(MSNBC) As libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a state he can win, some of his supporters have turned to a new theme: voting fraud.

A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are “outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American.” The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.

The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.

Some of what MSNBC writes about is

Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, werean inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes. Franchi founded the Lone Lantern Society (a reference to Paul Revere indicating that foreign enemies are on American soil). The group supports “the birth of freedom and the death of the New World Order,” a secretive elite that is supposedly trying to set up a world government. Lone Lantern has held street demonstrations on the 11th of every month in Chicago and elsewhere, demanding an investigation of 9/11. In New Hampshire in 2008, a video shows Franchi asking Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who was campaigning for Sen. John McCain, whether Ridge would support an investigation of the “controlled demolition” of the World Trade Center. Ridge was having none of it, saying, “I just don’t buy into that. That’s a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. It’s almost out of the Twilight Zone.”

Obviously, Revolution PAC is an outside group which can support who they want. But, Paul could finally come out and say “I do not support the 9/11 Truth movement, they’re out of their minds. He won’t. He seems to enjoy hanging with Truthers/conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and going on their radio programs.

Like Ron Paul, Franchi has a few good ideas, then turns them up to Ludicrous Speed, perhaps even going plaid. Ron Paul has won none of the beauty contests, er, primaries/caucuses, and will, mostly likely, win none in the future. He has a great core group, but no broader appeal, especially when people find out about his background.

What does it all mean? For one it validates that Conservatives are not comfortable with Mitt Romney as the nominee. There are many reasons why and Romneycare is the big one. The other thing it means is that Santorum had better prepare for the Romney smear machine to go into full force like it did on Newt. Mitt’s got money and he knows how to use it. Negative ads work and the Mitt is the media’s main man for now. You’ll get slammed from two fronts (Mitt and Media), Rick…so be ready. You’ve stayed clean and left alone when no one thought you were a threat to the establishment candidate. You’re in for it now… so prepare.

It also means that if you all want the nominee to be Rick Santorum…you should probably go donate. He’s been on a shoe string budget and that isn’t much to fight the mighty Mitt money smear machine. He will attack from the right, mention earmarks, the raising of the debt ceiling, and that Rick is an insider while he isn’t. The question of whether Santorum can beat Obama will also come up in many forms.

If you’re still rooting for Newt, he needs money too. His strategy is a Southern sweep, and don’t count him out yet. He has a few tricks up his sleeve, I’m sure.

Hope you all are enjoying the roller coaster ride.

Also, see Jeff Goldstein about this unimportant night for Santorum.

(Washington Post) Rick Santorum had a breakthrough night Tuesday, winning GOP presidential contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, all of which is expected to breathe life into his struggling campaign and slow Mitt Romney’s march to the Republican presidential nomination.

The Santorum triumphs promise to, at least temporarily, alter the face of the campaign going into the crucial “Super Tuesday” contests, as the caustic tone of the primaries is expected to continue and intensify. Romney and his allies have signaled that they will use their financial advantage to launch stepped-up attacks on Santorum and on former House speaker Newt Gingrich, the other main challenger.

Santorum solidly defeated Romney in Minnesota and Missouri, and he narrowly edged the former Massachusetts governor in Colorado, according to state GOP officials.

The breakdowns

• Colorado: Santorum 40.2%, Mitt 34.9%, Gingrich 12.8%, Paul 11.8%
• Minnesota: S 44.8%, P 27.2%, R 16.9%, G 10.7%
• Missouri: S 55.2, R 25.3%, P 12.2%

In Missouri, Gingrich wasn’t on the ballot, and, interestingly, received no write in votes. Even K. Drummond received 162 write ins. That creates an interesting situation: Without Newt, Santorum apparently jumps high in support, and if Newt can’t even get some write in votes, how deep is his campaign enthusiasm?

Maggie Haberman offers up 7 takeaways from last nights beauty contest, most focusing on Romney. She also notices that Gingrich is pretty much out of money, and has only the South Carolina primary to Santorum’s 4 wins. She mentions that Ron Paul is “in it for the delegates.” Apparently, Ron Paul no longer wants to be president, just mess the whole nomination process up, helping the GOP lose in 2012.

One thing that surely helped Rick was coming out strong against ObamaCare forcing Catholics, and other religious groups, to offer insurance that includes free contraceptives, sterilizations, and morning after pills.

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

I think I am an inch away from endorsing Rick Santorum if he keeps this up. I am sure my endorsement will put him over the top, but that aside Santorum has really been standing as the only actual conservative left in the race at this point. His latest triumph occurred in Minnesota where he raked Romney over the coals for Romneycare — something that not enough people are doing.

Santorum’s charge is simple. How can a guy that still to this day defends Romneycare be the one to take the fight over Obamacare to the President? I’ve been saying for three years that Romney is simply unable to be the candidate to refute Obamacare and I am thrilled to see Santorum saying the same.

