Obama's Father Had Several Wives

There have been lots of articles about Romney's faith, and in particular, about the fact that Mormons used to have more than one wife. These articles typically mention Mitt Romney's great-grandfather, who, born, in 1846, eventually had five wives. But enough talk about people born pre-civil war, when slavery was also legal. Let's talk about things that happened during the past 50 years, shall we?

How many wives did Barack Obama's father have? Well, we know he fathered 8 children from four different women, but he only married three times, as he died from a drunk driving accident before his fourth marriage. Why is it that so few news outlets give Obama a pass here? Barack Obama's cousin might have the answer:

You have to remember that his father was an African and in Africa, polygamy is part of life.

Ok - there you have it.

Newt's Attack on Romney for Owning a Fund Which Owns Fannie

This one is strange. But I have to give credit to Newt for trying this gimmick. He's attacking Romney for having a mutual fund which owns some Fannie and Freddie.

Whether or not Romney knew about it is a moot point. These are government-backed bonds which half of America own. By the same token, one could attack Romney for owning a house whereby Fannie eventually purchased his mortgage. Maybe some people will believe that this is equivalent to consulting or lobbying for them, and I have no doubt that Obama will piggy-back on Newt's attack against Romney.

I think in recent days that the GOP establishment has come out of the woodwork to gang up on Gingrich (which is similar to what happened to Romney in 2008). I don't like these games. But at the same time, I really have to wonder what on earth Gingrich is thinking when he attacks Romney for something like this. Doesn't make sense.

Warming Over; Ice Age Worries Again?

Always fascinating to look at scientific charts about the earth's climate. As expected, there has been no warming in 15 years and many scientists are more concerned about a new mini-ice age coming.

Theo Epstein Snubbed GW Bush in 2007

Everyone in Boston, especially the media, and even Cory Schneider, Vancouver's back-up goalie (formerly BC guy) have come out and slammed Tim Thomas for not meeting with Obama. Schneider's quote was pretty funny, and he seems to be comparing Obama with the Pope (I suspect that Schneider might have majored in either political science or religion). His quote was:

I'm not that religious but if I had the chance to meet the Pope, it'd be pretty cool... I don't believe in everything the Catholic church does, but I'd still show up to the Vatican and say Hi to the Pope.

Anyway, Howie Carr points out that in 2007 Theo Epstein snubbed George W. Bush when the Red Sox won the World Series and the rest of the team visited the White House. Did anyone report it? Did anyone care? Or is the simple answer that there is a double standard for democrats and republicans? My guess is Cory didn't care back in 2007.

Romney Advisor: We Won't Repeal Obamacare

Maybe this is why Norm Coleman lost to Al Franken a few years ago in the Minnesota Senate Race. He said yesterday that Obamacare will not be repealed, but only tweaked.

It's also why people are skeptical of Romney. If Obamacare is here to stay, Romney should say that and let GOP voters decide if that's what they want in a candidate. If not, maybe he needs to shake up his Republican establishment team.

No Wonder Buffett's Secretary Pays So Much in Taxes...

Forbes speculates that based on her tax rates, Warren Buffett's secretary Debbie Bosanek makes between $200K and $500K per year.

Without more details, it's hard to know exactly what she is paid. But this would make sense - she is doing well but is hardly in the billionaire's club, where she could shield her income in tax-free trusts like her boss.

Again, if Warren, Obama and other big rich liberals are so disappointed, they are more than welcome to write checks to the U.S. Treasury every year...

What Were Newt's Ethics Violations Anyway?

One thing I hear a lot is Newt Gingrich and "ethics violations," although I had no idea specifically what the investigations were all about. Byron York has a very good piece that walks us through the history of the matter and it's pretty clear that this whole issue is frankly an absurd non-issue.

In short, when he was teaching in Georgia during the 90s, he taught a class called "Renewing American Civilization," which was funded in part by a non-profit (tax exempt) organization. For several years, Newt's Democrat opponents investigated whether the class was political and therefore, should not be funded by a tax-exempt organization. Newt settled the matter by paying a fine. The IRS later concluded there was no wrongdoing.

Romney can criticize Newt for a bunch of things, but this one is absurd.

Obama vs. Reagan Economy

The WSJ has an excellent summary of Obama's state of the union - it was an empty, false campaign speech.

