In the Florida debate tonight Mitt Romney owned Newt Gingrich over the ad his campaign ran dishonestly accusing Governor Romney of being “Anti-Immigration”.  Mitt called on him during the debate to apologize for the lie.

I, along with other Conservatives, have been quite dismayed over the last few weeks by the tactics of some Republican candidates in their quest to achieve the nomination of their party to run against Barak Obama. I was taken aback by Newt Gingrich’s assault on Mitt Romney’s business record which came straight out of Ted Kennedy’s 1994 campaign book and, no doubt, President Obama’s 2012 book as well. But I am even more disturbed to hear that now, some Conservatives are dismissing Mr. Gingrich’s past marital infidelities saying, in essence, “character doesn’t matter, we just want to win.”

Let me make this clear, I believe Newt Gingrich is a highly educated man who has done great things for the Conservative movement and, given the choice of him or President Obama, I would reluctantly vote for the lesser of two evils, Mr. Gingrich. But to dismiss his infidelity to two previous wives as a matter of political expediency is both moral and political suicide. Either Conservatism stands for traditional morality or it doesn’t. If we now, after having hounded Bill Clinton from office for similar offences, wink and nod at Newt Gingrich’s behavior, are we not surrendering to the Left’s insistence that traditional morality has no place in our political process? What standing do we leave ourselves on other moral issues such as gay marriage or abortion?

I first realized that the Left held nothing for me when I observed Ted Kennedy’s behavior in the aftermath of Chappaquiddick. He insisted that the whole thing was a personal failure and that he should be forgiven for it. And, as a young kid, I thought “OK, he made this one mistake, maybe he should be forgiven.” But then, in the ensuing years and culminating with his performance in the Bork Hearings, I observed his total lack of forgiveness towards others (read Republicans) with far less lethal “personal failings.” I then came to the conclusion that the Left, since so many of them to this day insist that Mr. Kennedy did nothing unforgivable on that lonely island road, had decided that Mr. Kennedy’s politics and political viability were far more important to them than the mere life of another human being. Am I now to learn that Conservatives feel the same way about marital infidelity? Was all that was said about Bill Clinton just hot air?

Look, none of our candidates in this crop are perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, some more serious than others. Mitt Romney’s record has inconsistencies, I know. But so does Mr. Gingrich’s. So, the question becomes, which inconsistencies can we live with? Can we live with inconsistencies that are born of the politics of running for office in one of the bluest of blue states or can we live with those of someone whose failures are more personal in nature? To my mind, it is easier and preferable to deal with someone who can be persuaded to change a political opinion than it is to deal with someone who has demonstrated more than once that wedding vows, which are meant to be a sacred covenant between two people, are nothing but meaningless words. To accept such personal behavior undercuts all that Conservatives stand for and accepts the Left’s proposition that “character doesn’t matter.” Thus, in the primaries, I cannot support Newt Gingrich.

Full Primary/Caucus Calendar

This post is a very welcome addition to the post I did a few days ago regarding the article from The Daily Beast detailing how Mitt Romney played a role in Scott Brown’s victory.  What I didn’t have at the time of that earlier post is the video or quote from Senator Elect Scott Brown thanking Mitt Romney for “being there from the beginning, and helped show us the way to victory.”

Here is the quote:

“I’m grateful to all those from across Massachusetts who came through for me even when I was a long shot. I especially thank a friend who was there with encouragement from the very beginning, and helped show us the way to victory – former Governor Mitt Romney.”

This is of course very contrary to what some of the wanna-be political analysts over at Race42012 have spouted out about how Romney was absent during the whole Scott Brown process.  One particular “commenter” who goes by the name of “Flip Dixon”(it is a mystery to me that they haven’t banned her from their site, along with some of their registered contributors), and who’s personality and attitude parallel that of Keith “The Viper” olbermann’s, suggested that Mitt Romney was absent during the Scott Brown campaign because the people of Massachusetts don’t like him.

If anyone on Race42012 is reading this, BAN THAT KEITH OLBERMANN WANNA-BE FROM YOUR SITE!  That is, of course, if you desire to avoid becoming a riff-raff site like Free Republic has become.  You keep letting these nasty characters spew their ignorance on your site, the less credible you will become.  I will praise you for having writers such as Nate Gunderson, Mark B. Lowe, Kristopher Lorelli, and others who avoid negativity when it comes to other GOP candidates.

I would tell them that if they want to act like Democrats in how they treat their own, they can go join the Democrat’s site’s and spew their filth over there.  By the way, Alex Knepper has come a long ways.  Kudos to him!

All of us in the GOP need to quit breaking Reagan’s 11th commandment of talking bad about other GOP candidates.  I have not done the best at that, as I do get defensive when Mitt is unjustly attack, but I will work on it.

Here is the video of Brown’s victory speech.  About the 12:20 minute mark is when Brown thanks Mitt Romney for the help on his campaign:

Karl Rove is predicting that Scott Brown will win the Massachusetts Senate race by 3-6 points.  I hope it is more than that!  I hope that the citizens of Massachusetts send a very strong message to Washington that it is time to “shape up or ship out.”  It is not likely that they will shape up, so the GOP’s chances this year, as well as winning The White House in 2012, are lot more likely.

Democrats and Republicans are neck-and-neck in generic balloting for the 2010 elections, a sign that all the prognostications of a tough midterm battle are correct.

Democrats retain a 46 percent to 44 percent lead over the GOP among registered voters, when asked which party they’ll vote for in the 2010 congressional races, according to a new survey from Gallup. That’s closer than it’s been, for the most part, since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, except for moments of party parity in late 2006 and just after the Republican National Convention in September ’08.

But Gallup actually predicts that, if the elections were held today, Republicans would come out on top–something House Minority Whip Eric Cantor predicted not too long ago.

This video is very informative, scary, and at the same time encouraging.  It is also factual, I believe, in the world of marketing and subliminal messaging.  The Republican party needs to find a better way to market itself if it intends on winning over the minds of people.  Sad as it may be, substance alone is not enough.

My father in law recently counselled me to take an image of the site and telling me “remember who your customer is.”  Republicans have to come up with a more genius way of presenting out message other than shouting against, against.  I believe Mitt Romney has the ability to market himself well.  The look of his website in 2008 was great.

I would like to here your thoughts on this.

Call Me GOP conducted a 3 week “Sweet 16″ tournament of potential Republican leaders to find out which one should speak for the party.  The tournament winner is Mitt Romney.

After three weeks and more than 4,000 votes, our tournament is finally over.  No surprise here: you’ve decided that Mitt Romney should speak for the G.O.P.  He held a commanding lead over all his opponents, knocking out Eric Cantor in the final round by slightly more than 900.So why Romney?

Many of you have singled him out as the candidate with the best chance of unifying the party in a way the McCain/Palin ticket failed to in 2008. Mike noted that, unlike Palin or Rush, Romney doesn’t “stir up” passion among Republicans, yet he’s often sought after as a voice of reason and intelligence.

In fact, many of you pointed to his patient positions regarding issues such as health care that paint him as a rational, reliable choice. The ideal candidate, you said, is competent, not extremist. For now, while most states identify with the Democratic Party, the G.O.P. must attract independent and crossover voters to grow stronger. The party’s looking for a more moderate leader to take them forward, and it seems Mitt is the man.