Speaking to voters at Hotel Fort Des Moines in Des Moines, Iowa today, Governor Mitt Romney treated listeners to a powerful, plain-spoken speech on America’s federal spending addiction and our nearly incomprehensible national debt.

Prior to his appearance in Des Moines, the Romney campaign released a thought-provoking web video focusing on Iowans – “a few of the 23 million” – who are struggling under the oppressive Obama economy:

Before The Gov delivered his remarks, the Des Moines Register published an article by Jennifer Jacobs highlighting some of Romney’s remarks:

Romney speech: Prairie fire of debt doesn’t care if it’s a donkey or elephant in your lawn

A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation, and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will tell Iowans today he can douse the flames.

“That fire could care less if you have a donkey or an elephant in your front lawn, it’s still coming for your house,” Romney’s prepared remarks say, according to his campaign. “There’s plenty of blame to go around for both parties.

“But in my years leading businesses, an Olympics and a state, I’ve learned one simple principle of leadership that never falters: Leaders lead. I will lead us out of this debt and spending crisis.”

While Romney deftly blocks Obama’s fiery darts and keeps bringing the campaign dialogue back to the economy, Jacobs writes that the Obama re-election campaign is trying to “pierce” Romney’s message by running Iowa TV attack ads against the governor.

Romney intends to steer the conversation toward government spending and debt.

“President Obama started his days in office with the trillion-dollar stimulus package – the biggest, most careless one-time expenditure by the federal government in history. And remember this: the stimulus wasn’t just wasted – it was borrowed and wasted. We still owe the money, we’re still paying interest on it, and it’ll be that way long after this presidency ends in January,” Romney’s prepared remarks say.

VIDEO of Romney’s excellent speech may be viewed here.

★ Transcript of Romney’s remarks from Des Moines:

Thank you all very much.

It’s good to be back in Iowa. So many friends here hold a special place in my heart.

I’ve come here today to talk to you about an issue that affects the very heart of America.

Of course, Iowa is much more than a collection of beautiful farms and small towns and cities bounded by two of America’s great rivers. Iowa is a collection of the values that built America and that have sustained us through good times and bad. You know them well: hard work, taking care of our neighbors, family, faith in God and country. Common sense, kitchen table values. Not fancy, but enduring.

These aren’t the values that lead to out-of-control spending sprees, or to piling up massive amounts of debt you know your children – and grandchildren – will have to work all their lives to pay off. These aren’t the values of putting off difficult decisions with the hope that maybe someone else will solve them.

Today America faces a financial crisis of debt and spending that threatens what it means to be an American. Here in the heartland you know in your hearts that it’s wrong.

We can’t spend another four years talking about solving a problem that we know we are making worse every single day.

When the men and women who settled the Iowa prairie saw a fire in the distance, they didn’t look around for someone else to save them or go back to sleep hoping the wind might blow another direction. They knew that their survival was up to them.

A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation and every day we fail to act that fire gets closer to the homes and children we love.

This is not solely a Democrat or a Republican problem. The issue isn’t who deserves the most blame, it’s who is going to do what it takes to put out the fire.

Continue reading below the fold.

Read more…

I don’t think this clip got enough attention last week. As Democrats double down on their election year strategy of class warfare and/or taxing the rich (aka: “the Buffett Rule”), Romney brilliantly shared his thoughts on the issue. (The Buffett Rule seeks to raise taxes on those earning over $1 million per year to “make them pay their fair share.”)

David Axelrod
Communications Director for re-elect Obama campaign

The once-Senior Adviser to Obama, now Communications Director for the President’s re-election campaign, David Axelrod, really did a blue ribbon job of communicating this morning…

He told the truth.

On FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Axelrod made the case for electing Governor Mitt Romney:

“The choice in this election is between economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we are on . . . ”

The Romney campaign, quick-as-lightning, released a video of Axelrod’s comments:

Couldn’t agree more.

Thanks, Dave!

The Obama road – where it has taken us… For a few reminders click on link below.

Read more…

They meet once a year in Washington D.C and attract lots of attention…

This year was no exception. The American Society of News Editors (ASNE) was privy to speeches from the two political figures the nation is focused on – President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.

