Gingrich Wins South Carolina

Posted by on January 22, 2012 11:19 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories: 2012 Campaign

Picture of South Carolina Ballot BoxLee’s Summit, January 22, 2012 – Yesterday Newt Gingrich scored his first victory of the primary season with an impressive 40.4% to Mitt Romney’s 27.8%, with Santorum taking 3rd place, and Ron Paul bringing up the rear.

Pollsters had Gingrich behind going into the final week, but two excellent debate performances and hard work on the ground gave him the victory.  Now the question remains who will be the first to win twice in this election year.  Florida looms close, and again – as in South Carolina – Mitt Romney has a substantial lead in the polls.

The key question in the media is why did Romney lose to Gingrich.  Most conservative commentators give the win to Newt’s debate performance; yet CNN wonders why Romney did not win.

The real question has to be what is it that these candidates bring to the campaign and how are voter reacting to it.

Romney still has to battle Bain Capital media coverage.  Yet, if you think about it, one of the things that you want in a President is the experience of creating jobs.  While the President cannot, by himself, create jobs they can certainly affect the job creation climate.  It is fair to say that the more regulations and the more obstacles that a president puts in place, the more difficult it is to have job creation.

Bain is made up of various funds, and include companies that I easily recognize: Staples, LinkedIn, Colorlabs, Brontes Technologies, Toys “R” Us, Clear Channel Communications, Quintiles, Sensata Technologies.

My background in startups and acquisitions has been full of learning experiences.  In one internet company we established a world class operations system, but due to problems in sales we ran out of capital.  Was it the fault of our investors; no.  Was it the fault of our management team; somewhat.   We had a great business plan, and we had a hard working team, but the full definition of who we were had not materialized yet.

More recently I was part of a team who turned a company around from the final hours of life.  We worked hard, fixed some operational issues, reached customers, divested segments of the company that were not profitable and we turned it around.  Was it done by our investors; no – but we needed their faith, trust and support to make the turn around.  Was it done by management; yes but it took everyone pulling in the same direction with a clear vision of who we were and what we wanted the company to be.

Bain Capital cannot be that different.  Sometimes the invest in winners (Staples) and sometimes they invest in companies that don’t make it.  But since investment pays based on risk, and when you take risk sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.

Why is the Media attacking the efforts of an investment company that simply to stay in business, has to find winners to invest in and coach up; while allowing failures to be purged from the system?

When Obama and the Department of Energy invested in Solindra, they invested our tax money.  When Bain Capital invests, they use their own funds – not the taxpayer.  Why such an indirect attack on Romney?  Or, is the attack more on capitalism and the brutal nature of allowing businesses to fail?

I’m not personally sold on Romney; but attacks like this force me to look deeper into the man and try to understand him better, so that when Missouri has the primary I’m better prepared to vote.

My issue with Romney is more about the Massachusetts Socialized Medicine approach he lead, passed and supports.  To me whether a State does a wrong thing, or the Federal Government does a wrong thing; it is still WRONG.  Romney in my evaluation loses points for that.

Romney worked with a legislature that was against his own ideals and fundamental principles; yet he found enough common ground to move things forward.

Gingrich is a former U.S. Representative.  He’s had to win consensus from the Democrats and Republicans and he achieved it.  He is a man of big ideas, and the ability to make things happen; both in the House as well as out in the electorate.  Proof you ask?  Think about the 1992 take over after more than four decades of Democrat party rule over the House of Representatives?  Do you think that did not take some orchestration in Gingrich’s part?

Yet, I worry about Gingrich’s ability to stay out of his own way.  After leading in Iowa he went off on a tangent about Supreme Court appointments, and the 9th circuit court. What was that all about?

Newt; It’s the economy stupid – as Bill Clinton pointed out in 1992.  Focus!  That’s your biggest problem and why I’m not swayed over yet.  Stay focused on the Economy!

Respectfully Submitted
The Lee’s Summit Conservative