Dear Rick,

I’m a huge fan of yours. I very want you to be President of the United States.

You are an excellent speaker. Your speeches on caucus and primary nights have been outstanding.

I thought your speech on the night of the Iowa caucuses was one of the best political speeches I can
remember — when you talked about your grandfather’s hands covered with coal dust. You spoke without a teleprompter. And you spoke from the heart.

That was just awesome.

We need a lot more of that.

Of course, you can’t keep giving that same speech over and over again. But stories like that one, that show voters where you come from and who Rick Santorum is are very powerful.

I also love your phrase rebuilding America’s economy “from the bottom up.”

That’s a tremendous theme because a lot of voters are under the misunderstanding that Republicans are for trickle down economics, where the people at the bottom get the crumbs. Your populist “from the bottom” up theme also contrasts well with Mitt Romney’s Wall Street image.

But at times, I think you get trapped by the media into answering horse race and process questions.

Instead of talking about what you want to do for America, you sometimes get sucked into talking about delegate math and your path to the nomination.

Forget all that. And tell your campaign staff and consultants to stop talking about process.

When you are asked questions about the latest polls or the delegate math, pretend you don’t even read the polls or worry about the delegate count.  Just say: “I really don’t focus on any of that. I’ll leave those process and horse race questions for you people in the media to talk about. I just know the more people hear what I have to say, the better I seem to do.  I just figure if people understand my vision and plans for the country, these primaries and caucuses will ultimately take care of themselves. You don’t need a lot of money or an army of consultants and pollsters if you have the right message.”

It’s like a golfer worrying all the time about what his score might be.

Forget the score. Focus on hitting the shot correctly.

And stop hinting that Newt Gingrich should get out of the race.

Newt will do what he wants to do. The more you hint that he should get out, the more likely it is he’ll stay in. You can’t do anything about Newt. Whatever happens there will happen.

Stop whining about the media coverage you’re getting. Of course the media hates you and everything you stand for. Get used to it.

You’ve got to stay focused on what you can do, and that’s get your message out to the voters the best you can.

Forget also about Mitt Romney’s negative ads.

It did not help Bob Dole when he told George H. W. Bush to “stop lying about my record.”

And it doesn’t help you to get down in the mud with Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney has to go negative because he has no message. He literally stands for nothing.

There’s no there there with Romney. And the voters know it.

He is running a content-free campaign.

Ronald Reagan never talked about polls, or the number of delegates he might win, or anything to do with process or the horse race. Reagan never complained about the media — which was a whole lot worse back then when there was no Rush Limbaugh, no conservative talk radio to speak of, no FOX News, no conservative blogosphere.

But Reagan prevailed anyway.

Reagan always talked about one and only one thing: His vision for the country.

He did not even talk much about his opponents. He would usually say something like: “Some of our Democrat friends say ______________, but we believe_____________.”

He hardly mentioned Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale.

When he was running against President Ford in 1976 for the GOP nomination, he hardly ever mentioned Ford.

Reagan talked only about his plans for America.

He was the Happy Warrior. Reagan never whined about unfair attacks on him.

So no more answering questions about polls or delegate math. No more getting trapped into answering questions about contraceptives. No more rolling around in the mud with Mitt Romney. No more saying FOX News is “shilling for Mitt Romney.”

Of course they are — always have been, always will.  There’s nothing you can do about that.

Karl Rove is not a political analyst for FOX News and the Wall Street Journal.  He’s a political operative for the Romney campaign and the GOP Establishment.  He’s Mr. GOP Establishment.

Karl Rove is a good man.  But he is what he is.  His candidate is Mitt. Stop complaining about it.

No one cares about this “inside baseball” nonsense anyway. Get out of the weeds.

Talk about the big issues and big themes that voters care about.

Talk about your vision for America.

But overall, you’re doing great.

Ben Hart

Watch Ronald Reagan’s great 1964 “A Time for Choosing Speech” on behalf of Barry Goldwater to see what I’m talking about

This was a speech about big themes and momentous issues — life and death issues, because of the Soviet menace. This was a speech.

And here was Rick’s great speech on Iowa Caucus night

We need a lot more speeches like this one. This is why Rick is connecting with voters.

Below is a screenshot of Nate Silver’s analysis of Rick Santorum’s chances of winning the Alabama and Mississippi primary contests. Silver’s chart appeared on the same day as these primaries.  Silver put Santorum’s odds of winning Alabama at 9%, his chance of winning Mississippi at 2%.

I usually read Nate Silver to see what he has to say.

His schtick, basically, is to use very scientific-sounding statistical analysis and then to make projections — sort of like what Larry Sabato does.

The problem with Silver’s approach is it’s purely statistical.

