One of the things that many Romney supporters are using to explain away their decision to ignore Romney’s many flip flops is Ronald Reagan’s one-time support for abortion and his signing of the Therapeutic Abortion Act as governor of California in 1967. But this comparison is a non sequitur. Reagan’s support of that abortion bill and his subsequent turn against it is less like a flip flop than Romney’s about face on the issue. In fact, a review of the two men’s record on abortion makes Romney look worse for the effort, not at all “just like Reagan.”

The first thing to realize about Reagan’s 1967 signing of the California abortion bill was that the whole national debate on abortion was, if you will, in its infancy. It was then not much of a national issue. The arguments for and against abortion had not crystallized into the well-worn positions we now know so well. After all, Roe v Wade wasn’t to catapult the issue to national prominence until 1973.

When this bill came before him in 1967, Reagan was admittedly unsure of what to do with the thing. He dithered for a long time before finally signing the bill because he simply had never given much thought to the issue. He quickly regretted placing his signature on the bill and firmly decided that hence forth he would be pro-life. He never supported an outright pro-abortion measure again.

Ronald Reagan had only been six months into his governorship when he finally signed the bill and his inexperience in the Governor’s office was something else that he said caused him to act without enough due deliberation. He was also shocked at the unintended consequences of the bill. The provision of “health of the mother” was so liberally interpreted by California doctors that the rate of abortions soared. Reagan Biographer Lou Cannon once noted that even the Democrat sponsor of the bill was surprised at how liberally doctors employed the provision to justify abortions.

This experience finally caused Reagan to choose life and eschew abortion. His final decision on pro-life issues was succinct. “If there is a question as to whether there is life or death, the doubt should be resolved in favor of life,” he said.

So, what can we learn of Reagan’s stance on abortion? While it is true that he once supported a major abortion bill, it was without zeal and was not with a fully thought-out philosophical position on the matter. As it happened, once he took full measure of the issue he stood for life and never much wavered afterwards.

One thing we cannot say about Ronald Reagan is that he campaigned in favor of abortion. The truth is he never claimed full-throated support of abortion and, despite signing the Therapeutic Abortion Act, once he made up his mind about the issue he didn’t fade back and forth. So, it is a bit precious for Romney supporters to act as if Reagan flip flopped on an issue that he had barely even considered before 1967. Few people in the whole country even had abortion issues on their radar back then.

On the other hand, Romney’s record on abortion and his miraculous “growth” on the issue smacks of politics instead of ideology. Some reports even claim that Romney purposefully chose the pro-abortion stance in order to win in Massachusetts.

You see, unlike Reagan, Mitt Romney had for years campaigned forcefully in support of abortion. Both during his 1994 Senate campaign against Teddy Kennedy and as Governor of the State of Massachusetts Romney stood up for abortion.

Far from non-committal, Romney’s position on abortion was strong. In 1994, for instance, a spokesman for the then Senate candidate announced that Mitt’s stance in favor of abortion had grown “firmer” as he studied the issue. Again this is unlike Reagan.

During a senate debate in 1994, Romney said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. … I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

By 2002 when he was running for Governor of the Bay State, Mitt was still a pro-abortion guy. Romney then said, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.”

In a gubernatorial debate Mitt said, “I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate.”

Yet only a few years later as he geared up for his first run at the White House, Mitt was suddenly pro-life. He had an epiphany, he claimed. It was the issue of human cloning that caused the shift, he said. “It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life.”

Newly christened a pro-life candidate Mitt then sallied forth to vie for the GOP nomination for President — an endeavor in which few pro-abortion candidates are welcome. One can easily assume this epiphany to be a political calculation as opposed to an honest changing of his mind.

Of course it is perfectly logical to assume that someone can legitimately change positions on something after serious reflection. There is nothing inherently hypocritical about changing one’s mind. And we cannot say what is in Mitt Romney’s heart to be sure. But we don’t need to read his heart to understand that his shift on abortion is nothing like Reagan’s.

First and most importantly, Mitt Romney’s entire political life was led in an era when the issue of abortion was a main political battle. Unlike Reagan, Mitt Romney did not come to age politically in a day when abortion was little known. Positions had hardened long before Mitt Romney was in any political position to affect policy on the matter.

Secondly, Mitt campaigned for decades fully in favor of abortion. This is also unlike Reagan who tepidly supported abortion but once and then only before he had given much thought to the issue.

