The Whipping Boy: Obama Takes Previous President’s Scrutiny In Stride

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

Written by: Alexis Poole

Recently, President Obama appeared on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and responded to scrutiny by Newt Gingrich, calling him “the most effective [food stamp] president.” Rather than debase himself to name-calling and slander, Obama chose to focus on the issues at hand, saying that he’s leaving it up to Americans to decide “who reflects the sort of core values that helped create this country–the values of hard work, responsibility, but also looking out for one another–and who is tapping into some of our worst instincts.”

With such diplomatic answers, Sawyer leans and implies, “Watching the debates?”

Obama shook his head saying, “You know, I don’t watch the debates, I gotta say. Now I read the reports, and what I get a sense of is that whoever wins the Republican primaries is going to be a standard bearer for the vision of the country that I don’t think reflects who we are.”

By not watching the debate, Obama focuses on the facts that have culminated to our country’s current state, rather than view sensationalized debates that have been watered down to slanderous disrespect and a riddling off of certain keywords and phrases used to illicit a positive response from would-be constituents. Hopefully, his charts and graphs are better than what we’ve been subjected to.

Chart of many mistakes

Given the mistakes, could you trust this author's credibility?

Separating the Jelly Beans Fact From Fiction

As we move from reading our news in papers onto reading primarily on the Internet, we must take into consideration the time lost in heavy research and who stands to gain from our inability or sheer lack of inclination to fact check all we come across through fast channels like Twitter and Facebook. Election time always brings out the emotional side in us all, tugging at purse strings and heart strings like a puppeteer. However, as American citizens, it is our duty to choose a worthy candidate through means of logic. And that’s where this chart falls flat, at the peril of MrConservative.com.

Since when does 8.5 percent minus 7.8 percent equal a difference of 9 percent?

When graphs like this one are presented, it’s our duty to use all the skills that our educated selves can conjure up and look at everything from an OBJECTIVE perspective. It also helps if we can add and subtract, unlike the odd math in row 2: Unemployment Rate.

First of all, subtracting percentages is simple enough. In the case of row 2, where the difference between 8.5 and 7.8 is somehow bigger than either initial number, the chart creator’s credibility comes into play. One could suggest that the percentages in row 2 should have been number of people in the millions, where a difference between them could very well be 9%–but since Mr. Conservative can’t edit his own work, his credibility is shot, as should anyone’s trust in him.

Secondly, in order for a chart to be accurate, it must compare separate and equal entities. If the chart presented the responses of a number of people who favored one jellybean flavor over another, we should all be able to agree that no matter how many different flavors presented, we’d still be talking about jellybeans.

According to the above chart, the ‘Inauguration Day’ column stands for, and could have been more accurately titled, ‘Pre-Obama’. Two presidential terms’ worth of George Bush, Jr equals the figures in the first column, whereas the middle column ‘Today’ combines the figures of both Bush terms and Obama’s singular term. To be completely fair, a graph would have to compare presidents’ contributions singularly and side-by-side; For example…We would ONLY have 14 million people on SNAP benefits (food stamps) if it wasn’t for Bush’s initial “contribution” of 32 million. While the numbers have indeed risen in almost every category, Obama’s “contributions” to these issues are far less than what he was presented with when he took office. Our deficit would only be $4.6 trillion if it wasn’t for Bush’s “contribution” of $10.6 trillion.

Instead of focusing on the differences however, we should be wondering how we incurred a deficit (of any size) to begin with. We all pay our taxes every year, we all get taxes taken out of our checks, some more than others. What is any elected official doing with our tax dollars? We need to be objective and prioritize our expectations. We know we elect human beings for president. Can we expect one human being (a president) or one group of human beings (an Administration) to clean up two terms’ worth of declining numbers AND make every American prosperous and happy? AND IN ONE TERM, no less?! We know the presidents we elect are human. We hope whoever holds the next term is HUMANE as well. Compared to Bush Jr. and the wildcard Mitt Romney, Obama might be the most humane of all…that is, unless we turn a little more attention to Ron Paul.