At his appearance in Rochester, Santorum said, “Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”

“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”

Santorum’s exactly right, too. How can we believe a word Romney says on repealing Obamacare when he still to this day is a huge supporter of Romneycare and its individual mandate? Especially since early in his campaigning for the presidency Romney said that Romneycare was a model for the nation. Especially since one of his chief advisors says that they really aren’t going to repeal Obamacare despite what Romney says on the stump.

Romney simply cannot face Obama on the issue because his record is no different than Obama’s on healthcare. Romney is an anti-Constitutionalist, a big government guy, a statist, whatever you want to call him his record is exactly like Obama’s on the issue. Should we believe what Romney says on the stump that he’ll repeal Obamacare if elected? I say we go by his actual record, not what, in a desperate attempt to win, he claims he’ll do if elected. His words have no veracity. Just look at his record.

Romney has taken notice of Santorum, too, and he’s set his smear machine on over drive to destroy Santorum. Romney has chosen to go after Rick on earmarks, but, as Santorum notes, that is a bit cynical since Romney and those that are acting as his surrogate have been big supporters of earmarks in the past.

“Here’s a situation where someone is now doing well, rising in the polls and instead of Gov. Romney going out and talking about his plans and what he’s going to do, he goes out and throws the kitchen sink and runs negative ads and sends out his surrogates to rip and tear — even though he’s as vulnerable on this issue [earmarks] as anybody,” Santorum said.

He said some of Romney’s surrogates have used earmarks in the past, but did not specifically mention Pawlenty.

“This is the narrative which you’re going to see. Anytime someone challenges Gov. Romney, Gov. Romney goes out and instead of talking about what he’s for … he just simply goes out and attacks and tries to destroy,” Santorum told reporters after his speech. “I don’t think it’s going to work this time.”

The main takeaway here is that Romney has been allowed to skate without having to confront his statist love of Romneycare. It is good that Santorum is finally taking it to Mitt forcefully. Some one needs to, anyway.

Hat tip: Protein Wisdom: We insiders call this stealth conservatism
AJ Strata:

Romney and the GOP establishment have been attacking the 2010 insurgent voters, who rightfully want to shrink everyone’s power in DC and put it back in the hands of the people. This has made the angry 2010 voter the enemy of the GOP – a strange way to win elections.

I can summarize this as f0llows: Obamacare versus Romneycare – where is a voter to find “none of the above!”?

Rick Santorum could be headed for a big day in today’s contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Missouri looks like a probable win for Santorum. He’s at 45% there to 32% for Mitt Romney and 19% for Paul. Minnesota provides an opportunity for a win as well. Currently he has a small advantage with 33% to 24% for Romney, 22% for Newt Gingrich, and 20% for Ron Paul. And Santorum should get a second place finish in Colorado, where Romney appears to be the likely winner. The standings there are Romney at 37%, Santorum at 27%, Gingrich at 21%, and Paul at 13%.

Santorum’s personal popularity is the main reason for his sudden reemergence as a relevant player in the GOP race. In all 3 of these states his favorability is over 70%- 74/17 in Minnesota, 72/17 in Missouri, and 71/19 in Colorado. He’s far better liked than his main opponents- Romney’s favorability is 47-60% in those states and Gingrich’s is 47-48%. While Romney and Gingrich have hammered each other in recents weeks Santorum’s been largely left alone and he’s benefiting from that now.

There are three groups Santorum’s winning in all three of these states: Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and those describing themselves as ‘very conservative.’

He is also coming out of the shadows with more than jabs. He is coming with convincing arguments that can stick:

“Gov. Romney is dead wrong on the issue of the day and he should not be the nominee of the party,” Santorum said in a hotel ballroom across the street from the hospital, adding the issue of health care is “central to our country, central to this race specifically why Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”…
“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”…
Santorum said the two plans have similar levels, using terms like “gold, silver, and bronze,” and in possibly his most aggressive attack he said they both use “government panels to dictate quality and cost containment,” and for the second day in a row brought up the controversial term “death panels.”
The candidate told the crowd the vulnerable could be at risk under the administration’s plan and are at risk under Romney’s plan because the government could “ultimately decide to ration care.”

Several bloggers are now getting behind Santorum and the momentum has arrived for it to be his turn. He should watch out. So far he has been fairly safe from the Romney attack machine the liberal media because they thought he had no chance. That is all about to change soon. I’m not sure he has what it takes or if he is the best choice, but I do think we will see a game changer tonight.

Meanwhile, I think Gingrich is truly and passionately planning to stay in and hopes for a Southern sweep later on. Don’t count him out yet either. Also, Mitt Romney is definitely not a foregone conclusion as the nominee.

• Romney – 47.6%
• Gingrich – 22.7%
• Santorum – 11.1%
• Paul – 18.6%

And

(Politico) Network entrance polling showed Romney accomplished a powerful near sweep of most voter groups, winning 57 percent of white voters, 57 percent of women and 53 percent of men. Romney was the strong favorite in every age bracket except voters under 30, among whom Ron Paul drew 41 percent to Romney’s 39 percent, according to CNN.