The facts are indisputable. There was no major flip flop on abortion for Ronald Reagan. His record shows a man that, once he fully decided where he stood on the issue, never again wavered. Romney’s record, though, shows a flip flop easily portrayed as a cynical political ploy to get elected, one that came after decades of strongly campaigning for the opposite.

In the final analysis, all we can say is that, at least on the abortion issue, Mitt Romney is nothing like Ronald Reagan.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, but was focused instead on helping the middle class.
Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).
But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans.

So, we shouldn’t worry about the poor because we have a welfare state that keeps them on a crutch (or “a float”). I understand that his focus is on the middle class and that he believes these were the people hurt the most by the financial situation in America, but is the underlying philosophy here to just “fix holes” in the “safety net” or should we be trying to fix the entitlement mentality that helped pull us into this debt? This should be red meat for Newt who worked to reform welfare. Some are defending this as being taken out of context, and it very easily could be…but the underlying philosophy to keep the poor “a float” in their dependency on the government sounded pretty clear.

Mark Steyn says it well:

Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.

After half-a-century of evidence, what sort of “conservative” offers the poor the Even Greater Society? I don’t know how “electable” Mitt is, but, even if he is, the greater danger, given the emptiness of his campaign to date, is that he’ll be elected with no real mandate for the course correction the Brokest Nation in History urgently needs.

Susan Duclos:

The goal should be getting everyone to the point where they don’t need a “safety net”, where they are working, earning enough to support their families.

If the GOP establishment gets their way, conservatives will have yet another Food Stamp presidential candidate by the name of Mitt Romney.

Jobs for everyone, especially the very poor should be the focus.

If you put this gaffe in context with his other gaffes like “Corporations are people”, “I’m also unemployed”, “Its fine to talk about wealth redistribution in quiet rooms”, and his $10,000.00 bet at one debate it paints a picture of an elite, selfish, out of touch candidate. He needs to call in damage control.

Update: Mitt is trying to backtrack by repeating what he said. It isn’t about context it is about the underlying philosophy. By the way, the safety net is not just there for the poor. It is there for the rich and middle class as well.

He said something similar last month:

I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they’re taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there.

Read that carefully and in full context. He wants to focus on those that are hurting the most and he concludes that the middle class is hurting more than the poor by concluding that the middle class is hurting the most. This is kind of absurd if you think about it. Furthermore by not worrying about the poor and rich but instead the middle class whom he calls “the hard-working Americans”, he is implying that the poor are not hardworking?

Michelle Malkin:

The message shouldn’t be “Let Them Eat Food Stamps.”

The message shouldn’t be that he’ll “fix” any holes in the safety net.

It’s supposed to be: Get them off food stamps, provide them with real educational choice, reform the culture of dependency, and get government out of the way so that businesses and entrepreneurs can thrive — and increase economic opportunities for everyone.

Johah Goldberg asks…what is wrong with this guy?

Pundit and Pundette:

“My real point is that a conservative candidate would talk about increasing opportunity for the very poor, about lessening the need for food stamps and housing vouchers by reducing government and invigorating the economy, rather than touting the awesomeness of our massive, dependency-inducing welfare state and suggesting it might need some beefing up.

“But Romney’s no conservative. So this is to be expected. ”

John McCormack of Weekly Standard:

“Romney’s remark isn’t merely tone-deaf, it’s also un-conservative. The standard conservative argument is that a conservative economic agenda will help everyone. For the poor, that means getting as many as possible back on their feet and working rather than languishing as wards of the welfare state.”

Asked later on his plane to elaborate on the remark, Mr. Romney said, “I’ve said throughout the campaign my focus, my concern, my energy is going to be devoted to helping middle-income people, all right?” he said.

“We have a safety net for the poor in the country, and if there are holes in it, I will work to repair that,” he added. “And if there are people that are falling through the cracks, I want to fix that.”

My point exactly, just better said.

Jim Robinson:

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who’s fighting to repeal ObamaCare appeared on Greta, tonight, defending RomneyCare. She says Romney’s health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney’s plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she and is all for it.

She went on to explain that she’s going to be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president!

What this means is that while Romney may say he wants to repeal ObamaCare, he actually agrees with it. He believes that RomneyCare, ie, ObamaCare is a model health care plan and all states should impose similar plans.

RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same thing. The only difference is that Romney’s was imposed at the state level where Obama’s was imposed nationally.

RomneyCare = ObamaCare = taxpayer funded abortion = death panels = socialism = government force = fascism = tyranny!!

So Romney and his co-conspirators in the GOP establishment are now planning a National Healthcare Task Force to impose top-down government run national healthcare on all 50 states!!

