“I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he said on CNN. “We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who are struggling.”

Questioned about his comment on the poor, Romney reiterated that they have “a very ample safety net” but that “we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened.”

Read more at the Associated Press

Take a look at the questions from the past debate (just the questions). Is this really helping send the message the RNC must to deliver to win in November?

What’s maddening about this malpractice by the RNC is that even the current chair knows what the main stream media is and who they are promoting. In a recent interview on MSNBC, Reince Priebus fought back against a question “loaded with DNC talking points” and quickly articulated his talking points by going around the media complex.

That response is perfect for an interview in enemy territory, but on a debate stage when one is expected to answer the questions given to you, simply ignoring the egregious premises of questions and rehashing a stump speech is seen as dodging the question. Although it is motivating to conservatives that yell at liberal programming on their televisions everywhere when former Speaker Newt Gingrich blatantly says he rejects the premise of (or in some cases, the entirety) the questions posed in a debate, the real issue is that Newt does not need to do that.

In a day where anyone can produce a semi-pro live stream with $50 software and a built in camera on their computer, the RNC can certainly produce a professional debate moderated by those who will actually ask questions the people of America need and want to hear. The main stream media may own the debates when it comes time to face President Obama, but the RNC willingly has our candidates debate not each other, but the gatekeepers that are the main stream media. Those gatekeepers ask questions such as, “Why didn’t the Bush tax cuts work?”

There have been over 20 debates or forums for these candidates to deliver the message that liberty, self-governance, and free enterprise leads to a prosperous nation. This view is a stark contrast to the current President and his policies. However, that message is continually choked off by the gatekeeper moderators who keep the focus on things such as English being the official language. This is either laziness or intentional sabatoge by the RNC. They are allowing the media to choose the Republican Presidential candidate, not Republicans.

Tonight’s debate on CNN at 8 p.m. ET will be be moderated by Wolf Blitzer. Does the RNC actually think that tonight’s debate will be more insightful than the past 20? Here’s a thought, Mr. Priebus: Host an internal live-stream debate and invite the media outlets and C-SPAN to set up a camera. Have some new-media moguls and some Tea Party Congressmen moderate. The American people will be far more informed by one event like this than all of the other 20+ debates combined.

Mr. Priebus knows this can be done, why hasn’t he done it already?

Conventional wisdom is that debates don’t decide nominations, but that notion is as antiquated as the paper route. This is, after all, the media age.  It’s the era of YouTube, Twitter, and the 24-hour news network.  Fear the candidate who can beat the media at their own game, and right now, that candidate is Newt Gingrich.

Their imperfect track-records aside, the former speaker has been able to distinguish himself from Governor Romney in two crucial ways.  The first difference is in who, or what, they are campaigning against.  The foundation of Mitt Romney’s campaign is keeping a narrow focus on Barack Obama.  This isn’t a bad strategy, per se, but it doesn’t comprehensively address the problems we are facing as a society.  After all, Barack Obama is a product of the American left.  He was raised in academia, sold to us by Hollywood, and elected by the mainstream media.  The President is the tip of the iceberg, and the Republican candidate should understand that Obama is a symptom of what ails us, not the cause.

Newt has decided to run a broader campaign, addressing crony capitalism at length and waging war against Obama’s palace guards in the mainstream media.  Needless to say, the media criticism in particular has resonated with South Carolina voters:

Yesterday Gingrich spoke out, yet again, against the philosophies and influence of Saul Alinsky, the patron saint of postmodern leftism.  This isn’t merely how the GOP nominee should campaign, it’s also how he should govern if elected.  In the battle for America’s future, our primary adversary isn’t the man in the White House, it’s the ideas and values that put him there.

Another reality in the media age is that the most articulate candidate will have the best chance to succeed.  In the past couple debates, Mitt Romney has stumbled when backed into a corner on relatively minor issues such as the request to release his tax returns.  Newt, on the other hand, has taken gotcha questions and skillfully and confidently rebutted them.

This is not to say Mitt hasn’t been a competent debater.  He most certainly has been.  But recently, Newt has presented himself as the clearer thinker.  His rhetoric can soar–as Obama’s did in 2008–and in the media age, that may be what voters care about most.

