Vice Presidents don’t win elections. Dan Quayle is proof of this. Vice Presidents don’t lose elections, either. Dick Cheney and Joe Biden are proof enough (I’m hoping the latter will prove me wrong this fall). So why is there such intrigue over the Vice Presidential selection process? I don’t have the slightest clue. Perhaps after talking for more than a year about prospective Presidential nominees the public needs more individuals to scrutinize.
At the dawn of the Republic the Vice Presidency was nothing more than a consolation prize for the runner-up in the Presidential race. Thomas Jefferson served under his political rival, John Adams, from 1796-1800. The office has since evolved, making the Vice President the de-facto attack dog for the administration. Many have played this role very effectively while others have not.
One thing that is occasionally lost on people is that many Presidents have come by way of the Vice Presidency: a total of 14 did a stint as VP before becoming Commander-in-Chief. Contrary to popular belief, the office does serve a purpose, despite the general notion that its occupants are nothing more than yes-men (even though, except for maybe Dick Cheney, that’s what they are). Great Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman matriculated from Vice President to the Presidency. However, the country also got stuck with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon BACK to BACK!
Now that Mitt Romney is assured the Republican presidential nomination, the prognosticators have already begun assessing potential VP candidates. Nowadays there’s a fairly low threshold when choosing a Vice Presidential nominee. The last VP to bring real political and electoral clout to a Presidential ticket was LBJ, who was only to be ostracized by the Kennedy inner-circle once in the White House. Today the criterion seems to be DON’T EMBARRASS ME AND STICK TO THE SCRIPT. This formula has been recycled through the years to great effect. Don’t believe me? See Walter Mondale.
Romney has many viable options when it comes to selecting his running mate. Each has his (or her) strengths and weaknesses, respectively. Consider the potential choices*:

- Marco Rubio – He has been mentioned as a potential Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee since the day he was sworn in as a US Senator. A darling of the Tea Party, the gentleman from Florida puts the state in play and has appeal to Latino voters, an important voting group that Republicans have had trouble courting as of late.

-Rob Portman – Seems to become more popular as a VP choice as time goes on. A former congressman, trade representative, Director of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and current US Senator, Portman boasts an impressive resume. He gives the ticket a shot at Ohio, but his close ties to the Bush administration may give some pause.

-Paul Ryan – Like Portman, he has seen his name increasingly linked to the VP slot as the primary season winds down. Only 42, Ryan would bring real conservative and economic credentials to the campaign. While he is extremely knowledgeable and polished on policy issues, his latest budget is highly polarizing and could potentially overshadow Romney’s candidacy.

-Chris Christie – Once thought to be the best Presidential candidate Republicans could offer against Obama, Christie forewent a presidential run, endorsed Romney early, and has since become one of his most effective surrogates. He has only been governor for two years and lacks foreign policy credentials. If Romney loses, Christie and Rubio will battle it out for the 2016 nomination.

- Bob McDonnell- Part of the Republican comeback that began with his and Christie’s elections in November of 2009. Appeals to evangelical conservatives with his positions on social issues and to independents with his jobs message. Before 2008, the last time Virginia went blue in a presidential election was 1964. Republicans need to win it back if they are to have any shot at winning back the White House.

-Susana Martinez – One of the more popular names to be considered because of her dual appeal to women and Hispanic voters. She was a prosecutor before assuming the New Mexico governorship and is currently attempting to reform the mess that Bill Richardson bequeathed her. Might be too soon to put her on the national stage.

-John Thune – Straight out of central casting. Now in his second term as a US Senator, Thune has climbed the Senate ranks and is now the Republican Conference Chair. Like many on this list, he decided against a run at the Oval Office and endorsed Romney early. He is much in the mold of previous VP nominees, thus making him perhaps too safe of a choice.

-Mitch Daniels – The Conservative establishment practically got on its knees to get the former governor of Indiana to run. Like all the other “dream” candidates, he declined. His tenure as governor was marked by tax cuts, school vouchers, and sticking it to Organized Labor by making Indiana a right to work state. Formerly a protégé of Senate titan Richard Lugar, Daniels previously served as George W. Bush’s OMB director.

-Sarah Palin- Just kidding!