We all know what Reagan said about government by a group of elites and that socialism would be imposed on America through socialized health care. Well, welcome to the Socialist States Of America if Romney is elected.

If the GOP does this then the hell with them!!

(Washington Times) Fighting to curry favor with Florida’s large pool of Hispanic voters, Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called for a guest-worker program for most illegal immigrants, but his campaign could not say whether those people would be on a path to citizenship – the key question in the immigration debate.

Under close questioning by Univision’s political host, Jorge Ramos, Mr. Gingrich said he would grant quick citizenship rights to illegal immigrants who join the military or to those who have been in the U.S. between 20 and 25 years. He said the rest of the estimated 11 million should be given access to a guest-worker program.

“With most of them? I would urge them to get a guest-worker permit,” he said, calling for a substantial rewrite of immigration laws that would cancel existing penalties and instead let illegal immigrants stay.

But his campaign said it was unclear whether at the end of that guest-worker period the immigrants would be allowed to stay and gain citizenship, essentially jumping the legal immigration line, or whether they would be required to return home.

On one hand, Gingrich is correct in that he previously said that it is unrealistic to deport every illegal, nor stop them fully from coming, and, yes, we could show some compassion to those who came to this country and attempted to be a part of America and do things like joining the military. It’s not like people didn’t just come to America in the past, without any sort of immigration programs and such. If someone is putting their life on the line to join the military to protect America, perhaps some accommodations could be made.

On the other hand, why pander to Hispanics who can’t vote because they are here illegally? Why pander to Hispanics who are here legally, but still can’t vote because they aren’t citizens? And a good chunk of Hispanics who are legal citizens tend to get a little ticked off when politicians want to give illegals who did it wrong a pathway to citizenship when they themselves followed the onerous and burdensome rules.

Do we want guest workers? Yes, we do. But it is a bad idea to suddenly give people who came to this country illegally guest worker visas after doing the illegal thing with no penalties. Let them leave the country and apply for a worker program that should be expanded. What Gingrich is doing is telling people who are thinking of coming to America illegally to just come on in, no problem, we’ll take care of you. He might want to rethink this line of thought.

Romney did it again. On Fox News he linked Romneycare to conservative principles, an outrageous act in the eyes of any conservative. But hold the boat, people, because Romney didn’t exactly say that Romneycare itself is a conservative policy. And therein lies the weasel words that Romney has used to describe the Massachusetts healthcare plan he was so proud to pass when he was the Governor of the state.

To the video…

Transcript:

I’m happy to stand by the things I believe. I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign. What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts. The plan is still favored there by 3:1 and it is fundamentally a conservative principle because the people take personal responsibility rather than turning to the government for free care.

Now, let’s look at what Romney said here. He didn’t exactly say that Romneycare itself is “fundamentally conservative.” He said the concept that people should take responsibility for their own healthcare is a fundamentally conservative idea.

Such as it is, he’s right. That IS a fundamentally conservative idea.

But as Romney has repeatedly done since he signed that disastrous, socialist, far from conservative piece of legislation, he has weasel worded his description of that law. As he’s done before, in this clip he illicitly linked conservative principles to Romneycare by focusing at a micro level on the single idea that we should take care of our own healthcare and linking that real conservative principle to his actions as if conservative principles are the guiding forces behind Romneycare. The problem with Romney’s characterization of the issue is that his legislation is fundamentally not conservative. It is big government, socialist, authoritarian nonsense. It’s not conservative at all. Romney tries to [sell] us that one tiny conservative idea buried under miles of socialist ideas as misdirection for the ills that Romneycare forces on the people of the Bay State.

Romney also tries an additional rhetorical trick by focusing on Tenth Amendment ideals, saying that his effort in Mass. was a “state only” effort, one that he would not recommend for every state. Romney correctly notes that one of our founding principles is that the states should be free to experiment with policy and implement what voters want free of interference by the federal government — a Tenth Amendment ideal. But what Romney is doing here is slyly trying to cloak his monumentally non-conservative healthcare law in the conservative idea of the Tenth Amendment as if Romneycare is conservative when it isn’t conservative in any way at all.

It would be like using a cop’s position as an officer of the law as cover for his breaking, entering, and stealing from a citizen’s home, like saying it is OK simply because he’s a police man. Just because this mythical cop is an officer of the law does not mean his actions are legitimate. In a like way, just because we have a conservative idea of the Tenth Amendment this does not mean that a Romneycare law implemented under the principle of that Amendment is a conservative idea or even an advisable policy, for that matter.