But critical to any political analysis is:

1) Political momentum (which candidate is gaining momentum and which candidate is losing momentum); and

2) Which candidate’s message aligns best with the electorate — in this case, conservative Republican primary voters in the South.

If you look only at statistical models (absent of just plain old political horse sense) you arrive at Silver’s conclusions.

But anyone who watches politics can see that a) this supposed frontrunner just isn’t resonating with voters: and b) there’s a fast-closing, though under-funded, challenger who is resonating with voters.

When the political winds shift, it’s very tough to change those winds.

Look what happened to Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

There wasn’t much any of them could do who had the misfortune of representing a swing state or district.

The political winds are clearly blowing against Romney right now. But he does have a lot of money. The question has always been, almost from the start, who would be the most credible not-Romney candidate?

Who would emerge as the strongest unRomney?

That’s clearly now Rick Santorum — as indicated by the fact that Mitt’s negative ads are not working against Rick . . . and by the fact that Rick is consistently outperforming the polls.

Santorum has had two key problems he has had to overcome:

1) Money; and

2) The fact that Newt has been siphoning off conservative votes.

Any casual observer could see that if Rick could at least somewhat solve both these problems Mitt would be in deep trouble — as has proven the case.

Mitt’s big problem is that he has a themeless campaign.

He literally stands for nothing.

Who really knows what Mitt believes?

There’s just no there there. And voters know it.

Mitt could not even muster 60% of the vote in Virginia when the only other candidate on the ballot was Ron Paul (who lately has been garnering 5% of the vote when Rick and Newt are in the race).

That’s how weak Mitt is.

The longer this race goes on, the less Mitt’s money advantage  matters — in part because the voters will have a better sense of who Rick is (so ads will matter less); and in part because Rick’s views are far more aligned with the views of GOP primary voters than are Mitt’s.

This has always been the big threat to Mitt.

He has had trouble getting above 40% of the vote in any contested primary or caucus. His vote percentages have been dropping with each passing week, not rising, despite the fact that the GOP field is half the size it was when this race started.

So Romney has been getting progressively weaker with each passing week, while Rick has been getting stronger.

This is like watching a marathon where the lead runner is on the verge of collapse, barely able to move forward at all, with another runner quickly closing from about a quarter mile behind, but looking very fresh.

The question is: Will the collapsing lead runner slow to such a crawl that the sprinting runner dashes past him like he’s standing still in the final stretch before the finish line?

This is what’s happening to Mitt.

Even the most casual observer of politics should be able to see this — should be able to see this is what’s been going on now for about a month.

Nate Silver seems like a nice enough fellow.  I see him on TV and I’ve been reading his stuff now for quite a while.  He sounds very scientific and academic — very New York Timesish.

But to predict on the same day as these primaries that Rick’s chance of winning Mississippi was 2% and the chance of him winning Alabama was 9% suggests that not much of what Nate Silver has to say is worth the time to read.

That’s why I took the screenshot of his chart.  I knew the instant I saw this chart in advance of these primaries that Silver was going to be not just wrong, but humiliatingly wrong.

Here was my own political analysis three days before these primaries >>>

Mitt Romney told CNN last evening, before the returns started coming in, that Rick Santorum “is at the desperate end of his campaign.”

Uhhh, I don’t think so.

Looks like Santorum’s campaign can now really get started.

With three victories in a row now (Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi) Santorum is on a roll.

All Team Romney can talk about is their delegate lead. Mitt’s content-free campaign  has no other message, except that his winning the nomination is supposedly inevitable.

Right now Romney has 495 delegates, Santorum 234, Newt 142, Ron Paul 64.

But if you add the not-Romney delegates together, that total is now 440.

Once the not-Romney delegate total moves ahead of the Romney delegate total, Romney can’t clinch the nomination before the convention.

That requires the not-Romneys to collectively gain another 56 delegates on Mitt.

This now looks likely to happen, possibly within the next two weeks.

Rick should now be able to raise enough money to become competitive with Mitt. He’s now the clear conservative alternative to Mitt.

To date, Rick and Newt have been splitting the conservative vote. Had Newt not been in the race, Rick would have also won Michigan and Ohio, where Mitt eeked out victories by the narrowest of margins. Rick also would have won Georgia.

So instead of three victories in a row, Rick would now have six victories in a row.

Newt’s not likely to drop out of the race. But look for most Newt voters to start stampeding to Santorum. If Newt can’t win in his backyard (Alabama and Miss), where can he win?

So Newt should now become mostly a non-factor for Rick.

Conservatives now know that if they want to beat Mitt, they need to vote for Rick and forget about Newt.

If you look at the primary and caucus calendar coming up, it looks very good for Rick.