It was John McCain who perhaps gave us the best examples of what NOT (to do when considering whom to choose for VP: Don’t consider a former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee (Joe Liebermann). Don’t consider a pro-choice governor (Tom Ridge). And don’t, whatever you do,) go to Alaska to find yourself a potential VP. While Romney’s choices in themselves avoid many of the problems that plagued McCain in 2008, the presumptive nominee can’t take the task of choosing a Vice President lightly, either.

*Apologies to anyone who I have offended by leaving off their favorite congressman, governor, senator, city-councilperson, alderman, dog walker, etc. from the VEEP list

Although President Bush attempted reform through the No Child Left Behind Act, which measured basic skills usually through state assessments, the legislation has backfired across the nation and America’s students have suffered. In order for public schools to receive federal funding, students must meet standards set by the Department of Education. This has led to schools, especially in poorer areas of the country, basing their curriculums around “teaching the test,” so to speak. Furthermore, there have been widespread cases across the country of teachers changing student’s answers. In Atlanta, Georgia alone, there were more than 150 teachers across 44 school districts changing answers to boost test scores[2].  The children of our nation are not receiving the education they deserve, and this poses a threat to national security.

Over fifty years ago, we had some of the brightest university students working for the federal government to create a nuclear deterrent in the Cold War. Now, according to a report from the “not-for-profit” testing service ACT, only 22 percent of U.S high school students meet college ready standards1. This, compared with the 157,000 Chinese students, 107,000 Indian students, and 72,000 South Korean students coming to American universities[3]. It should come as no surprise then that these nations have some of the fastest growing economies in the world, and that Chinese experts hack American institution’s networks for valuable intelligence with ease. China stands to change the dynamics of geo-politics and is a direct threat to US global hegemony. There used to be a time when experts like Albert Einstein and Vernon von Braun gave the U.S technological and academic superiority over the rest of the world. Now, our national security is threatened by expanding economies and militaries of East Asia.

Our global competitors come to the United States of America to take advantage of some of the greatest universities in the world. Upon graduation, they take their skilled human capital back to their countries. The leaders in Washington need to stop throwing away money at programs like unemployment insurance for those who are too lazy to work, and reinvest in America’s future. If we don’t, who knows, in twenty years we could become a second rate power. As the great T.I.P. says “Get your $*** Together.”

The fiscal debate in the United States was a given a jolt last week when Paul Ryan released his budget entitled “Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal.” Those who believed that this debate had been settled after last summer’s anti-climatic debt ceiling fiasco have been given a stern reminder that there is plenty that still separates the President and the Republicans. Mr. Ryan, the wonkish House Budget Chair, has made no secret of his desire to radically revamp the role of the federal government as it pertains to public expenditure and government programs like Medicare.

Some would have you believe that Mr. Ryan’s plan is an early election year gift to the re-election of Barack Obama and Democrats alike. I’m not convinced; there is only slight validity to his plan having political ramifications. In a special election last year, Democrats were able to pick off a solidly Republican congressional district after linking the Republican candidate with Mr. Ryan’s controversial new Medicare proposal. Ryan, however, doesn’t seem fazed by the onslaught he has faced and will continue to face from Democrats. He seems to relish it, in fact. Ryan might be the best weapon Republicans have in an election year. He is one of the best thinkers, communicators, and debaters in all of politics, let alone the Republican Party.

In his newest plan, Paul Ryan slashes public expenditures by 5 trillion dollars over a ten-year period. This, compared to the 1.2 trillion in cuts offered in President Obama’s budget. Moreover, his plan goes beyond spending cuts. He has boldly sought to remake Medicare and has found an unlikely ally in his cause. Senator Ron Wyden, a progressive Democrat from Oregon, along with Ryan, has spearheaded a proposal that attempts to preserve the program, albeit it with major changes, such as giving individuals the option to opt in and out of the program and vouchers to buy private insurance. This must have made the unholy trinity that is Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and Dick Durbin wonder how they let one of their own cross over to the dark side.

There is now a battle to be had between Republicans and Democrats that has the potential to be one of substance rather than exaggerated falsities. The Democrats under the President’s budget and Republicans behind Mr. Ryan’s have presented two separate visions for the fiscal and economic path of the country. (Note: I say Mr. Ryan’s plan because no Republican presidential candidate has a plan as comprehensive as Mr. Ryan’s, and the front-runner, Mitt Romney, has endorsed the Congressman’s plan). While neither of these budgets will move in terms of legislation this year, there is an irony that the presentation of the two plans to the electorate might be the best chance of ending the current political gridlock.