There was one exception, however. Yesterday, ahead of GOP primary election returns, Obama took an unusual turn in his speech… Previously rarely mentioning Mitt Romney by name, the President chose to deliver a stinging attack against Republicans and particularly, Mitt Romney.

Obama slammed The Gov for supporting Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan (which passed in the House last week) and the measures proposed therein to save Medicare and rein in spending. Obama claimed Romney and Ryan would see that mothers and young children wouldn’t get healthy food, college students would lose financial aid, the Dept. of Justice and FBI would be weakened, in certain parts of the country air traffic controllers would vanish, even weather forecasters would be harmed – that Governors would be tardy issuing hurricane warnings, and so on.

After his doomsday diatribe, Obama intoned, “This is not conjecture. I am not exaggerating. These are facts. And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next.”

“One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency.”

“He said he’d be very supportive of this new budget and he even called it ‘marvelous’, which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget.” (Laughter.) “It’s a word you don’t often hear generally.” (Laughter.)

Obama further elaborated – calling the Romney/Ryan goal to stop wasteful spending a “Trojan horse – thinly-veiled social Darwinism.”

Obama’s speech reeked with the usual leftist M.O. – class warfare, scaring Americans, exaggerations, mischaracterizations, untruths, and dividing the electorate to score political points.

Obama has now clearly targeted Mitt Romney, the Ryan budget, Republicans, and our opportunity society.

The general election has begun.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan check out latest results in Wisconsin. April 3, 2012
(Photo/Zac Moffat - click on image to enlarge)

Today, it was Governor Mitt Romney’s turn at the ASNE lectern. Fresh after long days of campaigning in Wisconsin with Congressman Ryan (and victories last night in said state, Maryland, and D.C.) he delivered a riveting, powerhouse speech – highlighting Obama’s “Hide and Seek” campaign. It was characterized by a CNN politico as a very sobering, somber speech.

In the course of Governor Romney’s campaign-defining remarks, he underscored Obama’s lack of CANDOR with the American people, especially in light of Obama’s live mic incident with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

… “[I]nstead of answering those vital questions, President Obama came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making – and criticized policies no one is proposing. It’s one of his favorite strategies – setting up straw men to distract from his record.

And while I understand why the President doesn’t want to run on his record, he can’t run from his record either.
. . .
On what other issues will he state his true position only after the election is over?”

Here’s the transcript of Romney’s ASNE speech (you won’t want to skip over this):

Over the last ten months, I’ve come to know a good deal about some of the journalists who write for your newspapers.

We’ve aired our dirty laundry together – sometimes literally as well as figuratively. We’ve bathed hour upon hour in the fine diesel aroma of a campaign bus. And we’ve shared more birthdays and holidays with each other than with our families.

One of the reporters covering our campaign is Maeve Reston of the Los Angeles Times. For Maeve’s birthday, I got her a cake and sang her a birthday song. For my birthday, she was kind enough to remind me that I’m now old enough to qualify for Medicare.

In just the few years since my last campaign, the changes in your industry are striking. Then, I looked to Drudge or FOX or CNN online to see what stories were developing. Hours after a speech, it was being dissected on the Internet. Now, it’s Twitter, and instantaneous reaction. In 2008, the coverage was about what I said in my speech. These days, it’s about what brand of jeans I am wearing and what I ate for lunch.

Most people in my position are convinced that you are biased against us. We identify with LBJ’s famous quip that if he were to walk on water, your headline would read: “President Can’t Swim.”

Some people thus welcome the tumult in your industry, heralding the new voices and the unfiltered or supposedly unbiased sources. Frankly, in some of the new media, I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control. I miss the days of two or more sources for a story – when at least one source was actually named.

How your industry will change, I cannot predict. I subscribe to Yogi Berra’s dictum: “Forecasting is very difficult, especially when it involves the future.”

But I do know this: You will continue to find ways to provide the American people with reliable information that is vital to our lives and to our nation. And I am confident that the press will remain free. But further, I salute this organization and your various institutions in your effort to make it not only free, but also responsible, accurate, relevant, and integral to the functioning of our democracy.

Given the number and scale of our nation’s current challenges, the November election will have particular consequence. It will be a defining event. President Obama and I have very different visions for America, both of what it means to be an American today and what it will mean in the future.