States where Rick Santorum should do well include: MO (52) LA (46), PA (72), NC (55). WV (31), NE (35), OR (28), KY (45), ARK (36), TX (155), SD (28), MT (26). (Delegates in parens)

Remember, Rick won Missouri’s statewide beauty contest primary last month by a landslide. So he’s likely to win all or almost all that state’s 52 delegates.

Rick should win now in Louisiana. He’ll certainly win Pennsylvania. He should win all those states listed above by wide margins now that Newt is fading to non-factor status.

I also think Rick will do well in Illinois. He might not win. But he might.

He’s campaigning right now in Puerto Rico, so he must think he has a good chance there.

Rick will need to win in Texas (155 delegates).  That now looks likely, as Newt fades.

The two big states that look favorable to Romney are California and New York. But New York awards delegates proportionally. So Santorum should win a lot of delegates upstate and in the rural areas.

And California awards delegates by Congressional district. So Santorum could quite easily win 40% of the delegates in both California and New York state. Even if Santorum wins only 30% of those delegates, that’s still not good for Mitt. We’ll give Romney states like New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, and perhaps New Mexico.

The bottom line: The delegate math is really not looking good at all for Mitt.

Newt, if he stays in the race, will continue to pick up some delegates. Ron Paul will also pick up a few more here and there.

I see very little chance now that Mitt can get the 1,144 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination before the Convention.

But there’s a decent chance Rick could hit that number before the Convention.

Rick is now the one with the wind in his sails.

The song ‘Game On’ is performed by sisters Camille and Haley Harris. The rest of the band is made up of Harris family members. Their dad, Reverend David Harris, is the pastor at the Jubilee Christian Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where this video was created.  Santorum should ask the Harris family band to follow him for the entire campaign to warm up the crowds for his speeches.

Talk about a contrast in image and message to the sexually vivid “Obama Girl” of 2008!

Team Romney is telling the world Mitt’s got a lock on the GOP nomination.

Romney says he’s piled up too many delegates (409) for Rick Santorum (163 delegates) to overcome.  The number they throw out is that Santorum would have to win 63% of the remaining delegates to win the GOP nomination outright.

But hold on a second.

Let’s look at the math a bit closer.

For one thing, Rick’s 163 delegate total does not include Missouri (52 delegates) — a state Rick won the statewide beauty contest vote in a landslide.  Missou’s delegates are officially awarded later in a complicated process.  But Rick figures to get almost all of them.  So that takes Rick to around 200 delegates right there.

Now consider these facts . . .

Mitt Romney has won just 55% of the delegates so far. Less if we count Missouri.  And we’re only one-third of the way through the process.

If Mitt is held to winning just 47% of the remaining delegates, he does not get the 1,144 delegates he needs to secure the nomination.  That’s not much slippage — not much margin for error for Mitt.

Then when you look at the primary and caucus calendar coming up, the terrain does not look so favorable to Romney.

States where Rick Santorum should do well include: KS (40 delegates),  AL (50), MISS (40), LA (46), PA (72), NC (55). WV (31), NE (35), OR (28), KY (45), ARK (36), TX (155), SD (28), MT (26).  (Delegates in parens)

The two big states that look favorable to Romney are California and New York.  But New York awards delegates proportionally.  So Santorum should win a lot of delegates upstate and in the rural areas.

Mitt will win big in Manhattan and wealthy New York City suburbs like New Rochelle and the Hampstons. But does anyone really know how Republican primary voters in places like Brooklyn and the Bronx will vote? I certainly don’t.

And California awards delegates by Congressional district.  So Santorum could quite easily win 40% of the delegates in both California and New York state.  Even if Santorum wins only 30% of those delegates, that’s still not good for Mitt. We’ll give Romney states like New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Illinois, and perhaps New Mexico.

If you add all this up, it’s tough to see Romney wrapping up the GOP nomination before the end of June, if at all.

Admittedly, Rick also will also have a tough time getting the 1,144 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination.  As Team Romney keeps pointing out, Rick would need to win 63% of the remaining delegates (again, less if you count Missou’s 52 delegates, which Rick figures to win).

Remember, both Newt and Ron Paul have delegates as well — Newt  111; Paul 60.  And Newt will continue to pick up delegates in the deep south for as long as he stays in the race.

So it will be tough for Rick to get the 1,144 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination outright.  But it’s looking almost as tough for Mitt to get to the number he needs.

Also, to say it’s a longshot for Rick to get 63% of the remaining delegates is like saying it’s a longshot for the New York Giants to get 63% of the remaining points in the football game when they’re only half way through the second quarter.  It happens all the time.

Rick will win today in Kansas — will probably take almost all the delegates (40).  That win alone in combination with the 52 delegates he’ll take most of in Missou takes him within striking distance of Mitt.

UPDATE: Rick won Kansas with 53% of the vote. He’ll likely end up with all or almost all of the state’s 40 delegates. The rest of the vote was split between the other three candidates, all far behind. So this will take Rick up to about 240 delegates.