Obama Unveils America that is Built to Last in State of the Union

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

Obama at State of the Union Address 2012

Obama speaking at 2012 State of the Union Address

Written by: Nick Mingay

WASHINGTON – President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in Washington Tuesday in which he promised to pass legislation to help America continue its recovery, even in an election year.

At a time when the nation is enamured with the Republican Caucuses, a Newt and a Mitt, Obama had his shot to make a pitch to the American electorate and jump start his campaign for reelection. He began by focusing on the troops coming home and the end of Osama Bin Laden, his two biggest accomplishments since becoming President.

Throughout the speech, Obama emphasized the need to work together within Washington. He recognized the frustration Americans had over routine task such as the debt ceiling increase. Obama made it clear he was willing to play ball with either side of the aisle if it helped the country.

“As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum,” Obama said.

Obama also pinpointed the tax code as a major issue in 2012. His major attack was on those companies who outsource jobs to other countries. Obama said he would have those companies take a tax deduction to subsidies others bringing jobs back to American soil.

“From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax,” Obama said. “And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America.”

Later in the speech, Obama spoke on growing small businesses by expanded the tax relief to them. He also proposed getting rid of regulations that hinder entrepreneurs from starting their own business. These factors would allow small businesses to gain a foothold in the market and create more competition amongst established companies.

Obama also touched on how Americas reliance on foreign oil. The Keystone XL Pipeline was an obvious setback for this, but Obama laid out other avenues that could help domestic energy production.

He mentioned using hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking,  to collect natural gas as one way to help alleviate America’s crutch on foreign oil. There has been some debate about the detriment hydrofracking has on communities close to the operation because some companies have used diesel fuel in the process. Obama wanted to stop this from expanded into a bigger issue by stating that he will require those involved in hydrofracking to disclose the materials in the solution they use.

Obama finished his speech by noting again that the world will no longer have to worry about Bin Laden terrorizing a nation or about American troops in Iraq in 2012. This was the jumping off point for his reelection campaign. We can only wait to see if Obama’s charisma and political platform will carry him to another presidential election.

The Reasonable Lunacy of Ron Paul Action Figures

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

Super Politician Ron Paul!

What is faster than a liberal? More politically powerful than a lobbyist? Able to leap Ben Bernanke in a single bound? It’s..it’s….Ron Paul action figures! Representing a new wave of politically clever campaigning, the figures are being sold by Revolution PAC with all proceeds going to support Paul’s run for president. And who can blame Paul or his supporters for thinking outside-the-box, considering Paul’s main obstacle in running for the White House.

Since Ronald Ernest Paul first emerged on the presidential spectrum in 1988 as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, equal coverage has always been an issue. In his inaugural presidential campaign in 1988, Paul’s received little attention even within his own libertarian party. Garnering not even 1% of the vote in the presidential elections, nobody seemed to mind as George Bush went on to defeat Michael Dukakis.

A decade later in the 2008 presidential elections, not much had changed. While Paul opted for the Republican nomination that time around, his congressional record in the previous ten years apparently gained him little or no respect, perhaps evidenced  by the fact that FOX News chose to leave Paul off the debate invitee list.

Has the Paul campaign experienced any difference in treatment in 2011-12? Certainly the age of free-social media advertising has helped level the playing field, giving all candidates an equal voice, right? (Did anyone realize that the Socialist Party of California Chairman, Stewart Alexander is running! Or Fred Karger, the first openly gay presidential hopeful?)

In a recent media report published by the Pew Research Center, Texas Congressman Ron Paul received the least amount of news coverage of all, serious, GOP candidates (astoundingly, he was even beat out by Sarah Palin whose presidential campaign this year…..oh wait). While Pew’s report does state that Paul received a great deal of attention in the blogosphere, as well as an overall positive spin, this should not be equated to things like mainstream media coverage, or time and attention garnered in the one too many GOP debates.

Even more damming evidence against Paul’s fair coverage emerged as he announced his “Plan for America.” Contrary to ex-running mate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan or Mitt Romney’s 59 point proposal, Paul’s plan has received little attention even by the endlessly hungry 24-7 news cycle. Maybe it just needs a catchier moniker?