Read more…

We thought this may be coming after the debate.

It appears the vetting of Rick Santorum and the contrast between his projected image and reality are catching up to him. Two polls released today now show (one still within the margin of error) that Mitt has a slight edge in Michigan. Rasmussen shows a 6 point lead with a 4% margin for error, and Mitchell / Rosetta Stone shows a 3 point lead with a 4.7% margin for error. Another Rasmussen poll shows a more sizable 13 point lead in Arizona. These polls seem to indicate people are thinking like I am: Rick Santorum has electability issues. In addition, if the rationale for your presidency is that you stick to your principles, but you admit in a debate you will vote against them when expedient, the entire basis for your candidacy is seriously undermined and calling yourself “courageous” is a bit of a stretch.

We know we can’t live by polls; there’s still lots of work to do to get out Mitt’s positive message of turning around the American economy, repealing Obamacare and putting a man in the White House with executive experience rather than an inexperienced legislator (out of the GOP or the Democratic parties).

Mitt of course has been steady since the beginning as the only candidate with executive experience or economic know-how. He has a 59 point plan to turn around the economy, like he’s turned around failing businesses, the Olympics and Massachusetts. He balanced the budget in Massachusetts by cutting programs, while lowering taxes. He’s proposed lowering marginal tax rates as President by 20%, and he’s committed to being a pro-life president and choosing strict constructionists for the Supreme Court. He knows how the economy works, and will be ready when the next major shock to our economy hits (gas prices, anyone?) As I’ve said before, one of the main security risks to our country is the $15 trillion national debt, and only Mitt has a real plan to address that or the appreciation of what a risk it is. When I compare Mitt vs. the alternatives, to me it’s a no-brainer. Mitt is experienced and principled. The others fall short. That’s why they’ve all come and gone, while Mitt stays steady at or near the top.

NOTE: The guest editorial that accompanies the table below is absolutely outstanding. Due to the length of this “Experience Comparative,” in order to read the whole editorial, you will need to click the “CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…” link at the bottom.

In 2006, a close friend of mine introduced me to David Parker, a personal friend of Governor Mitt Romney. I was contemplating doing some grassroots work to promote his run for President and wanted to know more about the man. Candidly, I was skeptical. How could a governor of such a liberal state be a Republican, let alone a conservative? David met me for lunch at Strawberry Farms and laid out the high points of Governor Romney’s strong conservative action, from his record of protecting life to his hundreds of vetoes. I was sold!

David L. Parker

David organized this amazing matrix, comparing the leadership experience and skills of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates. In my opinion, this table — along with the accompanying Op-Ed piece by David — should be published in every major newspaper in the nation, including the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal! I honestly believe that if every literate voter were to carefully study this table and Op-Ed, the nomination would be over now.

As you compare each candidate below, add Obama to the list and subject his experience to these points — the results of his trial and error leadership are dismal indeed. Most impressive to me is the comparison below of leadership experience in the private, public, and philanthropic sectors — Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul simply don’t measure up to Governor Romney’s extensive background of executive leadership. Why any person would consider voting for a candidate without proven executive experience — after voting for Obama the community organizer — I will never understand. (there is good reason it is extremely rare that a congressman or senator is ever elected as POTUS)

You can make a big difference in this elections season. Please pass this Op-Ed piece by David Parker to as many people you know as possible.

“No Apology, the Case for Mitt Romney” — by David Parker

Are we so blind in our pursuit of our conservative ideology that we fail to recognize needed pragmatism? Our nation, a center-right nation, is not conservative, nor liberal, but an amalgamation of many people, each with individual agency, thought and perspective that leans center-right in the majority.

[ editorial continues below the table ]

Yes, we are clumped together at times in ideological conclaves, but to impose or dictate our conservative ideology in absolute myopia is a failed and fractured model, just as it is with those on the other side of the aisle. We cannot win and they lose, nor visa versa. We are one Nation under God, and thus we need to be sufficiently pragmatic and persuasive to win the majority, and lead those who believe in contrary principles of liberal thought to the more conservative Promised Land — America, an exceptional nation!

