Could this be Santorum’s big day?

Today, for the first time this cycle, multiple states hold their Republican presidential nomination contests on one day, two caucuses (Colorado and Minnesota) and one primary (Missouri). They all have two things in common. First, none of them are binding, so no delegates will be formally assigned from the vote. Second, they all represent Rick Santorum’s best shot at changing the trajectory of this race and positioning himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. One final series of snap polls from PPP shows Santorum with a double-digit lead in Missouri, and nearly as much of a lead in Minnesota:

Missouri is the big test. Gingrich chose not to make the ballot in Missouri (a more deliberate choice than the failure of Gingrich and Santorum in Virginia), so this is the dry run of Santorum vs Romney and Paul. If he does win big in the Show Me State, it gives Santorum an argument for his strength as a conservative candidate more likely to beat Romney in future contests than Gingrich. A win in Minnesota, where Romney won in 2008, would bolster that argument even more, but a low turnout is expected in Minnesota. That makes predictions through polling difficult, although a nine-point lead in a widely-split field is better than no lead at all.

For Gingrich, the key is to beat Santorum in the two states in which he’s competing. The results in Missouri are not terribly relevant to Gingrich, and expect his campaign to spin a Santorum win as an indictment of Romney rather than a boost for Santorum, and they wouldn’t be entirely wrong, either. Falling to third in either would raise questions about his momentum; falling out of second place in both would be a huge problem for perception of the Gingrich campaign. In Minnesota, Gingrich is in a virtual tie for second place with Romney and Ron Paul, with just four points separating the three candidates. In Colorado, Gingrich is six points back of Santorum for second place in the PPP poll, but leads slightly as the second-place choice over Santorum, 25/23.

Gingrich could score a big PR coup by pushing Romney into third place in Minnesota, or he could end up in third or even fourth place himself. He’s also tied for second in the second-place choice question with Romney at 20% in Minnesota, with Santorum leading with 25% and Paul far behind at 10%. Based on those numbers, it looks like Santorum has a chance to win it, and Romney and Gingrich will be fighting it out for second place. In that case, look for the better organization to carry the day, and that won’t be good news for Gingrich. In Colorado, there is no chance of pushing Romney into third place, but Gingrich could beat Santorum for second. He has a slight edge in electability over Santorum in both states (+7 in CO, +6 in MN), and in Colorado that might be enough to get last-minute deciders to break his way and push him into second.

On the other hand, last-minute deciders might base their decision on instinct rather than stats, and that would not be good news for Gingrich. In both states, Gingrich is barely above water on favorability (+8 in CO, +7 in MN), though, while Santorum leads the field substantially (+52 in CO, +57 in MN), with Romney in second (+28 in CO, +7 in MN, tied with Gingrich). That combined with the other disadvantages of the Gingrich campaign, plus the interesting strategic decision over the last two days to focus on Santorum, may have undercut Gingrich’s stature enough to send him into an across-the-board retreat. If so, Gingrich had either hope for a miracle in the February 22nd debate. If Santorum comes in third in both Minnesota and Colorado while winning Missouri, it won’t be as dire, but he would lose the argument over his ability to outperform Gingrich in the center of the country, and the Not-Romney stalemate would continue. And you know who that helps ….

“The subcommittee decided that regardless of the resolution of the … tax question, Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House, and was deserving of sanction.”

First of all, what exactly were the charges against Newt? David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt - and 74 of them were found to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class "Renewing American Civilization" properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.
The first 'charge' from the ethics committee is that he "may have" violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.
The lectures never mentioned the words "Republicans" or "Democrats," and one entire session was spent praising FDR. Is that "partisan?" Not only has a former commissioner of the IRS has come forward and said that no tax laws were violated, but an Ethics Committee lawyer even gave approval for the class before Newt started it.
The second 'charge' from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. Do you know what this "false information" is?
Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to "Renewing American Civilization." He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide.
But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions.
So is this a big deal? Is this "lying to Congress?" What's funny is that the Ethics Committee itself approved the course Newt taught, the same course that started this whole "ethics violation" farce. Newt wasn't even paid for the course.
In any case, I am not getting into all the details of the whole ethics violation mess, and the incredible double standard shown, since that would warrant a separate web site. I just find it odd that the Ethics Committee turned around and slammed Newt with a $300,000 penalty for something that they had approved! In addition, if a reprimand was enough "punishment" for Barney Frank, who was charged by the same committee with fixing 30 parking tickets, and writing a misleading probation letter on behalf of child pornographer, cocaine dealer, male prostitute and lover Steven Gobie, why is Newt getting slammed with such a harsher penalty?
The only reason that Rep. David Bonior and other Democrats filed 75 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich in the first place is because Newt filed and forced former Democrat Speaker Jim Wright to resign in 1988. The whole ethics violation farce was about nothing but revenge. Bonior and the Dems. wanted revenge for Jim Wright and for losing the House in 1994 and 1996.

http://www.gargaro.com/newtmoney.html

And that is what the TRUMPED UP CHARGES concerned. I could care less what the "Ethics Committee" decided to charge him with, as if their motives were (or are today) pristine or driven by HONESTLY trying to monitor and sanction Congressional members for wrongdoing. As brought up with even Barney Frank, they do nothing to those who most deserve sanctions.

And yes, this is the SAME LIBERAL, David BONIOR who went with the likes of Jim McDermott of Washington to Iraq and denounced the United States.