The lack of attention attributed to Ron Paul could easily be attributed to his “radical” ideas, but why hasn’t his vision caught on with more of those dissatisfied with status quo politics? With the continuing malcontent rising in the American voice and Occupy movements, many citizens are completely dissatisfied with “politics” in general.  For instance, in the 2008 election, 56.8% of the voting population turned out, leaving nearly half the nation at home. While that percentage is considerably large relative to past elections and the highest since 1968, it still leaves close to a hundred million people who decided to abstain.

On one hand, they are the apathetic, the disinterested, and the jaded. If a candidate could tap into the lethargic voting base, the political scene could dramatically change in an instant. On the other side of the spectrum, we have the Occupy Wall Street groups whose platform, though admittedly undefined, more closely resembles Ron Paul’s positions than any other candidate on either siade of party lines. Surely the ultra-libertarian Paul and these groups could form a politically strong symbiotic relationship that, if nothing else, should garner Paul more attention than he is getting.

In the past decades of Paul’s political career, the narrative on him certainly has been that he is a “fringe candidate”, a “kook”, and at best, someone whose ideas were interesting but just so crazy that they shouldn’t even be considered a realistic possibility. But as the Occupy Wall Street protesters like to remind us, aren’t we in need of some radical change? If the country is to reverse it’s a trajectory, one in which the majority of Americans believe is going in the wrong direction, it won’t be made at the margins with tax tweaks or spending cuts here and there. Systemic change, the kind President Obama promised yet hasn’t seemed to deliver, is necessary. In which case, taking Ron Paul’s ideas more seriously should be more than just an interesting notion.

Southern Sudan Violence Begs the Question: Do We Care?

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

Civilians and soldiers can't seem to stem the violence.

The dusty village of Akobo resides on the Southern edge of Sudan, the war torn country that has seen more ethnic and political violence in recent years than perhaps any other country in Africa. Last August, reports surfaced describing a horrific massacre in Akobo where 185 people died in the attacks. Eye witnesses recount seeing bodies of women and children floating along in a river, gunshot wounds to children who were deliberate targets, and survivors crawling towards hospitals desperately seeking aid.

Last Wednesday over fifty civilians were killed in more raids between the Lou Nuer and the Murle people in Jonglei, one of the 10 new South Sudan states.  Humanitarian agencies estimate more than 60,000 people have fled the region as a result of the ongoing violence. It has been over a year since South Sudan gained its independence from the northern provinces, but little has changed. Disputes over oil and natural resource control rage on.

The slaughters in Akobo and Jonglei are just a few events out of dozens that demonstrate the level of turmoil afflicting the country. The same country that was subjected to the well documented genocides that began in 2003. The same country that thought a 22 year long civil war had ended when a peace deal was struck in 2005.

Location of Jonglei in South Sudan

The future of Sudan certainly appears grim and disheartening. With the combination of a recessionary world economy, and a volatile Middle East that has seen its own share of political unrest in recent months, it is enough for the World to once again turn a half-closed eye to Africa. Perhaps more important than the political party details of which tribe is killing which ethnic group, is the question of how much we, American citizens, care. Is it possible that the public has grown so accustomed to seeing news stories like those of the Akobo massacres that we are past the point of feeling?

Perhaps it is as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert suggests in his article generically entitled “Changing the World” – that our ambivalence and apathy has grown so strong that it prevents us from taking any action, feeling the task too great.

The ultimate solutions to Africa’s complex problems are impossible to see at this juncture, that is for certain. However, the first steps are always the same and easy to begin. It starts with a desire and action to gain two things. Understanding and knowledge. Something that is well within all our capabilities.

Obama administration rejects controversial Keystone XL pipeline

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

Written by: Shauna Bannan

Keystone XL pipeline protesters

Protesters sitting outside the White House, objecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

 

The Obama administration denied a permit to expand the Keystone oil sands pipeline Wednesday, saying the deadline set by congressional Republicans did not allow enough time to sufficiently review TransCanada‘s proposal.