Normally a President at the start of his fourth year would be running on his record, accentuating the legislation he's passed. Mr. Obama can't do that with any specificity because the economic recovery has been so weak and the legislation he has passed is so unpopular. So last night he took credit for the shale gas revolution he had nothing to do with and proposed new policies to "spread the wealth around," as he famously told Joe the Plumber in 2008 before he took the words back. We thought he meant it then, and now he's admitting it.

...The President inherited a deep recession, but in political terms that should have been a blessing. History shows that the deeper the recession, the sharper the recovery, and Mr. Obama was poised to take credit for the economy's natural recuperative powers. Instead, we've had the weakest recovery since the Great Depression and stubbornly high joblessness.

The nearby chart compares rates of quarterly growth during the Reagan and Obama economic recoveries. The comparison is apt because both recoveries followed deep recessions in which the jobless rate reached more than 10%. Once the Reagan recovery got cooking, in 1983, growth stayed above 5% for 18 months and never fell below 3.3% for 13 consecutive quarters.

In the Obama recovery, growth has never exceeded 4% in any quarter and fell off markedly in mid-2010 through the third quarter of 2011. For the first nine months of 2011, growth averaged less than 1.2%. The economy finally picked up again in the fourth quarter, but still at a rate that is subpar for a recovery that long ago should have become robust and durable.

The Pelosi Congress also passed ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, cash for clunkers, the housing tax credit, and much more. The only Obama priority it didn't pass was cap-and-trade, which was killed by Senate Democrats.

Mr. Obama's regulators also currently have some 149 major rules underway, which are those that cost more than $100 million. The 112th Congress hasn't been able to kill a single major rule. The most it has been able to do is extend the Bush tax rates—which helped the economy by avoiding a tax shock—and slow the rate of increase in federal spending. This President has been "obstructed" less than anyone since LBJ.

Obstruction? Hardly. Big-time failure? Yup.

Apple Quarterly Profit: $13 Billion

After Apple's record net income of $13 billion for Q1, which I believe is the largest quarterly profit by any company in history, I can't help but wonder where all the calls are for a "windfall profits" tax, the way they do with oil companies?

How Much Do Obama and Clintons Pay in Taxes?

I wouldn't expect the media to ever focus on this, so I'll bring it up:

Obama paid 23% tax rate last year. Romney's will be 15%. Of course Obama gets more in salary (taxed at a higher rate) and Romney has more investment income (lower rate) and more charitable contributions. As a side note, Obama's charitable contributions were pretty miserly - practically nil before he decided to run for president. (Again, don't expect the media to make any comparisons with Romney here).

The Clinton's from 1992 to 1999 paid a 19.8% tax rate. I don't ever remember anyone asking, and I don't remember anyone caring. Seems to be an issue now that Romney is running.

Tim Thomas Snubs Obama; Fed Gov't "Out of Control"

The Boston Bruins were at the White House today celebrating their Stanley Cup victory. Everyone except MVP goalie Tim Thomas. Thomas protested Obama due to the out-of-control federal government. From his Facebook page, via Hotair:

“I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT”

Ok, so it's not about parties, but come on - which party is more responsible for threatening the rights, liberties and property of the people? This was his attempt at being non-partisan to his liberal fans. Coming from a Stanley Cup MVP, this is quite a statement.

Can Gingrich Beat Obama?

While I have held the view for some time that almost any Republican nominated would have no problem beating Barack Obama in 2012 (in a two-man race), I do have some doubts about Newt Gingrich. Here are my reasons for doubting him:

1. His rants against capitalism and free markets may have helped him against Romney during this past week, but against Obama, they would be neutralized. What is the difference between the two of them on this issue? What helped him this week would likely be used against him against Obama.

2. It's pretty hard for Newt to play the Washington outsider. After all, his whole life has been about Washington politics: he was in the House for twenty years or so, and even when he left, he worked as a lobbyist, or a quasi-lobbyist, or a consultant, or whatever, designed to help companies deal with Washington.

3. While Newt is a great debater, I would offer caution to those who believe he would run circles around the President. I do agree that whether it be Newt, Romney, or Paul, all three could school Obama pretty easily, but how many debates will Obama actually agree to? Two maybe? And within these debates, who usually moderates them? Ummm....95% of the time, they are people who want Obama to win. So while Newt is a good talker, I am not so sure he will come off as well in a debate with Obama.

