Romney And Republican 'Establishment' Responsible For Destroying GOP Enthusiasm Gap

By Susan Duclos

Back in December USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll showed a 61 to 47 percent enthusiasm gaps favoring Republicans over Democrats.

By the New Hampshire primary, after the Republican establishment attempted to push for the "Romney is inevitable meme," actual Republican turnout for the primaries had dropped 16 percent from the 2008 figures.

When you eliminate independents and Democrats from the 2008 equation, actual registered Republicans made up 61 percent of the roughly 239,000 votes cast in the GOP primary, putting the turnout among Republicans at around 145,790. But last night, actual Republicans only comprised 49 percent of the electorate, according to exits. Even if we round up the final 2012 turnout number to 250,000, which would be slightly higher than current projections, that would only leave actual Republican turnout at 122,500, which would represent a 16 percent drop.

Then Newt Gingrich ran right over Mitt Romney in the South Carolina primary, winning with a 12 percent lead and the Republican establishment started pushing harder and harder against Newt Gingrich and for Mitt Romney.

Pew Research on January 30, 2012, released a report that shows in less than a month, from early January to the end of January, GOP voters rating the field fair or poor rose by 8 percentage points to 52 percent from 44 percent.

Those giving a positive excellent or good ratings to the GOP field dropped from 51 percent to 46 percent.

Then came Florida where Mitt Romney beat Newt Gingrich by 14 percent, but crunching the numbers showed a 14 percent drop from the 2008 figures despite an increase of 25,000 registered Republicans in Florida from four years ago, according to Reuters.

Furthermore:

"They are voting with their feet and simply not showing up," said Christopher Mann, a political science professor at the University of Miami.

Romney won 46 percent of the vote to closest rival Newt Gingrich's 32 percent in Tuesday's primary election.

But Florida Republicans were hardly swept off their feet by the former Massachusetts governor. In exit polls, four in 10 said they were not enthusiastic about their choice of candidates, according to exit polls.

Then we see that all the negative ads seem to be turning voters off as well.

As Southwest Florida heads to the polls, Many say they're frustrated with the barrage of attack ads.

They are direct and at times even back handed.

Romney spent $15 million on radio and TV spots in Florida. Gingrich over $3 million. Voters claim it's distracting them from what's important, hearing the candidates pitch for creating jobs and rejuvenating the economy.

So, lets take a look at where, when and who started with the negative ads.

Iowa, first caucus state, via New York Times:

A pro-Romney “super PAC” that has spent $2.85 million laying waste to Mr. Gingrich in Iowa plans close to $1 million worth of critical ads in Florida and South Carolina — the state Mr. Gingrich identifies as his “firewall,” where he still has a lead.

The concern surfaced in a recent conference call of South Carolina campaign leaders. “It’s something we’re concerned about,” said James Epley, the chairman for Beaufort County. “It’s made us more focused because we’ll have a real fight on our hands.”

The anti-Gingrich attack in Iowa is inescapable: 45 percent of political ads on television during December have been attacks on Mr. Gingrich, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

Many are the work of Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mr. Romney, whose latest ad, “Whoops,” shows Mr. Gingrich admitting he erred in past positions he took on health care and global warming. Earlier attacks by the group hammered him for a consulting deal with Freddie Mac and accused him of “too much baggage.”

Jason Geary, the Gingrich campaign chairman in Woodbury County, said, “I’m on the phone trying to gain support” daily for Mr. Gingrich. He said people were telling him they wanted the candidate to fight fire with fire. “They wish for it,” he added.

The closest Mr. Gingrich has come to responding in kind on the airwaves has been an ad in which he referred to opponents in the mildest of terms, without naming anyone. “Others seem to be more focused on attacks rather than moving the country forward,” he said.

A super PAC that supports Mr. Gingrich, Winning Our Future, has an ad that takes a shot at Mr. Romney as the choice of the “liberal Republican establishment,” but it does not name him and mostly praises Mr. Gingrich as “a principled conservative.”

The group, run by former Gingrich aides, seems constrained by his vow to tell supporters not to contribute to any group that runs attack ads on his behalf.