Accordingly, leadership and governance, and ideological advocacy demands pragmatism over some perceived capacity of force majeure.

Read more…

“Barack Obama is the poster child for the arrogance of government.” –Mitt Romney at CPAC

Read for yourselves. Mitt needs to be our next president. UPDATE: Watch the speech here.

Thanks, Al, for that warm introduction.

This year, here at CPAC, we’ve got a great crowd. It’s been a great conference. For that I suppose we should acknowledge President Obama, the conservative movement’s top recruiter. Turns out, he really is a great community organizer. Although, I don’t think we were the community he had in mind.

Today we are poised for a great victory in November. The pundits and the pollsters tell us we can win this election. But we must tell the nation why we should win. It is up to us to prove that we are truly ready to step forward and lead this country. This election is not just about getting more votes. Defeating Barack Obama is only one step toward our greater goal of saving America.

Of course we can defeat Barack Obama! That’s the easy part! Believe me, November 6th will be the easiest day our next President will face.

This country we love is in jeopardy. It’s more than the economic statistics we read, it’s the pain we feel in our hearts. For three years we have suffered through the failures not only of a weak leader, but of a bankrupt ideology. I am convinced that if we do our job, if we lead with conviction and integrity, that history will record the Obama Presidency as the last gasp of liberalism’s great failure and a turning point for a new conservative era.

But it’s not enough to show how they have failed. We must prove we deserve to lead. I am here today to ask you to stand with me shoulder to shoulder as we go forward to fight for America.

As we step forward together, now is the time to reaffirm what it means to be a conservative and why this must be our greatest hour. America is like no other country in history. At the very heart of our American conservatism is the conviction that the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are uniquely powerful, foundational, and defining. Some see the hand of Providence in their authorship. Others credit the brilliance of the Founders. Many of us see both. But conservatives all agree that departing from these founding principles is a departure from the greatness of America– from our mission, from our freedom, from our prosperity, and from our purpose.

I know this President will never get it, but we conservatives aren’t just proud to cling to our guns and to our religion. We are also proud to cling to our Constitution! Read more…

Here is a list the scandals that have involved Newt Gingrich in the last week. As you read this list, ask yourself if this man would be fitting representative for our country as president of the United States.

1) Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne Gingrich, reveals on ABC News that Newt asked her for an “open marriage” so he could continue to have an affair while remaining married. 

2) After the “open marriage” allegation, Gingrich stated in his defense that he “offered several witnesses” to ABC news who could counter the allegations but that ABC news “wasn’t interested.” A few days later, Gingrich then admits that he lied and that he never offered counter witnesses to ABC.

3) Forbes magazine reports that Gingrich very possibly is a tax cheat and that he didn’t pay all the necessary taxes for 2010. Gingrich owes up to $69,000 in taxes to the IRS.

4) Politico runs a story that proves conclusively that Gingrich supported and praised the model used by Freddie/Fannie to make home loans. This model allowed for “subprime” mortgages to be used widely in the U.S. and eventually lead to the housing crisis. Politico’s story contradicts Gingrich’s many claims that he was simply a “historian” for Freddie/Fannie and that he warned against the model. 

5) Countering Gingrich’s recent claims that he was Ronald Reagan’s greatest supporter/follower, many insiders to the Reagan White House wrote that Gingrich “repeatedly insulted Reagan”and said that Reagan was responsible for America’s moral “decay.” Newt goes on to say thatReagan’s policies were “flawed” and “insufficient” to counter the spread of Communism and the Soviet Union. 

6) A new video of Newt Gingrich is uncovered that shows Newt in 1985 bashing Ronald Reagan saying “the Reagan administration has failed” and that “Harry Truman has accomplished vastly more in foreign policy in five years than Reagan in the same amount of time.” 

7) At a recent rally in Florida, Gingrich said “I never criticized Clinton for having sex with Lewinski.” That is truly an astonishing thing for Gingrich to say. 

8. In an interview with CBN, Gingrich says that his many mistakes, like being a serial adulterer, makes him look more “normal and relatable” to people.