Whether he likes it or not, Paul Ryan has emerged as the chief spokesman for the Republican Party on fiscal issues. He may not have wanted to run for President, but Ryan has now taken center stage without ever having entered the race. It’s too soon to see whether the Ryan budget has a definitive impact on the Presidential race, but he and his budget have now become an inescapable part of the political landscape, for better or for worse.

The question now becomes: Will the pubic get on board?

The answer: Unknown.

After getting hammered for his budget last year, Ryan seems to be a little more cautious in his presentation the second time around. According to a recent Politico article the Republican Leadership took no chances in the roll out for this budget and prepared by polling 50 Medicare battleground districts, consulting rank n’ file house members on how to expand support, and briefing Republican presidential candidates.

While the stage is set, one must wonder if there will ever be a fight. If unemployment continues to drop and gas prices decline, the President may well be looking at a 5 to 8 point victory in November. What’s compelling about Paul Ryan’s plan is that he is attempting to address long-term problems now rather than going for the quick fix that characterized the 11th hour deal negotiated last August. Whether it’s conservatives saying the plan doesn’t balance the budget soon enough or leftists saying he’s dismantling the federal government, Paul Ryan can’t seem to win. Nobody seems to lately.

Since the beginning of his term in 2008, President Obama has begun to show signs of this shift in doctrine. A recent example of this shift has been the reconstruction of the 1970s amphibious assault ship USS Ponce; which will serve as a mobile base of US special operators according to a Washington Post report[1].

However, chief among this shift is the four-fold increase in drone strikes around the world; most notably in Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa. First appearing on the scene in 1998, the Clinton administration saw this as an innovative approach to targeting Osama bin Laden[2]. In the 14 years since then, they have become the hallmark of counter-terror operations around the world. In Pakistan alone, President Obama has authorized 252 strikes compared to 95 authorized during Bush’s second term[3]. Although there has been some blowback from civilian casualties, especially in Pakistan, this tactic has proved detrimental for al-Qaeda. Their terror network is on its heel to say the least, and now have diminutive operation capabilities under the watchful eyes in the sky.

Faced with looming cuts to defense expenditures, military brass and intelligence officials have also focused their resources towards JSOCOM: United States Joint Special Operations Command. With potential draw downs of soldiers, sailors, and marines, the Obama’s National Security team has utilized these small, agile special operators to conduct counter-terror missions around the world: from Afghanistan, to Somalia, to the Philippines. Since the beginning of his Presidency, Mr. Obama has increased his use of special operations raids from 675 in 2009 to 1,879 through August 2011[4]. In a new age where U.S presence on the ground is looked down upon, these covert raids, largely conducted at night, provide the U.S and its allies with an efficient mode of operation without the negative public attention.

Politicians, be it Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan or even the president of Columbia Juan Santos, want their countries to be rid of terror cells and drug cartels, yet they don’t want the public blowback that’s associated with foreign occupiers. These efficient operational capabilities are the answer to those problems. This new doctrine has already begun to redefine the mission of US defense and intelligence assets around the world.

It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Limbaugh and others chose to personally attack Ms. Fluke rather than debate the substance of the issue. I commend Ms. Fluke for her insistence in a recent CNN.com op-ed that she will not be silenced by these attacks.

My sympathy for Ms. Fluke does not, however, extend to the substance of her position.

Let me put it plainly: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Unfortunately, in the op-ed referenced earlier Ms. Fluke does seem to suggest there is such a thing as free contraception. Arguing contraception is a “basic health care service”, she applauds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) for mandating that “preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance companies without co-pays or deductibles”. Ms. Fluke also insists taxpayers will not be on the hook for the cost of contraception, but that “it is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities”.

On this last question, Sandra Fluke is right, and that’s exactly the point. What’s covered by a private insurance policy should be determined by a private contract. The government should have no say in the matter.

As for the idea that contraception can be provided free-of-charge without anyone footing the bill, let’s get real. Someone’s going to get stuck with paying for Ms. Fluke’s healthcare, and she knows it. In all likelihood, it will be her fellow policy-holders, who will be forced to pay increased premiums. But even if things work perfectly and the insurance company has to pay for the contraception out of its own pockets, is that really a good thing?