That same article opines on how senior aides and grass-roots Gingrich supporters insisted that Gingrich had to fight fire with fire.

By the time the candidates hit South Carolina when Gingrich had started to punch back, Gingrich was still outspent by Romney and pro-Romney SuperPACS by 2 to 1, the majority of which were negative ads, but, Romney was trying to rewrite history by stating "I needed to make sure that instead of being outgunned in terms of attacks, that I responded aggressively — and hopefully that will have served me well here", then he added "You know, in South Carolina we were vastly outspent with negative ads attacking me and we stood back and spoke about President Obama and suffered the consequence of that."

But the truth is that Romney outspent Gingrich about 2-1 in South Carolina, and over 4-1 in here the Sunshine State. Romney has also deployed an army of surrogates to bombard Gingrich with negative soundbites and statements. And Gingrich unilaterally withheld from running negative ads in Iowa, and saw his poll numbers collapse in the state amid millions of dollars in attacks from a pro-Romney Super PAC.

One paragraph from LA Times shows a contrast that pro-Romney forces cannot spin.

Last month, Republican strategists pointed to small increases in turnout for the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and the big jump in South Carolina as evidence that their voters were getting fired up about the campaign to come. Now, the big drop in Florida turnout has caused some to suggest that Romney has failed to excite voters.

Emphasis mine

(Note- The increase in Iowa was due to the participation of Independents and Democrats in the GOP caucus)

What was the difference between South Carolina and Florida? That is right, Gingrich won South Carolina and Romney won Florida.

Romney's over abundance of negativity and the Republican establishments interference because they want to choose who will be the Republican nominee instead of allowing voters to decide for themselves, has destroyed whatever enthusiasm Republicans had for the 2012 elections.

"I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, 'Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever," said Ken Goldstein, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, in an interview with CNN. "Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever." (Source)

The Bottom Line

Republican turnout was down in the states which Romney won and Republican turnout was up in the state Gingrich won.

Romney does not excite conservatives. While many will coalesce behind him if he wins enough delegates to become the Republican nominee, there is another segment that think he is no better than Obama and will not bother voting at all, handing Obama a win for reelection.

*Golf Clap* to the Republican establishment and Mitt Romney for turning what should have been an easy win into a possible defeat.

.

Conservatives Are Going to Need A Fighter To Battle Obama- Newt Has Proven He Is A Fighter

By Susan Duclos


Browsing through Memeorandum, naturally there is article after article and discussions galore about how Mitt Romneyy, who was double digits ahead of Newt Gingrich earlier in the week, ended up losing the South Carolina primary to Gingrich by over 12 percentage points. The defeat was so sound that the projected winner, Gingrich, was announced by all major networks within minutes of the polls closing.

According to CBS's county by county page Gingrich took 43 of 46 counties in South Carolina. New York Times has some data on the exit polls and it is telling that Gingrich took the lead of those very conservative or somewhat conservative and Mitt took a three percentage point lead over Gingrich from those self identified as "moderate to liberal."

The Morning After Analysis

In 2008 I simply couldn't get behind Mitt Romney and when asked why, all I could articulate was that "there is something about him" I just couldn't stand. Horrible articulation I know, but he rubs me wrong and always has. Then this morning, while slogging through piece after piece of the morning after the primary analysis, I ran across a piece by Byron York over at The Washington Examiner, which quoted a former Huntsman supporter that backed Gingrich after Huntsman dropped out of the race.

Why? Even after four years of trying, Campbell can't quite accept Romney's changes of position on abortion and other issues. But beyond that, Campbell explained, there was something about Romney that he, like a lot of other South Carolinians, just couldn't live with. "[Voters] can't quite get that comfort level with him," Campbell said. "They don't really know quite where he really is coming from. It's an intangible."

Another legendary South Carolina political name, Attorney General Henry McMaster, was also aligned with Huntsman until Monday, and he too chose Gingrich instead of Romney. McMaster cited Gingrich's performance in the two South Carolina debates as a prime factor in his decision, but he also expressed concern over Romney's problem engaging voters. "I don't know why," McMaster said Saturday night. "I can't explain it, but there's a little bit of a connection problem."