9) Joe Scarborough served in the House as a Republican during Newt’s time as speaker. Scarborough writes about how Newt passed the Contract with American and then fought with the GOP to break key provisions of that same contract. Scarborough also brings up how Gingrich “compared Reagan with Neville Chamberlain, dismissed Reaganomics as flawed and called Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union an utter failure a few years before the U.S.S.R. was relegated to the dustbin of history.”
 

10) In 2007, Gingrich said that Spanish is the “language of the Ghetto.” Fact-checkers have verified that Gingrich has given several explanations for this comment but he has never really apologized for it.

11) Aside from the scandals, there are also just plain “Zany” comments made by Gingrich. In a speech in Florida recently, Gingrich vowed to create a “permanent colony on the moon by the end of his second term in office.” And that colony will “become the 51st state in America.”

12) Former GOP presidential nominee, Bob Dole, issues a stinging anti-endorsement of Gingrich pointing out that hardly anyone who served under Gingrich has endorsed him.

Did I forget anything else that happened in the last week or so? Those are just the scandals I could think of off the top of my head. Just imagine what the Democrats could do with a list like this. And remember, that is only last week.

A Few Comments About Newt Today

What does Nancy Know?

I’m going to throw out a couple additional thoughts about the topic of Vic’s article below summarizing the charge of Nancy Pelosi last night that Newt will not be president.

Says Nancy: “That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it. It isn’t going to happen.”

How can she be so sure? She said: “There’s something I know.”

My surprise was, when Newt was asked if Pelosi knew something that would derail his presidency, Newt’s answer was: “I don’t know.”

What? “I don’t know?” Seriously? You’d better come clean, Mr. Speaker. The right answer is “Absolutely nothing.” If there is something she might know, you’d better ‘fess up, and soon, or the GOP will be waking up with collective groans in October when Pelosi does her data dump a week or two before the election.

Mr. Speaker, release the notes to the House investigation into your conduct. Yes, there’s quite a public record there, but what about the sealed part of the records? And your arguments that Mitt should disclose unspecified information about his business dealings carry much less weight: Mitt worked in the private sector for a private company and there’s been no suggestion he may have done anything unethical. All reports indicate he’s squeaky clean. You’re the person, Mr. Speaker, who was the first Speaker in US history to be removed and to have to resign, largely as a result of ethics violations. There’s not even a hint of smoke regarding Mitt’s activities, but with respect to yours, embers of fires are still burning these 15 years later, rekindled by your walking the line of illegal lobbying activities. Call yourself what you want, but you’re quacking and waddling. I’m calling you a (grandiose) duck.

And let’s not forget one of our favorite gems: did he whisper something to her on that couch?

Newt to Run from Future Debates?

I loved the Brian Williams debate. It allowed candidates to talk freely about ideas without the emotional intervention of a crowd. A comment on my post yesterday was very observant:

When you play football, you have a pep rally. Newt is great at the pep rally. Pep rallies don’t win games.

To actually win the game, you have to prepare, plan, practice, practice, then practice some more. Then you execute your prepared game plan. Newt stinks at all of that (missing the Virginia ballot, lack of fundraising, lack of endorsements, volatile campaign staff, erratic campaign…). So how in the world could anyone think he would be a great president? He would not even be a good president…

Newt would be a great sideline cheerleader in the Superbowl of politics, but should not take the field.

Thanks, “kimntim.”

Newt, knowing he performs much more poorly when he actually has to discuss his “big ideas” without the Fox made-for-TV rah-rah, has threatened not to participate in more debates unless they’re on his terms. From Reuters:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, coming off one of his most subdued debate performances of the campaign, signaled on Tuesday he may skip future debates unless his supporters are given full license to clap, cheer and roar.

And:

Without a roaring crowd to encourage him, Gingrich took a heavy pounding from Romney on Monday and spent long stretches of the debate on the defensive over his record in Congress and his work for mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

And this is the guy who says he can stand up to Obama in a debate? Newt, your tail’s between your legs. That’s not a convincing position of power. You can try and run and hide from Mitt in future debates, or hide behind a planted crowd, but in the presidential debates vs. Obama, the format is what you fear most and where you performed most poorly: no crowd interaction. And yes, that’s the format where Mitt shined most. Bring on Mitt vs. Obama! Anyone wondering about Mitt vs. Obama should also see also my article from yesterday in which the Financial Times says that’s just the matchup America needs.