We should also point out that even as this particular issue is the only item he’s not fully flip flopped on — much to the consternation of conservatives everywhere, Romney has flip flopped on whether or not he thinks Romneycare is as good for the nation as it was for Massachusetts. Not long ago Romney was saying that he felt Romneycare was a model for the nation. Now, all of a sudden, he says he never said that, he says that Romneycare was only good for Massachusetts (even though it clearly isn’t) and that he would not recommend it for the nation.

In any case, the point here is that Romney makes it impossible to logically sustain the idea that Obamacare is bad and should be repealed when there isn’t anything substantively different between Romneycare — which he constantly defends and says is great — and Obamacare. The core issue that Republicans and many independents would rally to vote for Romney over is nullified by his constant defense of Romneycare.

This is the main reason why Romney cannot beat Obama in 2012.

(Des Moines Register) Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.

Those are qualities Mitt Romney said he looks for in a leader. Those are qualities Romney himself has demonstrated in his career in business, public service and government. Those qualities help the former Massachusetts governor stand out as the most qualified Republican candidate competing in the Iowa caucuses.

Sobriety: While other candidates have pandered to extremes with attacks on the courts and sermons on Christian values, Romney has pointedly refrained from reckless rhetoric and moralizing. He may be accused of being too cautious, but choosing words carefully is a skill essential for anyone who could be sitting in the White House and reacting to world events.

Wisdom: Romney obviously is very smart. He graduated as valedictorian at Brigham Young University and finished in the top 5 percent in his MBA class at Harvard, where he also earned a law degree. Romney also exhibits the wisdom of a man who listened and learned from his father and his mother, from his church and from his own trials and errors in life. He does not lack self confidence, but he is not afraid to admit when he has been wrong.

Judgment: Romney disagrees with Democrats on most issues, but he offers smart and well-reasoned alternatives rather than simply proposing to swing a wrecking ball in Washington. He is a serious student of public policy who examines the data before making a decision. His detailed policy paper on the economy contains 87 pages of carefully crafted positions on taxes, energy, trade and regulatory policy, complete with 127 footnotes.

It’s a long piece, and it should be noted that not only did they pay attention to all the candidates, their speeches, their debates, their history, but they also interviewed them (except for Huntsman).

Bachmann: Overall impression: An impressive fireball who can absorb and regurgitate tons of information, even if some of it turns out to be inaccurate.

Newt: Overall impression: Between the books he’s read and the books he’s written, Gingrich juggles endless ideas, but he has yet to make the case he could focus his attention on the important ones.

Crazy Uncle Ron: He insists these principles he’s held for 30 years make him the only true Republican. (You know, like dropping pork into bills then voting against them so he can say he doesn’t vote for pork, blaming the US for 9/11, taking money from neo-Nazi’s, hating Israel, taking Iran’s side against the US – all Republican ideas or something)

Perry: Overall impression: After some debate stumbles, he asks voters to take a second look, but it may take more than that. (Perhaps if Rick would stop speaking in simplistic soundbites and offer some real world policies, rather than unrealistic unicorn droppings)

Santorum: Overall impression: He’d use the presidential bully pulpit to be the nation’s minister-in-chief.

Now it’s down to the voting.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Tim Miller, a spokesman for Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign, had this response when asked if his candidate would participate in the Dec. 27 Newsmax debate moderated by Donald Trump:

“Lol. We look forward to watching Mitt and Newt suck-up to The Donald with a big bowl of popcorn,” he said in an email to Business Insider.

Is this the kind of message a professional campaign sends out? Of course, I personally do not think that this will harm him any, as a) Conservatives did not really fall for The Donald’s presidential aspirations, and b) Jon Huntsman? Who Dat?

Deciding to sit-out the debate may help Huntsman with his message that he is the only adult in the GOP field. Another reason is more practical — Huntsman is wagering everything on New Hampshire, and leaving the state for even a day to debate in Iowa detracts from time he can spend wooing Granite State voters.

New Hampshire is make or break for Huntsman, who probably should have dropped out months ago, but, he has surged a bit in N.H. as of late.