Exactly.

As a voter I can't connect with Romney. I couldn't imagine myself sitting down with him and being comfortable. I couldn't imagine having a conversation with him because he is too busy talking at people instead of seeming to talk to them.

Here is another thing, and while it seems simplistic, it is an important factor in how I see candidates. I think of Mitt Romney as "Romney", I think of Newt Gingrich as "Newt."

That is something Newt has in common with Ron Paul. Paul's supporters feel connected to him which is why I think they are so loyal to him. While not a Ron Paul supporter myself, it is easy to see why they are so loyal to him.

York's piece also highlighted another comparison that resonates:

Romney stages perfect events. For example, on the eve of the primary, Romney's rally in North Charleston was perfect from a production point of view: stage just right, big flags, big Romney signs, smooth introductions from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, all topped off by a showy entrance by Romney, who arrived in his big campaign bus that drove right into the room.

It was perfect in every sense but engaging with the voters. Romney's stump speech was a clipped -- some would say dumbed down -- list of generalities, concluding with this: "I love this land, I love its Constitution, I revere its founders, I will restore those principles, I will get America back to work, and I'll make sure that we remain the shining city on the hill." Romney offered his supporters very little to chew on. In this primary race, voters are hungry for substance, and Romney didn't give them much.

Gingrich's last event before the voting, a couple of hours later, was a rally on the hangar deck of the USS Yorktown, a World War II aircraft carrier that is now a floating museum across the bay from Charleston. It was a most un-perfect affair. To begin with, it just so happened that dozens of Cub Scouts were having an overnight on the Yorktown at the same time as Gingrich and the press showed up for the rally. Their presence contributed to an air of happy chaos on board, and Gingrich was delighted to invite a few scouts on stage with him at the beginning of his speech. When Gingrich got to the substance of his remarks, he was wandering, expansive, and detailed, where Romney had been brief and canned. But Gingrich kept the crowd with him the whole way, and in the end had engaged his audience more than Romney could have hoped for. Gingrich respected them enough to discuss issues with them seriously.

I repeat my comment from earlier... exactly.

Romney always appears to be trying too hard to be "perfect." No one is perfect. Romney expends too much energy attempting to appear "presidential." Perhaps he should spend a little more energy on attempting to appear human.

In no way, shape, or form is Newt perfect and he doesn't even try to pretend he is. Newt acknowledges his mistakes, his flaws and apologizes for them and moves on instead of trying to excuse, justify or explain them.

Side note- For those that continue to harp on the ethics investigations in the 90's- please read the AP article at the time when the last of the 84 charges were dropped and the actual violation was "using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda."

Talk about sitting on that couch with Nancy Pelosi or any other mistake but before talking about the dropped charges, read them, learn them, then speak to them. End Side Note

Another major difference is that Romney doesn't seem to get his audience, which goes back to that business of talking at people instead of to them.

Romney spent most of his so-called concession speech attacking Newt instead of gracefully congratulating him and focusing on the endgame which is replacing Barack Obama. Romney rarely highlights what Republican supporters see as the liberal media bias from the majority of the mainstream Obama media.

Newt's speech on the other hand, highlighted something good in each of the other candidates, then went on to annihilate Barack Obama. Newt doesn't worry about offending the media by calling them out on being cheerleaders for Obama, he understands that they are going to attack any and all Republican candidates to protect their choice for 2012 which is Obama.

(See both speeches and the Paul and Santorum speeches- HERE.)

In Conclusion

I was a Rick Perry supporter, although in hindsight I can see that one-on-one against Obama, Perry's message of jobs and economy, would have taken second place to his ability to articulate that message.

Out of the four candidates left, Paul, Santorum, Romney and Newt, I choose Newt.

Newt will not pull punches against Obama and the liberal faction of the media. Newt will keep his eye on the objective which is to remove Barack Obama from office. Newt will fight the battles conservatives find the most important.

Newt will make mincemeat out of Obama in debates, in speeches and in terms of knowledge and how to get America headed back to the right direction.

Conservatives are going to need a fighter to battle Obama in 2012 and Newt has proven that he is a fighter.