In his statement, Obama blamed Republicans for trying to force an early decision on the expansion of the Keystone pipeline, which would deliver crude oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Texas, requiring the administration to evaluate the situation by a Feb. 21 deadline.

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment,” Obama said in his statement. “As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.”

Russ Girling, president and chief executive officer of TransCanada, the energy infrastructure company behind the project, immediately responded to Obama’s statement.

“While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL,” said Russ Girling. “Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

For three years, the Keystone XL pipeline has been at the center of debate. TransCanada, oil industry supporters, and congressional Republicans argued that the project would create thousands of jobs and lessen the nation’s dependency on oil, while environmentalists feared that the transportation of crude oil would create a large carbon footprint, threaten the Great Plains, and make U.S. waterways more prone to oil spills.

James T. Callahan, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, said Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL was “a blow to America’s construction workers.”

“Blocking the Keystone pipeline would be an enormous mistake by the Obama administration,” said H. Sterling Burnett, lead analyst of the National Center for Policy Analysis. “We need the oil and we need the jobs it would bring. This is as ‘shovel ready’ as anything Obama has proposed, yet because his radical environmental constituency objects, he’s apparently halting the pipeline. He simply needs their support too much in an election year.”

The president clarified that, despite the denial of the Keystone XL oil sands project, the administration will continue to find alternative ways to increase energy security, in partnership with the oil and gas industry.

Chris Hedges’s Lawsuit Against Obama and Panetta

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

The brave journalist fighting against the hindrance of American rights

Written by: Jill Heagerty

Chris Hedges, a well-established and accomplished journalist, is suing President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. His questioning over the legality comes from the section of the bill that allows the military the right to indefinitely detain without trial U.S. citizens suspected to be terrorists or associated with any terrorist activities.

2012’s NDAA is a major blow to the Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantees every citizen the right to due process. Terrorism is terrifying, but so is the American government stripping away the country’s core beliefs in democracy and liberty.

According to Hedges’s blog, he believes the purpose of this bill is to “thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state.” It is not hard to be considered as a terroristic suspect in our country, acts such as hoarding more than seven days of food, paying cash for a hotel, and trying to conceal a private text message in a public place are suspicious to the government. Mostly everyone I know is suspected of terrorist activity with that in mind. Hedges suspects that the Occupy movement will be added to this list for its treacherous behavior to question the motive behind corporations and the government, which is not a far off thought as Biden has already compared the actions of tea partiers to that of terrorists.

The government is afraid of anyone who questions its motives, so laws that hinder our rights are being put in place to keep us complacent and afraid. The NDAA of 2012 does not explicitly state what it considers necessary to hold citizens indefinitely. Could it include anyone speaking freely against public actions? Will the right of freedom of speech be considered treason if the speech is anti-government? Could freedom of the press go out the window with free speech?

Hedges’s lawsuit is the right step to protecting our rights. America invades foreign countries under the pretense of promoting peace and democracy, yet democracy is not even being promoted at home anymore. The country is on the road to a dictator form of government if this continues. Already we have seen police brutality with Occupy protestors, demoting the right to assembly. Now the right to a trial no matter what is extinguished, and it would not be shocking to see other Amendments be taken away with the guise of protecting ourselves from terrorists. If Hedges and other fighters for liberty fail, America could be the country writers such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley only dreamed of years ago.

Our forefathers wouldn’t be too happy.

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

By: Stacy Liberatore

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of speech is the first amendment in The United States Constitution. Blood has been shed to keep this and the other amendments sacred.  One could say it is written in black, white, and red.

The press has always been under the control of the wealthy and those of higher powers in the country, and because of this the public has lost its faith in the fact that the press will report the truth and nothing but the truth.  Reporting stories via the news has become a corrupt and secretive business.

The press was initially created to serve the people with issues about its nation and the world.  To inform us, warn us, and provide us with the truth.  In a democracy the news media’s role is like a watchdog, monitoring the government.  When the powers at be, control the information that is broadcasted to the public, it hinders that nation’s freedoms and weakens the relationship and trust between the public and the news media system.