Ms. Fluke says she won’t be silenced by slurs. I know there will be hell to pay for saying what I’m about to, but l’m going to take a cue from Ms. Fluke and press on despite the accusations of selfishness and heartlessness that will likely follow.

If you use it, you should pay for it.

As a rule, it seems fair enough, but it almost feels taboo to put it into words. Don’t get me wrong, I want women to have access to contraception. But you can’t convince me I should pay for it in higher premiums, and you can’t convince me an insurance company’s shareholders should pay for it in lost profits. Why? Because my money is mine, and shareholders’ money is theirs. And we should no longer be afraid to say it.

Ms. Fluke and others may of course object that many women can’t pay for their own contraception.

The fact is there are a lot of things in life we can’t pay for, and not one of those things is a right. Why? Because someone has to make it or provide it. Take it without compensating the supplier and you’ve turned that person into a slave, take someone else’s money to pay for it and you’ve stolen.

If you need something and can’t afford it, the only moral course of action is to throw yourself on the generosity of others, not to pretend you’re entitled to what they own, and certainly not to use the government to do your stealing for you.

On the other side of the coin, we should all be charitable when possible. We should all lend an assisting hand to the people around us who need it. But we should never lose sight of the fact that charity is a gift freely given–no one is entitled to another’s labor or its fruits.

TANSTAAFL, America. Nothing’s free, Ms. Fluke.

The real culprit is inflation. Over the past several years the Federal Reserve’s actions in buying up bad debt—both from private institutions and the government—and keeping interest rates low have introduced massive amounts of new money into the economy. Inflation, which is the increase in the quantity of money, inevitably leads to higher prices, as a simple matter of supply and demand.

But the Fed’s been engaging in money-creating shenanigans for years. So why the delay between the increase in the supply of money and the increase in commodity prices? Why does the price-increasing effect of inflation accelerate as time goes on?

There are two reasons.

First, depending on where the government directs newly printed money first, prices will rise in those sectors before they rise generally. The politically connected often benefit from this, reaping the rewards of their insider status by staying ahead of the curve of rising prices.

Secondly, it takes time for inflation to result in increased prices because, in the words of the legendary Henry Hazlitt, “the value of a unit of money is determined, like the value of a unit of a commodity, primarily by psychological factors”. As with any commodity, an increase in the quantity of money devalues the individual monetary unit, but the story doesn’t end there. People’s expectations regarding the future quantity and quality of money also affect its value, and at the beginning of an inflationary period they generally retain confidence in the purchasing power of the currency. As inflation continues—in other words, as money continues to be printed—this confidence erodes and “fears for the future are reflected in the present. There is a flight from money and a flight into goods”[1], Hazlitt explains. The flight from money into goods eventually causes prices to rise even faster than the quantity of money is increased.

We are watching just such a flight right now, and its effects are especially evident at gas stations all across America.

Now, the sixty-four thousand dollar question is why Lou Dobbs and other pundits who purport to be in favor of free markets naturally drift to blaming the bogeyman speculator for rising energy prices, when the real answer is staring them right in the face. Why accept any explanation for rising energy prices except inflation? These are the same people, incidentally, who rightfully lambast many of the flawed policies that led to stagflation some decades ago. Have they now arrived at the conclusion that inflation is no longer an issue, or that the energy market is somehow immune to it? Of course inflation is not the only reason for rising energy prices, but one cannot reasonably deny it is playing a major role.

So why join the left in making speculators the punching bags of choice, when speculators help find the real market worth of a commodity more quickly, and since their beneficial activities cannot be curtailed but by violating property rights? Why not blame inflation, inflation caused by a flawed monetary policy and the appetite for big government that necessitates it?  Doing so would certainly be more consistent for the aforementioned “free market” pundits, but more importantly, it would be accurate.

It seems too many fair-weather friends of economic freedom have little interest in being either.

I promise to keep this post short and sweet.

Kony is by all means guilty of human rights violations and must to be stopped. There is no denying this fact, but I am skeptical. Skeptical that Kony will turn into an “end all, be all” of human rights violators and that the movement will wither away once Kony is caught. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there are many more people in the world right now who are committing heinous crimes against innocent adults and children. Syria, China, and Yemen are some big players that instantly come to mind, but there are many more.