Taxes

Another topic worthy of discussion that I haven’t had a chance to tackle, and will probably do so poorly, but that merits a start: taxes. Besides Mitt’s charitable giving of well over 10% of his income, Mitt’s taxes revealed he made tens of millions of dollars and was taxed at an effective 14% tax rate. Democrats look at that and think that’s a travesty. Republicans look at it and think “everyone should be as successful.” $6 million in taxes last year is not chump change! Looking at tax charts, the top 1% of this country already pay a disproportionate amount of the tax dollars. Yes, the tax rate may be lower on capital gains vs. ordinary income, but there’s a policy reason for that: to encourage investment, and because it’s quite likely those dollars were already taxed once. When you start adding up all the times Mitt’s money was taxed, my guess is it amounts to much more than a 14% rate. For example, any C corporations in his portfolio are paying taxes on their income before they distribute any dividends. And he may well have paid ordinary income rates or cap gains rates on invested money already, and the Federal government is getting a 2d or 3d bite at the apple. All in, my guess is Mitt’s real tax rate is much higher.

On this question generally, I favor a lower cap gains rate to assure continued investment in the US. Others will do a better job than I laying that out, but when Obama says we all need to pay our “fair share,” and reserves the right to define “fair,” I get very worried. I’m reminded of the French revolution, in which the values espoused were “liberty, equality and fraternity.” Liberty I can agree with. Fraternity is great. But be careful around equality: we love equality of opportunity, and the French seem to like equality of result, i.e., wealth re-distribution. All that does is disincentivize those most able to work, and pay those that are less productive disproportionately, leading to a perpetually depressed economy.

If I heard correctly, Obama wants to double the cap gains tax to 30%. What will happen to investment in the US if that happens? If the US is taxed more, an investment there is less profitable and that money will be invested elsewhere, end of story. Obama doesn’t seem to realize this, or doesn’t care. Mitt knows the real impact due to his time in the real economy. Obama doesn’t. Newt doesn’t. Mitt does.

Overall, the release of Mitt’s tax records only proves to me that Mitt succeeded at the American Dream by keeping the rules, paying just as much as he’s required to under the law, and wisely managing what he was blessed with to keep the money he’s entitled to. Do I want someone who’s played by the rules and who succeeded to be my president? Absolutely. Do I want someone who so poorly manages his finances that he pays more than what he’s required? Not at all. Reminds me of the type of guy who couldn’t even manage to get on the ballot in his home state.

Numerous news organizations are publishing that Newt Gingrich may have cheated on his taxes in 2010. Here is what Forbes Magazine had to say:

“Newt Gingrich avoided tens of thousands of dollars in Medicare payroll taxes in 2010 by using a technique the Internal Revenue Service has consistently and successfully attacked.”

A Wall Street Journal subsidiary called MarketWatch wrote:

“Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich avoided paying about $69,000 in payroll taxes in 2010 by using a tax strategy that characterized money he collected from one of his companies as profits rather than salary, a tax expert said.

It’s been called the “John Edwards loophole” in the past, because the former presidential contender used the same strategy to pay himself from his law practice . . .There are a multitude of cases where the IRS has successfully challenged [this] improper tax strategy,” the tax expert said. 

USA Today quotes 3 tax lawyers as stating:  

“The IRS could challenge it, if they wished. The IRS might make the case his salary should have been substantially larger” and subject to Medicare tax.” The Gingrich campaign declined to allow an interview with Gingrich’s tax preparer.

Forbes concludes:

“Of course, now that Gingrich is running for president, it is unlikely the IRS will come after him as he would simply call it an attack by the Obama administration. Personally, I can’t wait to hear Newt find a way to blame this on the media. Or maybe he’ll tell us that he was so busy serving his country that he had to cheat the government in order to save the government.”

It seems that Newt Gingrich’s push to have Romney release his taxes has backfired. More than likely, we won’t have to wait until October to get a “surprise-a-day” from Newt Gingrich.

This is part 2 in a continuing series of questionable legal practices by Mr. Gingrich. Remember that improper tax payments were one of the main reasons the Speaker was forced to leave the Speakership in the 90′s. Click here for part I.