But in today’s world we are bombarded with censored news from the media that we are told to trust.  Whether it is for the greater good of the people, or simply to benefit the government; with either reason, it is infringing our first amendment.  Censorship is a hand grenade of an accusation, and a writer should be serious before pulling the pin.

In September of 2006, it was said there was less than ten embedded journalists covering the war in Iraq, the public was outraged at this.  During the Vietnam War there were many more and they had the liberty of going where they wanted and covering any story they felt needed to be broadcasted.  The public is blaming the news networks for the lack of journalists on the war front, but in actuality the government only permits one embedded journalist for every 75,000 soldiers.  And in the long run, most journalists give up on their task due to the dangers that they face.  So in reality, fingers can be pointed in every direction; at government officials and the journalists themselves.

Free speech is what separates us from every other country in the world.  We, the United States have more freedoms than anyone else.  But the government tries to take away more and more, lit by little. Our founding fathers wrote the first amendment to give the people the right to speak up against the British without being punished.  Censorship is a complete contradiction to what our forefathers wanted for this nation.  If our first amendment is altered or worse removed entirely, what’s next? We might as well live in a communist country where we won’t have to think, because the government won’t allow it.  We might as well put a gag around the Statue of Liberty’s mouth, because that is the image we will be representing if censorship isn’t fought against.

The Rise of Santorum is Cause for Concern

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

Written by: Michael Arnold

Rick Santorum has fared extremely well in the GOP race thus far. Although paid little attention until recently, the underdog runner is now being identified by many Republicans as the best conservative choice.  His ascent to the top, however, should be regarded with alarm.

Senator Santorum is a man who is frighteningly out of touch with the people he is hoping to represent. His beliefs on cultural morals, especially in regards to the LGBT community and family values, are beyond antiquated, they’re absurd and overbearing.

Rick Santorum

Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum

In a recent Fox News interview, Santorum expressed his support for the reinstatement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” claiming that gay rights and black rights are not on an equal platform. In sum, he defined homosexuality as a “behavioral” choice and made the pitiful and awfully supported assertion that gay people “can stop being gay.” Rather than extending equal rights to all American citizens, Santorum believes that we must fight back against those “trying to impose their values” upon the nation.

Impose their values?  While Santorum expresses his belief in imposing the denial of fundamental rights upon a significant segment of the  American citizenry, he makes the dual claim that this segment is somehow imposing something upon America at large. The logical flaw in this argument is so blatant that it borders on arrogance.

The nation’s social values should not be dictated arbitrarily by someone who believes he understands what is best. What America needs is a president who is committed to understanding the people of the nation, what they want, and how to respect their liberties. Santorum’s record has proven that he is not that candidate.

Senator Santorum takes no shame in making the claim that traditional marriage is superior to other lifestyles; meanwhile just under half of the country currently leads a traditional “nuclear family” lifestyle. He has inserted his extreme religious beliefs into his political policy by imposing the inclusion of intelligent design and other non-scientific theories into Pennsylvania state curricula. He does not believe in every American’s implicit “right to privacy;” and he claims that the use of contraceptives are “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

The proof is there. This man simply does not respect basic American rights, and he is by no means suitable to lead a changing nation.

Acceptance and support of a diverse populace is a crucial element of being the President of the United States. While Senator Santorum’s beliefs and policies are alarming, his growing support is even more so. Voters have yet to realize that electing a leader who does not respect the rights of one group, can just as quickly strip rights from another.

Popular Chinese Television Programs Meet Tiananmen Square Fate in 2012

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

By: Barbara J. Ross

Censorship in China is increasing despite a hungry public savoring for freedom of speech.  This week China’s government under the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television took measures to drastically reduce programming which they deemed as promoting “excessive entertainment and vulgar tendencies.”  The parallel of the broadcasting toll to the human toll taken in the massacre event of 1989 is noted.  Both events effectively stopped public opinion and information, be it serious political dissent or light entertainment, from reaching the mainstream public.