I fear that policy makers in the US will go after Kony in order to silence criticism that they are ignoring, even supporting, other blatant human rights violations. It has happened in the past (US support for Pinochet) and I would not be surprised if it happened again. While I support the movement against Kony and his crimes, we cannot think that going after just one criminal will bring order to the world. If you are truly a believer in Kony 2012, then you will raise awareness for human rights violations around the world and make all of their leaders famous.

With regard to Iran it is not only unlikely but also illogical that Israel will do nothing. Since the New Year there has been increased speculation as to Israel’s plan of action, and the growing consensus is that it is now a matter of when and not if Israel will take preemptive action against Iran and its nuclear program. United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta only added fuel to this theory when in Brussels he told Washington Post columnist, David Ignatius, that he believed “there is a strong likelihood that Israel will attack Iran in April, May or June.”While hardly a surprising conclusion, the fact that it came from the United States’ most senior defense official only intensifies the attention surrounding the issue. The international community minus China and Russia seems to back the position of preventing Iran from producing a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately no one except Israel appears to be providing a clear deterrent. What seems to be the only and automated response of late are economic sanctions and verbal condemnations from the West. The problem with this approach is that the Iranian economy will never truly be crippled until the Iranians cease to control the oil that flows through the region.

An even more complicated aspect of this looming showdown is that of the American-Israeli alliance. In what has historically been a close relationship, Israel seems to be counting less on the United States when it comes to dealing with Iran directly. The Netanyahu-Obama dynamic has been particularly awkward. Netenyahu, a former Israeli Special Forces Commando, has made no secret of what he perceives to be Obama’s naiveté on the realities of the Middle East. Their relationship is, perhaps, best exemplified on the occasion last year when, prior to Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, Obama stated his desire for Israel to go back to its pre-1967 borders in what was an ill-advised attempt to try and jump start the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. What ensued was an Oval Office photo-op during which Netanyahu dressed down the President on national television and then proceeded to take his lunch money… Obama looked as if he was back in his first year of law school learning contracts…All eyes will be on both leaders when Netanyahu visits the U.S. in March.

While the West has been trying to deal with Iran by freezing bank accounts and squeezing aid, Israel seems to be doing much of the heavy lifting in trying to actually disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambition. In a recent New York Times Magazine article, Ronen Bergmann writes about the unsolved deaths of Iranian scientists and military officials involved in Iran’s nuclear program in some capacity. It is clear that Israel has little choice when it comes to Iran’s obsession with developing a nuclear weapon. It seems to be lost on many that Iran is a tyrannical, theocratic dictatorship which, when not murdering and disappearing its own citizens, is dedicated to the annihilation of Israel and its inhabitants. This is not news. It wasn’t long ago that the world had to sit through Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calling into question the occurrence of the Holocaust. The very fact that the United Nations, the alleged world beacon of peace, gave this moronic dwarf a platform on which to speak is in itself reprehensible – let alone his ludicrous and sickening denial.

In the likely event that Israel strikes Iran first, there is little doubt that there will be an international outcry of some sort about Israel’s actions. However, before jumping on a bandwagon of self-righteous indignation in condemning Israel’s actions, one should stop and think: What actions would any rational person take to prevent a country, whose primary objective is to eradicate you and your entire race, from obtaining the means to do so?