[Update] While Newt has shown his ability to be competitive, Romney has the money and the on the ground organization in Florida. Newt will need money by way of donations, will need feet on the ground by way of volunteers to help, and will need to overcome, as he did in South Carolina, a large polling lead that Romney has over Newt as of now.

Each state has it's own dynamic and as Newt stated in his South Carolina victory speech, he needs help. He needs people to reach out to their Florida contacts to make the case against Romney.

.

Videos- Gingrich SC Victory Speech, Romney, Paul and Santorum Concession Speeches

By Susan Duclos

Within minutes of the South Carolina polls closing, all major networks announced that Newt Gingrich was the projected winner and as results came out, Gingrich was indeed the winner of the South Carolina Republican primary.

Below is Newt Gingrich's victory speech.




Next up is Mitt Romney's concession speech:



Then came Ron Paul's concession speech:



Last up before Gingrich made his victory speech was Rick Santorum's concession speech:




Results posted at posted CBS, CNN and NYT for vote tallies.

CBS has a county by county link and so does CNN.

.

Newt Gingrich Takes South Carolina

By Susan Duclos

[Update] Full videos of Newt Gingrich's South Carolina victory speech and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum's concession speeches can be seen HERE. [End Update]

Within minutes of the polls closing in South Carolina, all major news stations announced that they have called it for Gingrich. The final numbers are still being posted, links to CBS, CNN and NYT for vote tallies.

CBS has a county by county link and so does CNN.

Rick Santorum has been called in third place and Ron Paul in fourth.

[Update] Exit Polls- HERE

.

Live Blogging, Live Chat: January 21, 2012 South Carolina Exit Polls, Republican Primary Results

By Susan Duclos

[Update] Gingrich wins South Carolina.

[Update] Full videos of Newt Gingrich's South Carolina victory speech and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum's concession speeches can be seen HERE. [End Update]

Updates will be below chat feature on latest polling, exit/entrance polls, etc.... until the Cover It Live feature starts, then info, links and results will be within the live discussion.

Originally posted on 1/18/12.

Once again joining with Right Pundits, (Thanks Patrick!!) Wake up America will be live blogging and joining in with Right Pundits' live discussion and chat during the January 21, 2012 South Carolina Republican primaries.

Set your reminder below and join us all for a night of watching the polls, discussing the numbers, and waiting for the final results to come in throughout the evening.



Eligibility: Individuals can register to vote in the primary until Dec. 22, 2011, and the primary is open to all registered voters.

[Updates below- 1/21/12] Latest polling shows Gingrich surging over Romney.

Link to Exit Poll Data will start trickling in HERE.

Afternoon Turnout Report- South Carolina, January 21, 2012- HERE.

CBS- Exit Polls show that 2/3 of voters said the latest debates in SC helped them decide who to vote for.

Twitter hashtag is #SCPrimary.

South Carolina Polling, Gingrich Rises To The Top

By Susan Duclos

(Join us tonight for the live blogging/live discussion as we watch and talk about entrance and exit polls and report on primary results)

This week, after two impressive debate performances, Newt Gingrich has seen a solid rise in support in the latest polls conducted in South Carolina.

One example is Rasmussen where on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, Gingrich was trailing Romney by 14 points, yet by Thursday, January 19, 2012, Rasmussen had Gingrich with a two percentage point lead on Romney.

Democratic leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) is another example where on Tuesday the 17th, they had Romney up on Gingrich by 15 percent and by Thursday the 19th, Gingrich was up by six and today, Primary day in South Carolina, Gingrich's lead has expanded to 9 points over Romney.

On Thursday, Insider Advantage had Gingrich up by three and by Friday the Clemson Palmetto Poll has Gingrich up by six percentage points.

FiveThirtyEight projects Gingrich with an 82% chance of winning, Romney at 18%, Paul and Santorum at zero percent chance.

There is no doubt that Gingrich has momentum as voters head in to cast their primary votes, but that does not guarantee a Gingrich win in South Carolina. Polling is a great way to see patterns or in this case which candidate is trending high or falling, but overall, polls are just a snapshot in time. Gingrich happens to be fortunate that this snapshot is taken the day of the primary.