I’ve been wondering about Huntsman, and what he really stands for. What are his pro’s and con’s. Most Conservatives immediately dismiss him as a viable candidate due to working for Obama as Ambassador to China. Let’s take a quick peek, shall we? (for more detailed analysis and quotes, visit here (which is liberal leaning) and here (Conservative leaning))

Pro:

• Pro-life (granted, some Conservatives just do not get involved in this debate)
• Requires parental consent for an abortion except for rape, life threatening, or parents not guardians
• Reduce personal and corporate taxes, and simplify them
• Eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes (note: I do not think this is the best of ideas)
• Repeal Obamacare
• Very pro-2nd Amendment
• Is for concealed carry for everyone
• Is against people being forced to join unions, nor fund them, or, as he calls them, “private political organizations”
• In favor of school vouchers
• End all energy subsidies-oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, etc
• Some actual private sector experience, including as a ranking executive
• Eagle Scout
• Good family man – no scandals, either

Cons

• Big believer in Globull Warming, and may push AGW legislation
• Wishy washy on illegal immigration (remember his “the border fence repulses him” comment?) – he has some good points, and some really, really bad points
• Worked for Obama
• Panders to the Occupy crowd: He “wants to be president of the 99%”
• Whines about treating Islamist terrorists harshly – waterboarding, loud music, tickling

Can go either way

• Isn’t necessarily for gay marriage, but, is for civil unions and partner benefits (I’ve written before that this is my position. Some agree, some don’t)
• For a Balanced Budget Amendment – this is a middle issue because not all Conservatives agree with the need nor whether it would actually work
• Is for states having “right to work” but not against unions

So, there’s Huntsman in a nutshell. His biggest problem off the bat is that he worked for Obama. Then we have his climate change hoax support (I do not care if someone believes, but, I do care if they want to change my behavior by government decree). Worked for Obama. He just doesn’t come off as that personable, either. But, he really isn’t as bad as we might think. He’s probably more Conservative than Newt and Romney, is less big government than Romney and Perry, doesn’t make the big gaffes, and, think about this, does have a lot of experience in foreign commerce/trade, especially with the country that owns a huge chunk of American debt, China.

Another big problem, as I’ve mentioned, is his wooing of independents during a primary season. They aren’t the ones coming out to vote right now. Also, his failure to go after Obama. If he wants to win, he needs to stop being the “adult in the GOP room”, as the article stated. Politics is a nasty business. He has some fantastic ideas and policies, but, no one will pay attention if he won’t play the political game.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

I cannot support Mitt Romney in this coming GOP primary. The one reason why can be summed up simply as this: he flip flops. Romney has more flip flops than a California beachfront. Mitt has been proven a man without anchor adrift in a sea of issues that push him and pull him with the tides. Even worse, maybe, is that he jumps from one ship to the other on those political tides with the sole purpose of scoring a political win. So, how could I say that such a rudderless sailor could be an OK president?

Well, there is one way that a shiftless Mitt Romney might be good for both the country and the conservative cause but it certainly isn’t because he cares at all about conservative issues. It isn’t that he’ll champion them himself, either. But think about this. What does an unmoored boat do but drift with the tide? This is where, if played correctly, Romney could actually work for conservatives.

In fact, a President Romney could be good for Congress no matter which side of the political divide is in control. And control is the word, too.

For far too long Congress has been slowly giving away its Constitutional powers to legislate. Through sloth and selfish re-election needs Congressmen have been allowing the courts to take an unconstitutional role in determining our legislation as well as standing aside as one president after another grabs power unto the executive branch that he wasn’t supposed to have — the latter of which both left and right have complained about for decades.

Up until today we’ve had presidents with strong ideological principles that serve as the guide by which they’ve made policy. Clinton had a liberalism tempered by some centrism, George W. Bush the opposite. Reagan came to Washington with specific ideals on what he wanted to achieve and Obama has too, though in the entirely opposite direction as Ron’s.

But Mitt Romney is a marshmallow. He’s been on every side of every issue throughout his decades as a politician. These days, of course, he’s edged toward conservatism and this gives conservatives an “in” if you will.

I am not suggesting that Romney will stay with these principles. A recent Romney apology by Michael Gerson weakly claimed that because Romney has switched to conservative ideals this time around he’d look too foolish to switch again. But that is simply poppycock. Once a flip flopper always a flip flopper. He’ll easily justify the next flip flop and it will only be Gerson left looking foolish.

So, here is the good news. The fact that Romney is easily led by the political winds gives Speaker Boehner as well as Congressional conservatives the opportunity to become an unmoored president’s pilot. If Boehner and conservatives make their issues winners, this will lead President Romney by the nose down the right path.

The best thing is it gives Congress the opportunity to again take back some of its powers and begin to right the ship of state (if I can get nautical again for a moment).