Trying to make sense of the growing financial crisis in Europe is like attempting to explain the Tim Tebow phenomenon in the United States. It’s simple yet complicated. Europe is entering a period of prolonged uncertainty and potential calamity. However, there has been one country that has provided a small glimmer of hope: Great Britain. Countries like Greece look as if their days are numbered as they grapple with the realization that defaulting on their debt is imminent. The latest bond sales for Italy and Spain have hardly been reassuring in terms of their long-term viability in trying to finance their debt. France is the latest country to join the ever-expanding queue of troubled nations as S&P downgraded their precious Triple-A rating just last month.
Overseeing this potential disaster is Germany and the European Central Bank. Over the last few months both Germany and the ECB have been urged to come up with a silver bullet solution that will stave off the growing crisis. Unfortunately for Germany and the ECB, that “solution” would most likely entail financing at least in part a major European bailout of debt-ridden countries like Greece, in addition to the ECB having to guarantee bondholders’ investments.
Unlike many countries caught up in this insanity, Britain has been able to keep a safe distance from the troubled mainland. The main reason is because they have tackled their deficit and debt problems head on. In the summer of 2010 a new Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition took office after 13 years of Labour Party rule, which left them with the largest peacetime deficit in the country’s history. Upon entering office, Prime Minister David Cameron took action to pull Great Britain back from potential economic and financial ruin. Part of this was an Emergency Spending Review in which the Treasury Department, led by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, instituted massive cuts to government expenditure. These included spending cuts in areas such as welfare, law enforcement and public sector workers’ pensions.
Unfortunately, political gridlock in the legislative branch and ineptitude in the executive branch have put a halt to any real progress in the United States as far as addressing our soaring deficits and debt. Real plans of any radical and fiscal reform offered by politicians like Paul Ryan seemed destined to die in the Democrat-controlled Senate, much less being signed into law by President Obama.
There is a sad irony in the United States that its politicians have to face up to. Right now politicians blame partisan gridlock from Democrats and Republicans for the lack of progress on issues like the deficit and the debt. Great Britain, on the other hand, is governed by a coalition government of two distinctly different political parties, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, whose ideological differences rival that of Democrats and Republicans. However, despite the range of differences on most issues, the two parties came together in the national interest of their country in an attempt to restore the country’s finances. By tackling its deficit and debt immediately, Great Britain has maintained its Triple-A ratings, historic low interest rate, and the real prospect of eliminating its structural budget deficit in the next four years.
The changes being implemented in Great Britain have by no means gone smoothly. Riots last summer and public sector strikes this past fall have illustrated discontent within the public over the government’s course of action. However, in the face of unpopularity, David Cameron has stuck to his guns and challenged his opponents at home and leaders abroad to get serious about the dangers that high debt and deficits invite.
Many have talked about the recent decline in the “Special Relationship” between the United States and Great Britain. While perhaps it is not as strategically important as it once was, it still remains a highly important one symbolically. At the moment Great Britain appears to be waging this war on fiscal responsibility alone as relations with the EU have turned frosty. European leaders met again on January 30th for yet another summit in trying to solve this crisis. The only positive to take away from that meeting was that Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron avoided the second coming of Waterloo.

A more telling sign of the general disapproval towards Gingrich actually comes from his former place of business, the House of Representatives. According to The Hill newspaper, only 10 members of Congress have so far endorsed Newt. A whopping 2 of those served with him while he was Speaker, hardly a ringing endorsement of his leadership.

On the other hand, his primary rival, Mitt Romney, has garnered 73 endorsements from current Congressmen and Senators. Twenty-one of those 73 served with Gingrich in the House. Those who have endorsed Romney over Gingrich include: Dave Camp (Michigan),Chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, Hal Rogers (Kentucky), Chairman of Appropriations, Buck McKeon (California), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Lleana Ross-Lehitinen (Florida), Chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, John Mica (Florida), Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Mike Rogers (Michigan), Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Endorsements don’t win elections but they don’t hurt ( I may have to revisit this position in light of the potential adverse effect Herman Cain’s endorsement of Newt might have with women). Elections are popularity contests, and Gingrich is not popular with rank n’ file Republicans. Whether that qualifies them as “establishment” is probably a bridge too far. Pointing fingers at the “establishment” seems to be nothing more than a cheap ploy by Gingrich and his surrogates to boost Gingrich’s populous appeal.

There is no doubt that Newt has taken rather a beating in recent weeks at the hands of the Romney machine. Normally I would sympathize with Newt, but he always appears to be playing the victim. Gingrich’s reluctance to run a traditional campaign has yet to cost him the nomination, but it certainly hasn’t done him any favors. The best Gingrich can do is receive annual capital injections from Las Vegas Casino owner, Sheldon Adelson, in hopes that he can keep pace with Romney financially.

In the latest primary result of Florida, Newt was taken out to the woodshed by the better organized and better financed candidate, Romney. In defeat, Gingrich was defiant, claiming he had 46 states to go before securing the nomination. This was vintage Gingrich.

I then come back to my original question:  Does anybody like Newt? Probably, but they’re certainly not sprinting to his defense.