Newt Gingrich has also benefited from Rick Perry dropping out of the race earlier this week and announcing his endorsement for Gingrich at the same time. That very same day MSNBC reported a host of other endorsements for Gingrich, including support from Huntsman and Perry backers.

Yesterday, another endorsement came down the pike for Gingrich, from Chuck Norris. (made big news although I am not quite sure why)

The Obama liberal media, for reasons I explained yesterday, want Mitt Romney to be the candidate to go up against Obama in 2012, so they have predictably thrown a live grenade, so to speak, into the South Carolina primary this week by publishing tidbits of an interview with Gingrich's ex-wife, where she claims Newt wanted to have an "open marriage."

ABC News' live grenade may have backfired on them though, because after news of the interview became public knowledge, Gingrich was asked about it as the first question in Thursday night's South Carolina debate and the audience there gave Gingrich two standing ovations when he ripped CNN's John King, the moderator, a new one, for asking about it at a presidential debate.

It is telling though that one of those standing ovations came when Gingrich took the media and John King to the woodshed and said "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans."

South Carolinian's do not appear to appreciate the media trying to influence their vote.

.

Why Does The Obama Media Want Mitt Romney? Answer: They Believe Obama Can Beat Him

By Susan Duclos

With just two caucus/primaries completed, the media has pushed for the Romney is "inevitable" meme, and there is a reason for that. The liberal faction of the media want Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee because they believe that Obama can dominate Romney in the presidential debates and ultimately beat him in November 2012.

I was a Rick Perry supporter, for reasons I have explained on this blog, multiple times. Perry dropped out and threw his support behind Newt Gingrich yesterday.

Even while supporting Perry I have noted many times that Newt Gingrich is a consistently good debater and there is no doubt in my mind that one-on-one against Barack Obama in debates, Gingrich will make mincemeat out of Obama.

That is why the liberal media want Romney and will do anything within their power to influence voters towards the "Romney is inevitable" meme.

Taylor Marsh, a liberal, someone whom I rarely agree on policy issues, but have stated many times she shoots from the hip, she is honest in her opinions whether I agree with her stances or not, and who pulls no punches when it comes to Obama's failures, understands and acknowledges what other liberals refuse to...... the liberal media in this country want Obama to be reelected and have been "at his feet," since he came to Washington.

Gingrich is now leading in the South Carolina polls and is surging to the front of the pack as the odds on favorite to win the largest primary to be held to date, South Carolina, on Saturday, January 21, 2012.

(Join us tomorrow for the live blogging/live discussion as we watch and talk about entrance and exit polls and report on primary results)

Yesterday news reports showed that Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses. Romney took New Hampshire.

If Newt Gingrich takes South Carolina on Saturday, will the media stop acting like Romney is the presumptive nominee? Will they start calling someone else inevitable? Doubtful. Or will they continue to push and attempt to influence the public into the candidate of their choice to go against the liberal media's darling, Barack Obama?

It is this political bias in the media that makes Newt Gingrich's statement "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," highly effective and resonates with GOP supporters. (Video of two more standing ovations for Gingrich when he ripped the press, at the above link)

Marsh and Gingrich are not the only ones that see the media bias for what it is, according to Pew Research in Sept. 2011, 60 percent of Americans also perceive bias in the media, with 47 percent saying the media is too liberal, and 13 percent saying that that it was too conservative.

Only the blind or intellectually dishonest will claim there is no liberal media bias and only conservatives feel there is.

It is decision time in South Carolina and the the residents of that state can and should tell the liberal media with their votes, that it isn't the media that chooses the Republican nominee, it is the voters.

Newt has a message out today saying something similar. (Video below)



.

Video:Gingrich Rips CNN's John King For First Question Of Debate, RE: Gingrich's Ex Wife's Allegations

By Susan Duclos

Will link to the entire transcript of the debate in the morning, [Update- Link HERE] but the debate started out unexpectedly with John King asking Newt Gingrich the first question of the debate, at approximately 2:24 minutes into the video below, where King focuses on the personal allegations made by Gingrich's former wife.

Not only does Gingrich tear into King but he manages to get another standing ovation from the South Carolina audience.