The irony is, of course, that the principal beneficiaries of Gingrich winning South Carolina in such convincing fashion are the media (both old and new), because nothing boosts ratings and page views like a horse-race.

So, now we look to Florida, and that should be another wild ride.  The polling there has been, for lack of a better term, schizophrenic.  Newt had a monster advantage over Mitt a few weeks ago, then Romney erased that and is currently way out in front.  Can Newt come back again again after blowing a big lead already?  It seems like the Sunshine State is susceptible to swings in momentum, and Newt has all of it right now.

No candidate would repeat John King’s remarks after watching the audience’s reaction. He rode the wave for almost the entire debate. Gingrich has repented for his trangressions; as voters we are trying to decide whether he’s genuine. Some will decide that he is; some will decide he’s not.

Santorum bombed on the SOPA question. Internet piracy is a problem but SOPA is akin to shooting goldfish in a bucket with a shotgun. Santorum argues that there should be protections for IP holders on the Internet and says that SOPA goes too far, but I’m not convinced of his resolve. As my friend Derek Hunter notes, tell that to Napster.

He tried and failed to differentiate himself from Romney and Gingrich, with their past health care actions, due to his support of Medicare Part D and the prescription drug benefit. That being said, he railed on Romney for Romneycare and made it impossible for Romney to dig his way out. Santorum cornered him on his checkered abortion past. Romney’s inability to defend his record places him below Santorum in tonight’s finishes.

Members of the U.S. armed forces are prohibited by Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 from campaigning or participating in public political activities while in uniform. The purpose of the directive is to preserve the political independence of the military.

Big Government has confirmed through defense sources that Cpl. Thorsen is a combat engineer in the 402nd Engineer Company of the 372nd Engineer Brigade, which is a U.S. Army Reserve brigade.

CNN has reported that Cpl. Thorsen is “active duty,” but defense sources indicated that he apparently is not.

Pentagon spokesperson George Wright spoke to Big Government:

I can share with you the Army uniform is not in keeping with the letter or spirit of the DOD instruction on political activities. It’s a policy violation. Investigation is an extreme word, I believe the unit is looking into it, they’re aware and they’re considering the next step, but it would be speculative to discuss the potential action of where we are right now. We’re aware that he appeared at that rally and spoke on stage–I mean we’ve seen the tape. He’s a member of the 402^nd engineer company of the 372^nd engineer brigade of the U.S. Army Reserve in Des Moines, Iowa. I don’t know what his MOS–military occupational specialty–is. I don’t know if he had a break in service or been an active reservist or what.

U.S. Army Reserve Major Angel Wallace confirmed that Cpl. Thorsen is not on active duty:

He is not active, he has been confirmed in reserve status as of this afternoon. We got that information, he was not in an active status as of yesterday when he did those interviews. He was in a reserve status all along and the last time he’s been on orders was back in October so he was in his traditional reserve status. There is a potential violation. It depends on your MOS because some MOS’s have a larger ability for upward promotion so on that you’d have to draw your own conclusion. He was with the National Guard prior to joining the national reserve. He works with an engineer unit. We have him in a currently combat engineer position, it would be groundwork level. We’re trying to give the command their time necessary to figure out how they want to manage the issue, giving them the time to have dialogue.

Cpl. Thorsen first attempted to speak in favor of Ron Paul on CNN during live coverage of the Iowa caucus. He was introduced by reporter Dana Bash as “active duty U.S. military” as he tried to explain–while in uniform–why he supported Ron Paul and his foreign policy.

(The interview was cut off halfway through, fueling conspiracy theories among Paul supporters and their allies in the press.)

Later, Ron Paul brought Cpl. Thorsen to the podium at his campaign headquarters to deliver a rousing speech–again in uniform, and again in violation of regulations.

For years, Ron Paul’s anti-war supporters have boasted that their isolationist candidate receives more support from active duty service members than any other. The irony is meant to suggest the existence of a broad, silent discontent with U.S. foreign policy among the men and women charged with carrying it out.

The mainstream media, which is sympathetic to Paul’s anti-war sentiments, has often amplified his campaign’s claims.

Yet for all the bluster, the Paul campaign seems to have a rather flippant attitude towards military regulations.

