This is the BIG Takeaway from the last week:

A ringing Sarah Palin endorsement for Rick Perry would’ve done WONDERS for his campaign! All we heard, though, was silence until too late, then an aside endorsement of Newt, if only to prolong the “vetting.”

I love the fire Sarah Palin brought to the campaign in 2008, and I’ve watched her wend her way through the murky waters between campaigns, but in the past few weeks, when she could’ve had a very profound effect on the course of the GOP primaries and – by extension! – the course of the nation as a whole, she was silent. The immediate effect was Rick Perry dropping out of the race, and the ascendancy of Newt to the chagrin of Romney, with Santorum looking on. In the early days of a Romney or Newt presidency, or heaven forbid into Obama’s second term, this will, I think and hope, be seen as a wasted opportunity to show leadership and take command.

Sarah, if you’re not going to run, at least get behind someone who shares your core values! Would you honestly say Mitt or Newt share your values? Why were you silent when Rick Perry, who does, needed support?

The thought occurs that the same could be said of Jim DeMint. Just swap out Sarah’s name for Demint’s.

I think REAL Conservatives, in the end, will be disappointed with Mitt or Newt. That, too, may prove beneficial in 2016, but as one Twitter Wag put it, that might be like sending a surgeon in to try to revive a cadaver at that point. I hope and pray it doesn’t come to that.

The question was asked, in effect,”Will we have the guy on board who’ll be able to go in and perform the major surgeries and -ectomies that will be required to trim the bloat off Big Gub’mint?” We are going to need someone who will go in and excise – literally CUT OFF – every piece of bloated bureaucracy he can find, to restore the Republic to health. No “tweaking,” no “retooling,” no “streamlining.” CHOPPING! Anything less than that and we’re just headed for the same end, albeit more slowly.

I think the NEXT couple of primaries are going to highlight organizational strengths, versus debate strengths. Mitt Romney is already doing a lot of advanced footwork in Florida, with Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri following hard on the heels. Who will be the best at pivoting and moving from venue to venue, and seamlessly working to gather support? That, too, will be telling, and will speak as much about each candidate as any debate performances to date.

Having said that, there is something to be said, as Byron York writes here – Why Gingrich Won, Why Romney Lost – about the kind of campaigning that puts a real-life candidate in your face, to answer questions, outline positions, address your desires. Newt and Santorum have done that very admirably so far, versus Romney’s largely script-driven, media buy, canned speech whistle stops. I have longed to see a campaign where the candidate does the hard leg-work to go door-to-door, town-to-town, county-to-county to meet as many people as he or she can before the day of reckoning arrives. I read with glee that Sarah Palin had done just that in her quest to become ultimately Governor of Alaska, and a very large part of me cheered when she began he bus tour in the middle of last year, thinking she might be doing that precise thing in preparation for a run in 2012. Alas, it wasn’t (or hasn’t been to date) an option for her to run, but the template is there, and judging from Rick and Newt’s successes, is not far off the mark for something to emulate, methinks. It will be interesting to see if a modified version can be implemented with so many primaries coming so close together. The problem will be logistics, getting the candidate “out n’ about” to as many people as possible, but there is also an element of getting cheerful, articulate, passionate representatives “out n’ about” to help spread the word, too. In this, the Tea Party can be especially instrumental, but a big questions is, who will they largely rally around? I probably don’t need to remind anyone that the Tea Party isn’t really a centrally organized mass, and does very little coordination in its activities. Still, the term “stalking tiger” comes to mind. The candidate that can inspire some of the many “stalking tiger cubs” to action may be a force to be reckoned with, despite lacking a larger budget or more centralized campaign apparatus.

To date, each of the major candidates has won one state apiece. At the 3-mile mark, it’s still really anybody’s race, regardless of the swell of propaganda emanating from the various campaigns to the contrary. Will be interesting to see what unfolds in a week from now.

OK, we’ve had exactly two primaries, and a mere handful of delegates have been allocated. Mitt Romney, the delegate leader, has just 14 of 1144 needed for nomination. (For delegate info, try here.) As I see it, we’re at the 1.5-mile marker of a 26.2-mile race.

So where are we?

Three candidates – Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman – have dropped out. As one Twitter Wag said in last night’s GOP debate, “Seems like the introductions of the candidates took 5/8 as long as previous debates…”

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Ron Paul are still in it. Romney may or may not have won Iowa (official votes are now being counted, and some reports I saw had Santorum up by 80 votes in the official recount, so that primary (or “caucus” as you might say) is possibly still up in the air. Romney won New Hampshire. South Carolina is this coming Saturday. By all accounts, last night’s debate had Mitt Romney taking some hits, and Newt and Rick Perry doing exceptionally well. There are the better parts of four days’ worth of campaigning to go, and really anything can happen. There is still plenty of time for someone to stick his foot in his mouth.

I’ve seen some, to me, disturbing trends, which bear examination:

• Class Warfare – There have been some “class warfare” attacks by some candidates on others. I *HATE* class warfare, because it uses one of the basest of human emotions – envy – to attack. Envy’s cousin – covetousness – also rears its ugly visage, and THAT one has a specific Commandment addressing it! It is NOT becoming of any GOP candidate to attack another’s apparent wealth or success. The GOP’s goal should be to enable the opportunity for *ANYONE* to achieve similar success, not to tear down success.