4. Lastly, and possibly most importantly... will women vote for Newt? I have no idea whether the allegations his ex-wife made are true or false. He said she said. But right now, the story is out there, and even if only a minority of people believe it to be true, this could be quite damaging. I personally believe that the fact that he has been married three times means he won't get a lot of women support. One could easily argue, didn't Bill Clinton womanize? And this didn't hurt him. Ok. Right, although maybe it would have in 2000...but it's also different, and the media holds the two parties to different standards.

I have my doubts about Newt, but before we get too carried away, let's see what happens in Florida.

Gingrich Win Embarrasses Media

A lot of people were surprised that Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary on Saturday. I was too. Especially given that the media released an interview with his second wife just the day before talking about his alleged desire for an "open marriage." But looking back at this, it is obvious that of course this helped him. As the media pounded him on his personal life (of course it may be true, but it's still just an allegation), most people see this as the powerful media, once again, trying to influence the elections, and trying to damage and even ruin certain candidates.

I agree with Glenn Beck on this one. The win was all about ABM - Anybody But the Media! And South Carolinians wanted to show they would not only not be swayed by the media, but if anything, they would rise up against it.

Schools Rejecting Michelle O's Healthy Lunch Options

It was supposed to be utopia. Michelle Obama encouraged schools to roll out a healthy menu that she wouldn't be caught dead eating and when they roll it out, everyone will eat it and magically become healthier. Unfortunately, something happened on the way to Veggieville in LA and other cities - the kids just reacted by throwing the lunches in the trash en masse. Who would have guessed that central planning by a nanny state doesn't work?

Newt, Ex-Wives and Obama

It is getting interesting indeed. After Newt dominated the last debate, his ratings have skyrocketed and is now actually ahead of Romney in the latest Rasmussen poll. To ABC, this is apparently the perfect time to unleash its "Newt is morally bankrupt, according to his ex-wife" story.

I think the story will probably have its desired effect of taking down Newt - just the latest in the media's desire to destroy every GOP candidate, one by one. The interesting thing is that this seems to be the most successful tactic for Obama. I know that Obama himself is not releasing the story, but isn't it a bit interesting that his supporters (media, unions, etc.) have helped him in this arena more than once. Take for example his Senate race in Chicago. Obama was losing to his primary opponent by a huge margin just prior to the election. Then his opponent's sealed divorce records mysteriously come out and Obama wins the nomination. Then he goes up against GOP candidate Jack Ryan and the same exact thing happens. And now Newt. Obama must be thanking Allah for divorces.

Obama's Food Stamp Boom

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. The WSJ highlights the massive boom in food stamp participation under Obama. This is due not only to the recession, but also new programs pushed by Pelosi and Obama designed to get people onto the system.

Who says Obama is not achieving his goals of growing the Democrat base for years to come?

Anyone Know Anything About Obama's Career?

Just thinking about this as Romney gets dragged through the mud for having a successful career at Bain. We also know about Newt's jobs as a consultant after he left Congress, and I've just read something about how he "had big plans to become college president" when he was just a lowly professor. Imagine that! I guy with ambition and now he wants to run for President.

Anyway, this got me to thinking. Do we know anything about Obama's pre-governmental career? Strikes me as odd that a couple of presidential contenders are getting slammed on a daily basis for what they did outside of office. Why hasn't Obama been equally criticized? And in fact, what do we really know about this supposedly "transparent" president (his words). I submit that we know very little, except that he worked for groups like ACORN, who helped inner city voters vote lots of times.

Is there a reason that we don't know more about Obama's career? Has the mainstream media avoided covering it for some reason? Maybe he really did nothing very substantial, and that's why? My guess is that many of his organizations are/were pretty activist, and he may not have accomplished much. My best guess is also that what he did accomplish may have been pretty unflattering to most people. Lastly, since the MSM wants him to win, it is likely they will not delve into the President's past unless it makes him look good. And since they haven't delved, what does that tell us?

Anyone else find it interesting that the media refuse to cover anything about Obama's previous work experience while almost every Republican candidate is under the microscope?

What About Obama's Tax Returns?