A Facebook page has been set up in Cpl. Thorsen’s name. Comments range from support to condemnation, with some wall posts suggesting he be demoted to Private. Indeed, according to Wright, that is one possibility:

Typically, for violations of military policy the commander would review the matter and would determine the best method which to deal with it and a commander’s option in any matter, not just this one range from doing nothing to recommending a trial by court martial. For many minor infractions or violations of department policies, commanders will typically take administrative or corrective measures to fix the problem. Demotion in rank comes with judicial or more severe non-judiciary punishment and administrative could decide to call a soldier in and to do some on the spot counseling, they could do direct counseling, there could be remedial training if there’s shortfall if it’s needed, like we’re going to give you an hour or two hours of classes to how to assemble or disassemble your rifle because you’re not incompliance with Army standard here. With the more complex or serious cases the counseling could be rendered in writing and such counseling could be enclosed into a soldier’s official file or a commander could choose a more lenient course of action and put it in his local file and if the action is corrected they could throw away the counseling exchange, and if such conduct were to continue over a long period of time the commander could use that file to suggest that soldier should be discharged.

Wright suggested, however, that a more lenient course of action would be preferable: “I would call a guy in and say, look, you did something–it’s against the rules, don’t do it again, and 995 times out of 1,000 that’s enough corrective action to resolve the problem.”

Major Wallace, who confirmed that the chain of command was “considering next steps,” was careful to clarify the military’s policy:

Nothing in our guidance prohibits political discussion as long as they’re not speaking in their uniform or in their official capacity. We want to share that his opinions regarding his political affiliations are his alone and his statement in no way reflect that of the Army Reserve.

Update: Major Wallace has issued a formal public statement on behalf of the Army Reserve, indicating that Cpl. Thorsen has deployed once in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2009–not twice, as CNN’s Dana Bash had reported and as Cpl. Thorsen had appeared to confirm by nodding (0:25 to 0:32 in the video clip above). He has not, apparently, deployed in Iraq, as Ron Paul stated (at 1:20).

Update: A follow-up communication with Major Wallace revealed that Cpl. Thorsen may also have misled CNN about his impending “third” deployment: “[T]hey do not have orders at this time so it isn’t a confirmed deployment at this time,” Major Wallace told Big Government.

During a telephone interview, Ms. Pelosi–speaking from a friend’s home in New York City–described her mother’s predicament:

She would retire right now, if the donors she has didn’t want her to stay so badly. They know she wants to leave, though. They think she’s destined for the wilderness. She has very few days left. She’s 71, she wants to have a life, she’s done. It’s obligation, that’s all I’m saying.

Pelosi’s revelation is significant, given that her mother pushed to serve as Minority Leader after the Democrats’ historic losses in the 2010 midterm elections, and that many Democrats–including President Barack Obama–are campaigning on the expectation that she will be restored as Speaker if they can retake the House in 2012.

Alexandra Pelosi, 41, is a television producer and documentarian who won multiple Emmy awards for her work on Journeys with George (2002), an HBO documentary on George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. The film was widely hailed as fair in its depiction of a president not used to sympathetic media portrayals.

In speaking to Big Government, Pelosi–who was polite and friendly throughout–also criticized CNN anchor Anderson Cooper:

Look, you guys are journalists, so you do what you have to do. I could give you chapter and verse on what’s going on in the media–and I’m not talking about Andrew Breitbart, I’m talking about Anderson Cooper–so as long as you guys tell the truth, just write whatever you want, and feel free to call me anytime.

In a follow-up exchange text message, Pelosi elaborated on her remarks about Cooper:

I make television-i know about editing! I worked at NBC for 10 years+ 11 for 11 – I edit for a living. I just I know for a fact that 60 minutes and cnn have edited NP [Nancy Pelosi] out of context! XO, A

Minority Leader Pelosi’s departure would make room for her deputy and former rival, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who currently serves as Minority Whip.

Hoyer is widely seen as more moderate than Pelosi. She opposed his election to the party leadership in 2006, choosing instead to back the late Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), despite his ethical challenges.

UPDATE: This morning, Alexandra texted me:

Get your facts straight: I said she is destined for GREATNESS! Not wilderness. And that text was supposed to say HBO for 11. I have never talked to Nancy Pelosi about any of this.

Interestingly, Alexandra doesn’t challenge the crux of the story; that Pelosi would prefer to leave Congress and only remains out of a sense of obligation to her donors.