More on the debate tomorrow.

.

Poll Shows Gingrich Surging Again Nationally

By Susan Duclos

In a new Rasmussen poll of likely Republican primary voters nationwide has Mitt Romney with 30 percent, Newt Gingrich with 27 percent, Rick Santorum 15 percent, Ron Paul 13 percent and Rick Perry with 4 percent.

Via Rasmussen:

But the story in the new numbers, taken Tuesday night, is Gingrich’s jump 11 points from 16% two weeks ago. Romney’s support is essentially unchanged from 29% at that time, while Santorum is down six points from 21%. Paul’s and Perry’s support is also unchanged. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned four percent (4%) of the vote at the start of the month but dropped out of the race this week. This suggests that many voters are still looking for an alternative to Romney and currently see Gingrich as that candidate.

Among Republican primary voters nationwide, 34% think Romney is the GOP candidate who would do a better job managing the economy, but almost as many (29%) feel Gingrich would do the better job. Paul’s a distant third at 14%. When it comes to national security and defense, Gingrich is the clear leader: 43% think he would do a better job versus 18% who say the same of Romney.

During this contentious primary season we have seen one candidate after another surge ahead, then level out in support, but until this latest surge for Gingrich, we have not seen a candidate surge twice.

With the South Carolina primaries just days away, the unprecedented standing ovation for Newt Gingrich, along with another impressive debate performance for him, two nights ago at the Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, SC., hosted by Fox News Channel and The Wall Street Journal, may have given Gingrich a well timed bounce, not only in the national polls but in time for the primary voters of South Carolina to take a second hard look at Gingrich before casting their vote on Saturday.

.

Video- Santorum Ad Comparing Romney To Obama Hits South Carolina Airwaves Today

By Susan Duclos

The ad below hits the South Carolina airwaves this week.




Script of ad, via TIME's The Page.

Obama supported the Wall Street bailouts… So did Romney.

Obama gave us radical Obamacare… that was based on Romneycare.

Obama’s a liberal on social issues.

Romney once bragged he’s even more liberal than Ted Kennedy on social issues.

Why would we ever vote for someone who is just like Obama?

When we can unite around Rick Santorum. And beat Obama.

These are specific points and reasons why many conservatives have been against a Romney nomination, and linking Romney's own record regarding bailouts, reminding South Carolina voters that Obamacare used Romneycare as a building block, has a good chance to chip away at Romney's South Carolina numbers.

The takeaway from this ad is powerful in it's simplicity- Voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama.

.

Video- Newt Gingrich Gets Standing Ovation At South Carolina Debate, Juan Williams Booed

By Susan Duclos

Will link to the transcript in the morning when it is out, but one shining moment for Newt Gingrich came when Juan Williams questioned Gingrich on his calling Barack Obama the "food stamp president".

[Update] Link to transcript HERE.

The audience booed Williams, twice during the question and they applauded Gingrich's response, loudly, ending with an unprecedented standing ovation.

Video below:



Point of fact, In May 2011, PolitFact dealt with this issue:

The most recent data show roughly 44.2 million people received SNAP benefits in February, the most recent data available.

Cain’s numbers aren’t quite accurate, but he’s close. The number of recipients has topped 44 million since December, which means his estimate is about 7 percent too high.

The number of beneficiaries has climbed every single month since Obama took office, despite signs of an improving economy. According to historical data, February’s count appears to be the highest in any month since the program was established in 1969.

Obama took office in January 2009. That month, nearly 32 million people received SNAP benefits. That means the number of food stamp recipients has increased by about 12.2 million since the start of his administration.

That was in May.... in November it was reported that Food Stamp beneficiaries hit yet another record high. Since 2009 there has been a 31 percent increase in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) which was known as the Food Stamp Program until 2008.

There is nothing racial about calling Barack Obama the Food Stamp President except to those that want to distract from the facts and figures by screaming racism.

.