Team Mitt emailed out some bulletin points on the win, highlighting that it wasn’t just about getting the Mormon vote. One of those points is

Mitt Romney won a majority of “very conservative” voters (51%). He defeated Newt Gingrich (40-31%) among strong Tea Party voters. He won 48% of the vote among evangelicals (48 – 27%) over Newt Gingrich.

Is Mitt a conservative? No. He’s a typical Republican who holds some conservative values. This win did not make Gingrich happy, and brought out Sore Loser Syndrome

Newt Gingrich, speaking to reporters at a Las Vegas press conference as tonight’s results came in, vowed to continue his campaign into the summer and blasted Romney as a “pro-gun control, pro-abortion, … George Soros-approved” candidate.

Someone needs to remind Newt, as well as Paul, Santorum, and Romney, that the ultimate goal is to put a Republican in the White House, displacing The Guy Who Makes People Think Better Of Jimmy Carter.

Finally, Maggie Haberman has 5 takeaways

1) Mitt Romney has medium ‘mo’ – It’ll become “big mo” if Romney strings together three wins in a row. But for now, in a Mormon-heavy state where he’d been organizing for almost five years, it’s just medium-level momentum.

2) Romney is banking on pessimism – There’s a very fine line for a candidate between speaking candidly and sounding like they’re rooting for the nation to hit harder times. (hey, that’s what the Democrats did from 2002 on. Hope and Change was based on telling Americans how bad things sucked)

3) Gingrich keeps going – And yet he hasn’t settled on a message. The lead-up to the former House Speaker taking the stage Saturday night was studded by news reports about a fresh, “positive” message that Gingrich will be adopting. It would be at least the third or fourth time that Gingrich has gone positive since he saw his lead evaporate in Iowa. (and that didn’t last long)

4) Ron Paul’s operation fell short – The only candidate with an actual operation in Nevada, aside from Romney, was Ron Paul. But Paul, with 43 percent of the vote in, was in third place, at 18 percent of the vote. (aww, bummer /sarc off)

5) Conservatives need to seize the moment or live with Romney – Romney’s campaign highlighted to reporters his numbers with conservatives, but he won a plurality victory with “very conservative” voters, and the same was true with tea party voters. All of this was in a state where his Mormon faith bolstered him — in other states, conservatives and tea party voters have yet to coalesce strongly around a single candidate. (the fact is, there is no real conservative in the race. Santorum comes closest, but he tends to be more of a social conservative than a fiscal conservative. Newt holds some conservative positions, but also many progressive positions. Ron Paul, well, he’s just Ron Paul)

And now we’re on to the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses, along with the Missouri primary, which doesn’t actually count, on the 7th, followed by Maine on the 11th. Then a big break till the 28th, when we head to Arizona and Michigan.

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

(Washington Examiner) “Let’s see it,” a frustrated Sen. Jeff Sessions said on the Senate floor Monday afternoon. “Let’s bring it forward.”

By “it,” Sessions meant a Democratic proposal for a 2012 federal budget. In recent days Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has been asking, pushing, pleading, cajoling and begging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put forward a Democratic plan. So far, Reid has steadfastly refused.

That’s nothing new. The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009, which was, if you are counting — and Jeff Sessions is — 755 days ago.

Oh, wait, my mistake, that’s annoying, that was Byron York writing last year. Let’s move to this year

(The Hill) Senate Democratic leaders on Friday said they do not intend to bring a fiscal 2013 budget up for a floor vote.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on Friday.

Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that the debt-limit agreement in August directs spending for the next year and said Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has already asked the heads of the subcommittees to write their appropriations bills for fiscal 2013.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has said he would probably mark up a budget resolution for 2013, but Reid recently told the Hill he didn’t expect any floor action on a measure produced by the panel.

And then we have

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is working on his own budget plan, tweeted Friday that Senate Democrats “?confirm they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Reid’s refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis.?”

Ryan has said that Democrats should be embarrassed to claim the debt deal as their blueprint because it “fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems.”

“It’s been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people,” Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the budget committee, said in a statement. “Now, once again, the Senate’s ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership.”

Obviously, this has to be Bush’s fault in some manner or form. I’m not sure how or why, but, definitely Bush’s fault for this complete abdication of responsibility by Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats. It’s not like that pesky Constitution says

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Technically, I suppose we could generously consider the aforementioned debt ceiling agreement to be a “consequence of appropriations,” but that would be very charitable for FY2012 and certainly does not cover Fiscal 2013. The House GOP need to make sure they go on record with a true budget, brought to the floor and passed. They’ve done that for FY2012 already. Multiple times. The Democrat controlled Senate refuses to pass one, which is quite understandable, what with the next general election coming up. They’ve decided that there is less damage in abdicating their responsibilities than in showing the American public what they intend to do with the People’s money.

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

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.