But it will take a concerted effort to push these conservative issues. None of this working with the left business will do. Romney, will likely start bending his newfound conservative ideas the first time the intelligentsia at The New York Times squawk at his policy ideas. He’ll likely rediscover his linguine spine the second some Democrat calls his conservative policy ideas “racist.” He’ll suddenly want to “work with” every left-winger that comes down the pike.

But because he has no real principles he’ll be apt to pushes from conservatives, as well. If we mount a strong campaign of conservative ideas, budget cuts and all, we can keep a President Romney on the straight and narrow. But it will require a very active Congress not a Congress content to let everyone else take the lead so that at election time they can point fingers everywhere else.

Conservative ideas are winners with the voters. We’ve seen many issues come our way in the last few decades. Abortion is becoming less popular every year. Pro-Second Amendment issues are such winners that the Democrats hardly even talk about their gun banning ideas any more. People are down on unions, agree that government is too large, and think that taxes are too high. These winning issues can only get stronger if Congress pushes them hard. And a weak President Romney will give conservatives the opportunity they need to push his presidency in the right direction.

But I’ll leave you with this reiteration: the left will have the very same opportunity to push a weak-willed President Romney. So, we can’t just sit back and enjoy a win if Romney should happen to win both the GOP primary and the 2012 general election. The second Romney enters the White House our work must begin in earnest. Don’t wait for this flip flopper to take the lead. Push him, conservatives, push him. If you don’t you’ll be on the outside looking in as Romney is bent, twisted, and mutilated by the political left.

I’ll work to defeat Mitt Romney in the primary. But if he wins I’ll work to make his presidency a conservative one despite him.

Herman Cain takes the lead in the Republican presidential nomination contest as GOP voters continue to deny Mitt Romney clear front-runner status.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows support for Cain has quadrupled among GOP primary voters since late August. At that time, he stood at 6 percent. After three September debates, he jumped to 17 percent. And now Cain leads the pack at 24 percent.

While it’s the first time Romney has trailed Cain, it’s the second time he’s been ousted from the lead since July. Romney receives 20 percent — a new low for him but still within the margin of error of 5.5 percent among Republican primary voters. Romney was at 23 percent last month and a high of 26 percent in early August.

Newt Gingrich now comes in third with 12 percent — edging out Rick Perry. The former speaker — like Cain — has seen his support quadruple since late August.

Perry’s support has dropped to 10 percent, down from 19 percent in September. After his mid-August announcement, Perry captured 29 percent of the vote and took the front-runner role from Romney.

Good news for Romney fans…not so good news for Cain fans.

In Iowa, which will hold its caucuses on January 3 and is traditionally the first state to vote in the race for the nomination, 24% of registered Republicans say they are backing Romney, who’s making his second bid for the presidency, with Cain, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and radio talk show host, at 21%. Romney’s three point margin is within the survey’s sampling error…
It’s a dead heat in South Carolina, which will hold its primary on Jan. 21 and traditionally is the first southern state to vote along the road to the White House. According to the poll in the Palmetto State, Romney has the support of 25% of self-identified Republicans or independents who lean towards the GOP, with Cain at 23%. Romney’s two-point margin is well within the survey’s sampling error…
Florida will hold its primary on January 31, voting fourth in the primary and caucus calendar. According to the poll, three out of ten Republicans say they back Romney, with Cain at 18%. Gingrich and Perry each grab 9% support, with Paul at 6%, Bachmann at 4%, and Huntsman and Santorum at 1%.

Bottom line on this is that Cain has momentum, but if Romney wins these first four states it won’t matter what his national popularity is.

Allahpundit:

National polls don’t matter compared to state polls. They’re fun as a proxy for popular support, but if Romney wins Iowa on January 3, the race is over no matter what his national numbers are that day.

This could be an outlier poll since Cain has been leading in other state polls by hefty margins. Cain leads big in Ohio according to Quinnapanic and led in Iowa by 10 points in a poll released just last Friday from University of Iowa. Rasmussen had Cain up by 7 in Iowa just last Thursday. Same issue in SC. It might not be. Trends could be changing and reflecting more recent influences. I’ve got my doubts about this CNN poll though. Just a hunch.

Fire Andrea Mitchell finds the CNN poll fishy too.

There is no way in hell that a flaming, flip flopping RINO like Romney is going win the primary in Iowa. Yet according to the latest fishy CNN poll, Romney is not only leading in Iowa, but also New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. Romney will easily win New Hampshire. Florida and South Carolina, I have no idea about. Yet, despite results in several other polls of these states that shows Herman Cain winning, the CNN poll finds Romney winning all four of these states.