South Carolina Poll: Romney 23%, Gingrich 21%

By Susan Duclos

Mitt Romney, despite winning the first two caucus/primaries, very narrowly in Iowa and easily in New Hampshire, has slipped in the South Carolina polls, reports The Hill:

Romney is the favorite of 23 percent of South Carolina voters, narrowly edging Newt Gingrich's 21 percent, according to the latest poll from Insider Advantage. Rick Santorum pulls 14 percent of Palmetto state voters, while Ron Paul rounds out the top four with 13 percent. Jon Huntsman's seven percent and Rick Perry's five percent trail the pack.

The numbers could indicate that Gingrich's aggressive strategy - which has included controversial attacks on Mitt Romney's business and abortion records - is gaining him traction by hurting the GOP frontrunner.

This is the first poll in South Carolina that shows this type of slippage for Romney and gain for Gingrich and one poll does not a pattern make, but it is something to watch heading into the January 21, 2012 South Carolina primaries.

South Carolina is known for it's down and dirty, bare-knuckles politics, so this next week of campaign ads, SuperPAC ads and political rhetoric should be entertaining to say the least.

The first punches have already been thrown.....

Armageddon!!!!

.

What's a little civil rights between friends?

Today is the 150th Anniversary of the first secession from our great Union. South Carolina holds the honors. And, to commemorate that great day, they are holding a "Secession Gala" in Charleston. I wish I could be there.

"Organizers say the "Secession Gala" in Charleston tonight will commemorate the event as a show of courage in the face of encroachment by the federal government on state's rights. But some historians and civil rights groups are protesting the event as the glorification of a defense of slavery.

Dozens of Civil War buffs and Confederate reenactors are expected to attend the $100-a-head event, where they will sip mint juleps, nibble on Carolina crab dip and mingle to the tune of "Dixie" in the presence of the state's original Ordinance of Secession, signed in 1860." [Story]

Ahh come on. You "historians" and "civil rights groups" need to chill out. You are just jealous because you didn't get an invite.

I bet Haley Barbour was invited. My man Haley is considering a run for 2012, and he is already reaching out to minorities. He fondly remembers the days he kicked back and listened to MLK as a youngster in Yazoo City, (that doesn't even sound right) Mississippi.

"In an interview with the Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson, the GOP governor offers up some provocative comments about growing up in the racially charged deep South in the 1960s. By Barbour's account, things weren't "that bad" in his hometown of Yazoo City, Mississippi, which escaped some of the violence other nearby towns suffered during the civil rights movement.

"I just don't remember it as being that bad," Barbour, who was in high school at the time, tells Ferguson. "I remember Martin Luther King came to town, in '62. He spoke out at the old fairgrounds and it was full of people, black and white."

Barbour, who was 15 at the time, says he attended the rally because he wanted to hear what King had to say but ended up spending most of the time talking to his friends. "The truth is, we couldn't hear very well. We were sort of out there on the periphery. We just sat on our cars, watching the girls, talking, doing what boys do," Barbour tells Ferguson. "We paid more attention to the girls than to King."

Asked why Yazoo City was more peaceful than other parts of the South, Barbour offers credit to the Citizens Council, a controversial group that has been likened by its critics to the Ku Klux Klan. But Barbour says this critique is unfair and that the group actually cracked down on the KKK.

"In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town," Barbour says. "If you had a job, you'd lose it. If you had a store, they'd see nobody shopped there. We didn't have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City."' [Article]

You tell em, Haley. Those kids getting their bones broken as their bodies were thrown against the concrete with fire hoses were all just thrill seeking. ----It's no worse than bungee jumping. Right Haley? And those civil rights workers who were hung not far from your hometown committed suicide. Right Haley? And those little girls that were blown to bits when bombs went off while they were worshiping with their families was not real. It was a PR stunt by a few trouble makers to garner sympathy for their [so called] civil rights movement.

"But Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias suggests Barbour is presenting a revisionist history on race, noting that historians have described the Citizens Council as a racist organization that also worked to intimidate people who signed on to NAACP petitions at the time. A Barbour spokesman defended Barbour's comments, telling TPMDC's Eric Kleefeld that Barbour was addressing "the business community in Yazoo City" and was not talking about the group's history as a movement."

Here we go again with those "historians" and other groups starting trouble.

Why does everything have to be about race with you people?