I have no doubts that the media will make a big deal out of Romney's tax returns. First of all, he's been very successful and has made a good deal of money, so likely he will be slammed by the media. Additionally, because his overall income rate, consisting of mostly dividends and interest, is likely to be closer to 15%, so my guess is that the media will discriminate against him here as well.

But will the media look into depth into Barack Obama's Tax Returns as well - most notably charitable giving, where Obama gave almost nothing for many years. Only when he thought he might run for President did he start giving close to the American average. I doubt we'll hear much about this though.

Sean Bielat is Running

I don't think it's been officially announced, but it looks like Sean Bielat will be running for Congress in Massachusetts to replace the retiring Barney Frank. Whether it will be easier or harder this time around is debatable. He doesn't have to face a multi-decade incumbent, but my guess is that multi-decade incumbents are on the chopping block in 2012 and maybe Frank feared losing and that's why he retired. At any rate, it looks like Bielat might be running against a Kennedy - Joseph III. Not sure of Kennedy's qualifications per se, except he has a strong name for office in Massachusetts. Also, I do not know much about what Kennedy stands for, but if he is anything similar to his uncles and great uncles, it will likely be a contest between big government policies and free market policies from Bielat.

Truth Behind Ron Paul's NH Supporters

From Rush Limbaugh, who was reading some Rasmussen poll numbers.

But Ron Paul, the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is... like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they're voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I've gotta double confirm. It's ostensibly Rasmussen and we're double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I've been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they'd vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman's voters and most of Paul's voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

So, 54% of Ron Paul supporters would rather have Obama or a third party than vote GOP. And we're supposed to believe he has significant conservative support?

Newt Panicking

What has happened to Newt Gingrich over the past three weeks? After a number of impressive debates where Gingrich proved to be a formidable force with some interesting ideas, he seems to have lost it very quickly. I think if he just maintained a steady hand and prepared himself for the long marathon, he would have been fine. Unfortunately his strategy has gone awry. The latest attacks on Romney's time at Bain Capital are working against Newt. Every time he gives Romney an opportunity to talk about how successful he was at Bain, and how much of a leader he was, that's a gift to Romney. (I hope Obama takes the same path).

Newt had one bad week in Iowa as three or four different Republicans chose to attack him as he had gained new front-runner status. And I believe what people brought up was legitimate - what was his relationship with Fannie and Freddie? But instead of defending himself vigorously, he is now choosing to attack Romney for his private equity career. Is he serious? There are lots of issues to criticize Romney for, but Bain Capital isn't one of them.

Romney founded Bain, and then invested in companies, some on the verge of bankruptcy, and others not. Some companies had to be restructured, and others needed funding to grow. Anyone who knows anything about business understands this is how it works. At the end of the day, Romney grew Bain into a respectable company, hired lots of people, and provided his investors with great investment returns. In short, he did a great job.

But Gingrich saw an opening to attack Romney, and noticed that the media was only to willing to join in on the fun, but now Gingrich is looking more like an out-of-touch democrat. I am now wondering myself what Gingrich really stands for and if he really understands business. Is he the guy who will say anything to be elected? Now I hear about Gingrich backers releasing a new film about Romney, and after reading about it, it sounds like they take a lot of his quotes mid-sentence, and they cherry-pick a couple of deals gone bad, while not mentioning good ones. This smells of desperation to me.

I don't see this race being over, but it might be for Gingrich. If he continues with this Obama-like nonsense for much longer, he will be done.

Iowa and NH Down - And it's Already Over??

After two somewhat liberal states voted in primaries, with up to an estimated 50% of votes coming from Democrats in New Hampshire, the media is telling us it's already over. Maybe it is - maybe Romney is already the chosen candidate.

But my problem is - why do the first two states that are not even close to a representative GOP sample - get an unfair proportional share of deciding who the GOP candidate is? This is why we always end up with the Doles, the McCains and the like. Yes, Reagan was the GOP candidate back in 1980, which I believe is the last time a conservative candidate was selected. It was also a very different and much more conservative New Hampshire back then.

So it goes. We are only two states in and already, the conservative choices for the nomination seem to be out of contention. I know the GOP establishment is generally much more liberal than the GOP electorate, so they love having Iowa and New Hampshire up first. But until this problem gets fixed, I believe that the GOP will continue picking the least attractive and most liberal candidate. I'm not intending to bash Romney - he has a lot of good qualities, but there's a reason why he can't get more than a 1/3 of the GOP vote.

