mitt is a Rich guy and I am envious.  But it is not bad that he is so wealthy.  If you elect me, I will do what I can to ensure that as many Americans as possible become as wealthy as Mitt Romney."

In other words, do not make Mitt's business acumen a battering ram to use against him.  Play it as a success story that even Newt Gingrich can benefit from, that every American can benefit from.  Tell them about how Obama has cost us the chance to create more men and women like Mitt Romney.  Tell them that Mitt's offshore holding represent a problem with the Tax Code and not a problem with Mitt Romney.  Tell them that Mitt's donations to his church are an example of how the wealthy can help out under privileged Americans, if they were not paying so much of their income to government for transfer programs.  Use Mitt as a positive example of what American can be if they elect you.  And call of the wolves.

Otherwise what will happen?  Even though Obama has a 48% approval rate, he will win in November.  It has happened before.

Private Sector Companies Fire People

The Republican candidates gunning for Mitt Romney are making a big deal about how companies that Bain rescued when Mitt Romney was at the head fired people.  Guess what, that is what Private Sector Companies do when they need to cut costs...they will combine departments and eliminate duplication.  People are going to lose their jobs.

Guess what...if you think that you are going to balance the federal budget without firing federal employees, think again.  It's amazing that Newt Gingrich and the other GOP are giving the impression that the budget can be balanced without payroll cuts.  It's not going to happen.

The government is like any business, and the biggest expense is payroll.  And politically, that is where much of the savings is going to be realized.  GOP candidates preach that we can cut social security without cutting benefits to current retirees.  Where is the money going to come from?  How about cutting medicaid when health care costs are increasing? 

For decades, companies ask managers to do more with less.  And now agencies of the federal government will need to follow suit.

Perhaps you can to cut the Department of Education.  But you can put it under the Department of Commerce and eliminate duplication.  You can put the Department of Homeland Security under the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice.  The Department of Labor can also become part of the Department of Commerce.  And you can also put Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, and Energy under Commerce as well.

But when you do all of this, you also have to eliminate duplicate jobs or the consolidation will not mean anything.  GOP candidates should quit pretending that you can balance the federal budget without eliminating jobs.

What History says about Santorum's chances

Rick Santorum was the surprise of Iowa, but rarely has the surprise in the Iowa Caucuses won the nomination. It is usually by South Carolina that the serious front runner is learned.  But, even if Santorum win the GOP nomination, what are his chances at winning?

First of all, and someone is bound to bring this up, so I will as well: Rick Santorum ran for a 3rd term as a Senator from Pennsylvania in 2006 and lost in a landslide to current Senator Bob Casey.  The tally was 58.7% for Casey and 41.3% for Santorum.  In that election, the democrats gained 5 seats in the senate.  This could be seen as a backlash against President Bush for unpopular wars and the poor handling of natural disasters, but no other incumbent performed as poorly as Santorum did in 2006.  All vulnerable republicans lost in that race, but Santorum's 41% of the vote was the poorest performance of any of his senate colleagues up for re-election in 2006.  Casey is a pro-life democrat who was able to show to voters that Santorum's views on many social issues were too extreme for Pennsylvania voters and Bush's record did not factor much into the campaign.

But what are the chances that a former or current senator can defeat an incumbent president?  It can happen, but it has not happened in the US since 1888 when Senator Benjamin Harrison of Ohio defeated President Grover Cleveland.  But Cleveland would be back in 1982 and be the one to send Harrison out of the White House.

Since then, the US has elected 3 Senators who had not served in the Vice Presidency prior to elected to the White House.  Those men were Warren Harding, John F. Kennedy and Barrack Obama.  Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were senators who became the President, these men served as the Vice President between their time in the Senate and in the White House.  None of the six former senators who served in the White House in the 20th century defeated a sitting president.  Truman and Johnson ascended to the presidency because of the death of their predecessor in office.

Senator has been the most common title of the men who have won their party's nomination to take on a sitting president.  In fact, recent history suggests that if your party does not have a serious shot at defeating the current president, you nominate a senator.  If you think your chances are good, you nominate a governor.

Here is the history of a senator taking on a sitting president

2004...President George W. Bush defeated Senator John Kerry
1996...President Bill Clinton defeated Senator Bob Dole
1972...President Richard Nixon defeated Senator George McGovern
1964...President Lyndon Johnson defeated Senator Barry Goldwater
1888...Senator Benjamin Harrison defeated President Grover Cleveland
1840...Senator William Henry Harrison defeated President Martin van Buren
1828...Senator Andrew Jackson defeated President John Quincy Adams
1816...President James Monroe defeated Senator Rufus King

As you can see, it has happened before.  A Senator has defeated a sitting president, but not for a while.  It may not be history that dooms Santorum, it may be that he is unapologetic-ally too extreme.  That excites many conservatives, but not enough moderates to put Santorum over the top in November unless things really go to Hades in a hand basket over the summer.

Some of Santorum's extreme views are:
-Putting homosexuality on the same plane as bestiality.
-He is against all abortion including those deemed medically necessary to protect the life of the mother.
-He has argued that the right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution in arguing that a 1965 case that overturned a ban on 'the pill' was unconstitutional.  (Even though the words "right to privacy" do not exist in the Constitution, the 4th Amendment does have the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, which is the right to privacy.)
-He tried to add an amendment to NCLB to allow for the instruction on Intelligent Design.
-He argued that liberalism and moral relativism were among the causes of sex abuse by priests in the Catholic Church.

I know that some conservatives are saying, "well done, good job."  But the question is not whether extreme conservatives view these stands as mainstream, but if enough voters view them as mainstream to win the election in 2012.  In 2006 in Pennsylvania, nearly 3/5 of voters...a state that the GOP must have to win in 2012...thought that these views were too extreme.