One primary target of the 2012 censorship was a wildly popular reality program If You Are the One.  Much to the chagrin of the government, this program garnered  record ratings in 2010 as over 50 million people were viewing the dating show on prime time.  Now the State Administration has required 34 Chinese satellite television stations to air “no more than two, 90-minute entertainment” programs each per week. Whatever programming the television stations collectively work out, only ten such programs are permitted to be broadcast nationwide per week. In addition, this mandate requires 2 hours of state-approved news per day.  All of these orders went into effect on January 1 of this year.

This action is said by some to mirror the spirit of quelling public demand for democracy and information during the Tiananmen  Square event.  There, public protestors occupied the square for seven weeks in demonstration for democratic reform after the death of former party leader Hu Yaobang.  Millions of ordinary Chinese citizens joined the movement as a call for democracy was sent out. Hundreds were shot dead by the Chinese Army to in their attempt to crush the democratic protest.

While the death of television programming is by no means equal to the death of human protestors, the event provides evidence that the control of the Chinese government has not moved toward democracy. According to Want China Times, a government spokesman said the channels will begin to air programs that promote traditional virtues and the socialist value system.  This sets forth a government view, rather than allowing views of the general public to be aired.

The government is also targeting the internet, specifically microblogs or weibos, which many Chinese use as a forum to send information to one another.  The Xinhua (China’s State News Agency) reported that Zhou Yongkang, the public security chief, was urging authorities “to solve problems regarding social integrity, morality and Internet management” with “the early introduction of laws and regulations on the management of the Internet.”  One report from the annual meeting of the Communist Party’s Central Committee  detailed an “Internet management system” which is to subject offenders who spread unapproved and harmful information to punishment.

2012 Iowa Caucus Results in a Draw

Written by buzz. Posted in Politics

Romney Wins Iowa Caucus

Former Gov. Mitt Romney celebrating after his narrow win over Senator Rick Santorum in the Iowa Caucuses.

2012 Iowa Caucuses Result in a Draw

Mitt Romney Defeats Rick Santorum by only 8 votes.

Written by Agathe Panaretos. For what many saw as a chance for the Republican Party to narrow its field of possible presidential candidates, Tuesday’s caucuses in Iowa resulted in a near-tie between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

The final results of the caucuses held last Tuesday have the former governor winning by the slimmest of margins, with a total of 30,015 votes over Santorum’s total of 30,007.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who many anticipated would be a dark horse in the upcoming primaries, finished in third with 26,219 votes.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry finished in fifth and sixth place, respectively. Native Iowan and Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann finished last, pulling in 6,073 votes. Failing to win a single county in the state, Bachmann later withdrew her candidacy following the results on Wednesday morning.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman skipped the caucus in order to spend time campaigning in New Hampshire, whose primary is to be held on January 10.

Santorum, who up until the last week had remained near the bottom of the polls, was the latest candidate to experience a surge of support in an ongoing rollercoaster of viable contenders. While promising, his close finish in Iowa further demonstrates Republican voters’ dissatisfaction with the current crop of contenders.

A common theme among exit polls conducted throughout the state reveal voters have little faith in Santorum’s chances of beating President Obama in the November election. Thirty-one percent of voters named the ability to defeat the current President as the most important quality in choosing which candidate to support; of that percentage, only thirteen percent picked Santorum.

The Iowa Caucus is the first real litmus test in measuring a candidate’s potential of becoming the Republican nominee for President. While a poor showing in the state can quickly lead a campaign to its knees, a positive performance does not always translate to a successful bid on the national level. Of the past five Republican Caucuses held with multiple candidates, only two (Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000) have gone on to win the Republican nomination.

With only a few days left before the New Hampshire primary, the remaining candidates will likely focus their campaigns on one target: Mitt Romney. The former governor has maintained a steady following throughout the campaign and overwhelming financial support, spending over $17 million since January 2011. With a win in New Hampshire, Republican voters may finally accept Mitt Romney as the clear winner.

Twitter BUZZ