Obamanomics Invades the Fed

To date, I've generally thought Ben Bernanke has done an admirable job in trying to keep the economy from regressing in the face of disastrous Obamanomics policies. But now, as the WSJ explains, the Fed is made up more of Obama's believers, and they seem to be more and more another appendage of the Obama administration, putting its independence at stake.

This extraordinary political intrusion came in the form of a 26-page paper that the Fed sent to Capitol Hill last Wednesday, without invitation, graciously offering what Chairman Ben Bernanke called a "framework" for "thinking about certain issues and tradeoffs." He was underselling his document. The paper is a clear attempt to provide intellectual cover for politicians to spend more taxpayer money to support housing prices.

In case there was any doubt on this point, New York Fed President William Dudley put them to rest Friday when he called specifically for bridge loans for jobless borrowers, more government-assisted refinancings, a new program for principal reductions for underwater borrowers, and floated the possibility of getting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the rental housing business. Your average HUD secretary wouldn't dare go this far.

...The Fed also suggests having Fan and Fred weaken their standards for loan modifications and expand an existing refinancing program to include private-insurance-backed mortgages participate. But weak lending standards is part of what created the subprime mortgage mess. No wonder the mortgage bankers, the homebuilders and the rest of the housing lobby greeted the Fed's white paper with enthusiasm. They'd love to see Fannie and Freddie more politically and economically entrenched so reformers can't slowly reduce their market dominance.

...Beyond the policy errors, the larger issue is the political independence of the Fed itself. Its Board of Governors is now dominated by Obama appointees who share the interventionist designs of their colleagues in the White House. Mr. Dudley is a White House and Treasury man. Mr. Bernanke may feel surrounded, but we'd have thought he'd have more respect for the integrity of his institution.

The Fed sure is becoming more generous with our money.

Romney Getting Slammed for Being Successful?

I don't get it. Bain Capital is one of the premier global private equity shops, and considered to be one of the most successful. Everything can be debated and since Bain is a privately held company, I don't have the figures. That said, most people in the industry consider Bain to be a well-managed company, a highly profitable company, and a highly desirable company to work for for most graduates.

What I'm surprised about are the attacks he's been getting from people like Gingrich and Santorum. Santorum doesn't think that being a leader of a company like Bain make him well-suited to be President of the US. Gingrich argues over job creation. Ok it's true, private equity guys, are sometimes dealing with over-levered or problem-companies, so sometimes they have to cut. At the same time, they realize that they can only maximize their value by growing it, so this is absolutely essential. I'm wondering if people understand this.

I for one, believe that while real work experience might not be required of a President, but I do I do believe it matters - and it matters a lot. Why? Because most people work! And if you're a CEO or a founder of a company, for that company to be successful, you need to be able to relate to working people. One only has to look at the long line of people trying to get a job at Bain to realize that they must be doing something right!

I'm not sure that Gingrich or Santorum brings much in terms of real work experience to the table. I respect their opinions, but I'm surprised at these attacks on his business career. Frankly, I'd expect this from someone like Barack Obama, who never worked a nine-to-five-job in his life.

Richard Cordray Has Absolutely Zero Authority

Perhaps Obama should have noticed this small provision in the Dodd-Frank bill before he made a "recess appointment" of Cordray even though the Senate is not in recess.

But clear beyond the slightest doubt is the language of the statute (itself unconstitutional on any number of grounds not relevant here). As my colleague Mark Calabria wrote yesterday, “authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is ‘confirmed by the Senate.’” A recess appointment, even if it were constitutional, is not a Senate confirmation. There is simply no wiggle room in that language that gives Cordray any authority, as litigation will soon make plain.

Bummer.

Obama's Austerity Plan: Pentagon Cuts Only

Obama never liked a spending cut he despised...that is, except when it comes to the military. He seems to be all too willing to slash American military might but little else.