As it appears you are only an anti-Ginrich apparatchik, you would not, of course, be interested in full and actual TRUTH; you're only interested in MISTATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS. Thanks, however, for giving me the opportunity to dispel your lies (as that what half-truths are) with actual and additional facts.

The following post is for the enlightenment and benefit of those who are ignorant as to the full and actual facts of the smear campaign waged against Gingrich in 1997 by the Democrats, the GOP-e, and the lame stream media when he was Speaker, and which continues today by....the Democrats, the GOP-e, and the lame stream media (i.e., Romney, McLame, Rove, Faux News, and, of late, Santorum), as it is evident these truths are lacking in your own posts:

Additional Background on the Trumped Up "Ethics" Charges Against Gingrich:

With the charges against Gingrich megaphoned in the press, Gingrich and Republicans were under intense pressure to end the ordeal. In January, 1997, Gingrich agreed to make a limited confession of wrongdoing in which he pleaded guilty to the previously unknown offense of failing to seek sufficiently detailed advice from a tax lawyer before proceeding with the course. (Gingrich had in fact sought advice from two such lawyers in relation to the course.) Gingrich also admitted that he had provided "inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable" information to Ethics Committee investigators. That "inaccurate" information was Gingrich's contention that the course was not political -- a claim Cole and the committee did not accept, but the IRS later would. [see below]
In return for those admissions, the House reprimanded Gingrich and levied an unprecedented $300,000 fine. The size of the penalty was not so much about the misdeed itself but the fact that the Speaker was involved in it.
Why did Gingrich admit wrongdoing? "The atmosphere at the time was so rancorous, partisan, and personal that everyone, including Newt, was desperately seeking a way to end the whole thing," Gingrich attorney Jan Baran told me in 1999. "He was admitting to whatever he could to get the case over with."
It was a huge victory for Democrats. They had deeply wounded the Speaker. But they hadn't brought him down. So, as Bonior suggested, the [DEMOCRATS] sought to push law enforcement to begin a criminal investigation of Gingrich.
Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years.
THE I.R.S. INVOLVEMENT:
Unlike many in Congress -- and journalists, too -- IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole.
[The I.R.S.] then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich's political network....
[SeeGINGRICH WAS FALSELY ACCUSED & FULLY EXONERATED! ]
I.R.S. FINDINGS:

In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under then President Bill Clinton) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air “it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong.”
Eighty four (84) politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled “Renewing American Civilization.” Eighty-three (83) of the eighty-four charges were found to be WITHOUT MERIT AND DROPPED. The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt’s lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy [$300,000.

I.R.S. CONCLUSION:
BOTTOM LINE: According to the IRS, Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme.
[See CNN: IRS Exonerated Gingrich in 1999 (and see Newt Gingrich Cleared! Now How About a Refund?

Of the 83 charges initialed leveled against Newt, he was charged with the 84th. However, an independent tax court found him not guilty of the 84th charge a couple years later. IN SUMMARY:

"Meaning the only thing he did "wrong" was screw with the mutinous committee toward the end of the witch hunt. He admitted that was wrong but I would have made them dread every moment they questioned me under these circumstances and I would have sent these Traitors on as many wild goose chases as I could think of.
This entire band of RINO's knew from day one that they had absolutely nothing of substance against Gingrich and were only trying to turn up public pressure to get him out so they could go back on the take from lobbyist's and start spending more taxpayer money.
This entire event is a badge of honor for Gingrich, he fought the RINO's to the very end so nothing they did after his ouster can be connected to him in any way.
The 1998-2006 GOP House stands as a monument to what RINO's will do if given the purse strings and an example of just how far they will go to eradicate Conservatives from their midst. The RINO's own the current GOP reputation because they earned it, the witch hunt of Newt Gingrich in 1998 marked the beginning of the RINO stampede and it ended in disgrace as Nancy Pelosi took the gavel in 2006. Those RINO's left the GOP in shambles and with no credibility left as small government defenders of rugged individualism."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote from ‘Carry me Back’, post #48:

“RS is another liberal in the contest to keep a real conservative from winning that would be Newt imo. RS wouldn’t be any better than Obama.”

I simply agreed with the above statement. I did not originate it. To understand why I agree, well, the following explains it.

One of the advantages of being old enough to remember past elections, is one recognizes a dangerous political situation when it develops. Santorum is one of those. If you think he will save the nation, think again.

WE NEED TO REMEMBER Santorum received more campaign funds from lobbyists in 2006 than any other member on The Hill at that time, even more than John Murtha and Tom Delay ever did when they were in office.

Sen.Santorum met regularly with K Street lobbyists every Tuesday morning, loves earmarks for special interests and still defends them today. Read that last part again: he acknowledges the spending with NO apologies.

He believes it is fine to keep collecting federal tax dollars to give to Congress to determine what lobbyist-driven projects the Congress would like to provide funds for back in the states.

The U.S. is SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in debt, and when Sen.Santorum was still in Congress, he was one of those who helped drive some of that debt up. His constituents turned him out of the Senate for supporting Arlen Specter’s run for the Senate.

This situation reminds me why so many people voted for Gov.James Earl Carter in 1976. He seemed so good compared to the Republicans tainted by Watergate, a social conservative, a Christian with family values who taught Sunday school. Four years later he left office branded the worst president ever to live in the White House.

It is important to weigh a candidate’s whole record against what he claims today. We vote for the package, not the single issue when we elect someone.

We definitely need someone to save the nation; we need someone who promises to change the way Washington has been working. We need a leader.

RS’s record indicates he is not that leader.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.