Now we have Alabama and Mississippi coming up on Tuesday, with Rick now having Mojo after his win  in Kansas.  So it’s very easy to see momentum swing quickly toward Rick. Once the momentum swings, it’s hard to stop.

How many times have you watched teams lose football games in the fourth quarter after they go into a “prevent defense” to try to protect a lead?

Happens all the time.

Then if Newt were to have a poor showing on Tuesday in Alabama and Mississippi, it’s possible he’ll either drop out or become a non-factor the rest of the way.  This would leave Rick as the clear conservative alternative to the Massachusetts Moderate.  Newt would then not be siphoning all those votes away from Santorum.

Rick would finally have the one-on-one race with Mitt he really needs to have a realistic chance to win.

Let’s face it. Mitt has been extraordinarily lucky to have two strong conservatives in the race splitting the conservative vote — Santorum taking the lion’s share of the conservative vote, but Newt taking enough votes from Rick to deny Rick key victories.

But Romney, even when he wins, has a tough time getting more than 40 percent.

Romney got less than 60% of the vote in Virginia where his only other opponent in the race was Ron Paul (because Rick and Newt failed to qualify to get on the ballot).

Remember, if Newt had not been in the race the past few weeks, Rick would have won both Michigan and Ohio decisively, probably Georgia as well.  And Rick would be sitting in the catbird seat right now.

This can still happen.  Might happen after this week.

CNN: If Rick Santorum wins the Kansas caucuses on Saturday, as most observers here expect, he might want to thank the voters — and Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Romney and Gingrich have essentially ceded the Kansas race to Santorum, abandoning plans to campaign in the state ahead of the contest and instead focusing on Tuesday primaries in Mississippi and Alabama.
“We chased all the candidates out of Kansas!” the former Pennsylvania senator said at a Wichita rally Friday evening, according to news reports.

Not exactly: Texas Rep. Ron Paul campaigned in Kansas on Friday and will continue on Saturday. Paul has yet to win any of the GOP contests this political season, though he could do well in the Sunflower State.

“I think we’re going to have a good win here in Kansas,” Santorum said Friday on CNN’s “John King, U.S.A.”.

Kansas is home to many social conservatives that ideologically mesh with Santorum’s anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-family, pro-religious freedom stances. Those positions helped Santorum barrel to primary victory in the neighboring states of Oklahoma in last week’s Super Tuesday contests, and in Missouri on February 7.

Read more here >>>

So much for Rick Santorum’s so-called “woman problem” we keep hearing about. Here are the facts on what’s been actually happening in the elections . . .

So Santorum’s “woman problem” is a complete myth. Women like him.

The case is simply this photo. This is not an attractive woman.

But here Sandra Fluke is telling Congress that she’s having so much sex that she’s going broke buying contraceptives.

So she thinks taxpayers should buy all her contraceptives so she can have as much sex as she wants without worrying about money.

Hey, let’s add this to our Bill of Rights: The right to have taxpayers buy all your contraceptives.

What an embarrassing display . . . that now lives in Google forever. Decades from now her children, grandchildren, friends and professional associates will be reading about this with raised eyebrows.

She might need to change her name if she wants to move forward professionally outside the sex industry after this performance.

BACKGROUND: At the invitation of Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke explained to Congress the other day that she is having so much sex, she’s spending so much time on her back, that she’s going broke paying for all the contraceptives she needs.

So she wants taxpayers to pay for all her contraceptives.  She calls herself a “reproductive rights activist.”  Fluke’s parents must be so proud.

Can you believe President Obama actually wasted the people’s time to phone this bimbo personally to express his solidarity with her cause? — which, apparently, is to have as much sex as humanly possible at taxpayer expense.

Another reason no sane man would ever want to have sex with Sandra Fluke is that it would be a very dangerous activity.  With all the sex she told Congress she’s having (with who knows how many different partners?), one can only imagine all the STDs that must be lurking in there: a real Little Shop of Horrors. Crocodile wrestling is probably safer.

Rush is now catching heat for calling this woman a prostitute.

She is demanding money for sex. Isn’t that pretty close to the definition of prostitute?

Rush is also right that if taxpayers must pay for her to spend her days having endless recreational sex, taxpayers should get something in return, like videos of all her sexual romps. Perhaps she could even treat us to a 24-7-365 reality Internet TV show of her life (sort of like The Truman Show), or something.

Here’s what Rush Limbaugh had to say about this . . .

You decide after watching this video of Andrew’s speech to CPAC in February

Conincidence?

At age 43, a life insurance policy for $1,00,000 would cost him about $100 a month.

In other words, the likliehood of Andrew Breitbart, at age 43, dying of “natural causes” is an extremely unlikely event.