When Obama Criticizes Congress, Remember This

In recent months, Obama realizes that his policies have not gone well (to say it politely). The economy is horrible despite the President's embrace of "credit card" economics, where he just ratchets up the debt every year. He knows that with the economy in a disastrous state, he has to resort to blame as his only hope of being re-elected. And he hopes that maybe, just maybe, Americans will buy his argument and re-elect him for another four years. It's doubtful that Americans will trust Obama again, and he has seemingly lost all credibility with most in the country, but if he wants to be re-elected, he knows he has to come up with a grand plan.

How exactly will he do this? His first step is to BLAME CONGRESS! As everyone knows, the Congress is made up of two branches, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The democratic party controlled both branches of congress during Obama's first two years, and as well as the two years prior to Obama's presidency - and they controlled both branches in pretty dominant fashion, some would say super-majorities. Only during the past eleven months has the democratic party lost control of the House, while they still retain the Senate. To be honest, Congress is an easy target and I agree that Congress has been a disaster not only over the past three years, but also over the past five years. And who has held the power during this time frame?

DEMOCRATS! DEMOCRATS! DEMOCRATS!

The pure math is this: the democratic party has been in control for 83.3% of the time since Obama has been president, and 90% of the time over the past 5 years. Even Obama himself was a member of Congress three years ago!

So when he criticizes Congress, and he calls them a "do-nothing congress" remember who's been in power over the past three years and five years.

Constitutional Crisis: Obama Declares War on Congress...Again

It's funny how the checks and balances are the most important thing in the world when Democrats are in the minority and how destroying the delicate balance would be tantamount to creating a constitutional crisis.

Now that Obama's in charge, circumventing and ignoring Congress' rules are just par for the course. His recess appointment of Richard Cordray as czar of the Financial Destruction Agency should bring outrage among the GOP and they should cut off all funds to the agency immediately, or perhaps call in Cordray to testify every day for the next year. To hell with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, this is apparently the war that Obama wants.

Will Obama Break Rules Again and Appoint CFPB Czar?

Liberals are urging Obama to break the rules again by ignoring precedent and appointing Richard Cordray as the new Elizabeth Warren - the head financial bureaucrat, to destroy the financial industry. Why would anyone think Obama won't break the rules? He did so when he passed Obamacare through the budget reconciliation process rather than face a filibuster, he ignored federal judge rulings on drilling and Obamacare, and the list goes on and on.

The question is - what will the GOP do if he so flagrantly violates the rules?

Iowa Analysis

If you're like me, then you probably believe most of the post Iowa caucus analysis is pure crap. (CNN, called Obama the big winner..... no surprises there, and that is why they are running dead last in the cable ratings). I tuned into Fox for a little while, and the commentators spent about 80% of the time talking about Santorum. They made a couple of interesting comments about Mitt Romney, saying "TECHNICALLY he won... I guess," and "the REAL winner was Rick Santorum." OK - I get what they're saying - Santorum had a pretty good showing. But still, Romney did accumulate more votes than Santorum, and interestingly, he hardly even spent any time in Iowa. Santorum on the other hand, spent just about the entire past 4 months visiting every town in Iowa. I suppose he's gotten some recognition, but i still sense a pretty big anti-Romney bias out there.

To me it's interesting. Romney, being the supposed front-runner, has withstood the attacks from day one. Others have come and gone - whether it was Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now maybe Santorum. Some on Fox said Romney benefited from all the negative attacks on Gingrich. This is probably true, but at the same time, Romney has been the subject of attacks from the beginning, and he's the only one to have stayed the course.

By the way, I believe the race if far from over. More debates are on the way, and Gingrich and Paul are excellent debaters, and very intelligent, and Santorum will likely get some more questions his way. Additionally, this year, there are fewer winner take all states, so the race could drag on for some time.

My point is that Romney should be given an ounce of credit this time.

Iowa Caucuses: Do They Matter?

Based on roughly half of the votes being counted in the Iowa Caucuses, it appears that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney will be in the first and second positions with Paul in a close third. Regardless, does it really matter? After all, Iowa has a population of approximately 3 million people. Let's assume conservatively that only 2 million are voting age. Only about 100,000 votes are expected in the caucuses, which means that 1/2 of a percent of the voting population will decide the fate of the GOP candidate. It doesn't take much to skew the results with a few thousand votes (and some might be Democrats as well). So why is the media in such a frenzy? The same thing will be true of New Hampshire. If someone wins both Iowa and NH, the media will declare that person the winner, which I think is absurd.