  Closely related to Class Warfare is the cry for one candidate (Mitt Romney) to produce his tax records to prove or disprove his success or failure as the CEO of Bain Capital. Couple of points need to be made here:

  • Used to be what a person made was between him and his employer, and NO ONE ELSE. It was once considered crass to inquire of another what his salary was. “None of your business,” should be the standard reply. In a similar vein, a candidate’s tax returns should not be a matter of public debate, in a civil, mannered society. It is a black mark on our society that the class warfare attack of demanding tax returns is “acceptable.”
  • On Bain Capital specifically, is the CEO’s tax return the BEST yardstick of business success or performance? I would argue that there are much better yardsticks – such as financial statements, stock performance, balance sheets, etc. – that are more readily available and more morally available with which to judge a company’s performance. If Bain is a publicly traded company, either the financial statements or stock performance would be the better indicator of success. If privately held, then one may have to look at public records, historical facts, news accounts, etc. to judge.
  • A question I asked on Twitter last night: Would *YOU* be comfortable if *I* demanded to see *YOUR* tax returns? I asked specifically of those “civilians” (non-candidates themselves, like staffers, or even just enthusiasts or advocates for a candidate) who were demanding to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns. My guess is: They would not. That, to me, is pretty telling.
• Anti-Capitalism – Closely related to the Class Warfare attacks have been attacks based on the candidates supposed exploitation of the capitalist system. In this, as many people have said, the attacker allies himself with the Occupy Wall Street mob. Capitalism, far from being the boogeyman, should be instead the yardstick by which we go about our legal, moral, ethical business. Not only is capitalism the best engine of success and prosperity, but we should be highlighting the ideal way capitalism should be practised with the distorted, corrupt system of “crony capitalism” we seem to accept as “normal” in America today. Capitalism works best with as little Gub’mint interference as possible in the markets, with as little D.C. distortions introduced through laws and regulations and petty bureaucracies. And most assuredly, capitalism is best practised when Gub’mint is not allowed to “partner” and pick winners and losers.
• Petulant Partisanship – I have seen, at this early stage, several people on Twitter state categorically that if such and such was the GOP nominee, they would sit out the general election. I find that extremely troubling! At the early part of the campaign, most people agreed that any one of the candidates would be acceptable and a definite improvement over the Marxist Emperor we have infesting the Oval Office at present. That would seem to lead to the assumption that, once the nomination process had shaken itself out, that all would enthusiastically rally around whomever gained the top spot. That it might not happen – at least in a few minds, but who knows how far Twitter and other communications modes allow influence to spread! – is troubling. I ask: Would you honestly give four more years to the Meddling Marxist over any of the GOP candidates? Would you sentence America to the horrors of pure Socialism – or Marxism, or Communism, depending on how far Chairman Zero wants to push it – over the chance to turn it all around, to steer clear of the cliff we’re hurtling toward? Would you really do that just because your guy didn’t get in? I find even having to ask that question fills me with sadness, and a sort of rage. Those who say they will stay away on Election Day are, to me, the “fairest” of “Fair Weather Friends and Sunshine Patriots.” It is raining out, and if you guys won’t show up to fight, I’m questioning your commitment to the cause.

OK. That’s about it for now. In the race, I still see the five remaining candidates pretty much bunched up, and we’re only about 1.5 miles into it. Any one of them can make a break, and no one is out as of this point. There is a LOT of race to be run yet. Take heart!

I am really jiving on Twitter lately, but one thing I see with distressing frequency is a barrage of poll-driven Tweets from all across the GOP spectrum, from the far left looniness of Ron Paul to the hyperty-hype-hype right of Mitt Romney. This morning, addressing the onslaught, I coined a phrase: “Propaganda by Percentages.”

See, I basically see two uses for polls, neither one of which really does anyone any good.

First is to provide a snapshot in time of information that may or may not be germane to the reader of said information. If the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that things change, and I find people who send poll-driven information – and who are honestly trying to relay a snapshot in time – are really just wasting their time. Maybe not always, but for sure in the volatile GOP primaries, especially when so much polling is done by such diverse systems and/or groups and/or organizations. Yeah, you have captured a slice o’ time but by the time you’ve formatted it into Twitter-ese (140 characters) the utility is all but gone. Almost guarantee ya!

The second type of poll-driven Twitterer is far more sinister in nature: He (or she) who is trying to sway someone to zig (or zag) based on the perceived influence of the polling data. Mostly, I see it from two camps: Mitt Romney’s bunch – and I suddenly like the term “Mitt-wits!” – and Ron Paul’s denizens – whom I less than affectionately call “Ronulans.” When I see something like, “Romeny up 117%, Perry 3%, Santorum 2.7%…” – then I know something’s afoot. Like I said, it’s pretty volatile out there, and I absolutely doubt anyone has any idea how it’s gonna unfold on Primary Day, (this coming Saturday.) Polls are notoriously fickle anyway, and you throw in partisanship, and all bets are out the door.

See, these folks are trying – via “poll data” to convince you it’s all over, and you should just vote for their guy. Fully two – count ‘em! TWO! – primaries have been held, and less than 40 delegates – out of 1,100-odd needed for nomination! – have been awarded. It is still VERY MUCH a wide open race. The poll-driven crowd, though, wants you to abandon your own stances and principles, and jump, however reluctantly, onto their bandwagon(s).

No, thanks. I want to hold onto my vote as long as I can, and I will try to convince others to see it my way, in a decidedly poll-free approach I like to call “reason and logic.” I have no idea even when Kentucky’s primary is, but still, I’m saving my vote until then. When ever it is. (Rick Perry – you listenin’?!?!?)

So, I have a recommendation: Just close your ears and shout “LALALALALALALALALALALALA” until the poll goes away, at least for the next few days. Listen to the candidates, listen to their words, listen to their advocates’ speeches and Tweets and Facebook meanderings. But for Heaven’s sake – and I almost mean that literally! – don’t just listen to the poll-bots and decide based on a perceived zig or zag trend in the polls cited. Lemming-like voters are why we’re in the current mess with Chairman Zero, and counter-lemmingness (I should trade mark that!) isn’t going to help us.

IGNORE THE POLLS!!!!!