Obama's Sneaky Trap

President Obama caused an uproar amongst religious types when Kathleen Sebelius mandated religious based institutions and insurances provide contraception and abortion to their employees. Dick Morris pointed out that President Obama's demonstrative moves have a subtle political purpose.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/contraception-obamas-real-motivation-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

In this case, Religious Conservatives react indignantly against contraceptives and abortion when President Obama mandated that religious institutions must provide them. This knee-jerk reaction causes conservatives to fall into President Obama's trap. He wants to make it appear that Conservatives look crazy by fighting against contraception. Specifically, President Obama wants to bait Santorum, a family values conservative, to join the chorus of Republicans denouncing contraception. On top of that, President Obama wants to redefine abortion as a contraception issue, so that they can win stronger support for their pro-abortion agenda.

Some conservatives have it right by arguing that President Obama is attacking freedom. Why would people who support abortion and contraceptives work for a Catholic organization? Even if someone worked for a religious institution, she could find other ways obtain an abortion and contraception besides going through that institutions insurance. Conservatives need to throw the mandate back in President Obama's face by arguing that people already have choices where they can work and find contraception for themselves to show the American power that President Obama is looking to use government power to legislate his values upon the American people.

Santorum versus Romney, Bye Bye Newt

Newt is the latest Anti-Romney candidate to fall by the wayside. Newt is the idea man that can boldly articulate conservative ideas in a powerful way at one moment and then come from left field and say something wacky at another moment. Plus, Newt has not shown to be much of a leader based on his meager campaign organization and lack of campaign later.
So, now that Newt is dropping in the polls, Senator Santorum will be the latest Ant-Romney to challenge Romney for the nomination. Demographically, Santorum faces a challenge. If Newt stays in the race, the conservative vote will be split between Santorum and Gingrich. Clearly, Romney is campaigning for the moderate Republican vote and doesn't have to battle with another candidate who is primarily targeting that demographic. This gives Romney an advantage of having a consistent base that supports him which means he can focus on picking off enough conservative votes to win the nomination. Santorum will have to fight to garner enough conservative votes from Newt to be competitive, and he has to convince moderate Republican voters that he will be able to convince swing voters that America will rebound by returning to conservative values.
Personally, I agree more with Santorum on the issues. America is dead broke with a 15 trillion debt and President Obama contributed to that number with another 1 trillion dollars in budget deficits. Sanotrum will not be seeking to just merely improve the safety net, but encourage people to leave it behind for a productive job that will strengthen the economy. This will help lower deficits by decreasing the numbers living on entitlements. Besides the safety net issue, there is not too much difference between Romeny and Santorum on the issues. Romney, like President Bush, will work to make Federal Government more efficiently by integrating Conservative ideas. Santorum would rather cut out the Federal Government and encourage people to live out the American dream.
Even though I like Senator Santorum's religious conservatism, I believe Romney is a better leader. Governor Romney resurrected failing organizations and will be more efficient in garnering Democratic support to implement his ideas. For the most part, Governor Romney managed to improve the State of Massachusetts by implementing some conservative ideas in a blue state. Independent voters want to find a candidate that bridge the divide in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. Personally, I don't know what it means to find a compromise between two wildly different approaches to governing the country. Either way, I will be happy with Romney or Santorum winning the nomination.

Romney won the mud ball war

People may say that they hate it when politicians engage in mudslinging, but when a politician slings better mud than the other people take notice. Romney's dirt clods are managed to stick to Newt, while Newt seems to hit himself with his own mud. Newt shined when he articulated his bold and positive message, but when Romney started the attack ads in Iowa, Newt became unglued and started to fire the mud back (1). After Florida, Romney became a stronger candidate by overcoming Newt’s attacks, while Newt sunk under his own attacks. People can’t take negative campaigning in large doses because it starts to look like reality T.V. where conflict drives the product and that leaves a bitter and ugly feeling amongst the viewers. Now that Romney is the clear frontrunner, he must move towards a positive campaign to unite the party, and he must go after President Obama because Newt is not the sitting weakened President (2).

Newt demonstrated how to throw a bad mud ball. First, a poorly thrown mud ball does not stick. Newt attacked Romney for being a Massachusetts liberal and that he is not a true conservative. That tactic did not work in Florida because even though Newt won the staunch conservative vote; Romney won the moderate voters plus enough Conservative votes to win the primary (3). Picking the wrong type of mud ball means it will blow up in your face. Newt attacked Romney for being the wealthy ruthless capitalist who gained wealth from taking over bad companies, firing workers and selling the companies for profit. Newt sounded like a liberal by going after Romney’s business record which does not work in a REPUBLICAN primary campaign when the voters like a good business man. Ultimately, Romney will be better prepared for the general election because President Obama will throw the same kind of mud. At first Romney took a few mud balls because Newt took him off guard, but the last two Florida debates demonstrated that Romney caught Newt's mud balls and threw it back in his face.

Romney showed how to throw good mud balls. Romney has a decisive edge in having a bigger war chest, so he could throw a lot of mud balls. On top of that, Romney found an ally that threw a sticky goopy mud ball that stuck. One of Newt's wives slung a few mud clods and revealed that Newt wanted to be husband with benefits and asked for an open marriage. The Floridian women did not like Newt's modern interpretation of marriage and voted overwhelmingly for Romney 52% to 38% according to Fox exit polls (3).

After the Florida mud ball war, conservative talk show hosts, political consultants and Republican voters hope that Newt and Mitt focus more on a positive message because a prolonged mud ball war does not inspire people to vote for a candidate when the candidate is constantly throwing mud balls. People need a reason to vote for someone instead of a million reasons to vote against a candidate.

Notes/Cited Sources

1. http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/how-mitt-suckered-newt/

Dick Morris is an effective political consultant and also has great insights into negative campaigning. He talks about how Romney wanted to sucker newt into a mudslinging contest.

2. http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/stop-the-negatives-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

3. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/florida-primary-jan-31/exit-polls)