Here’s the problem – while Gingrich, Perry, Cain and the others all had very attackable foibles, they gave the Romney campaign a chance to go negative from the right. Newt was a Washington insider, Perry was soft on immigration, etc. Rick Santorum might seem like a treasure trove of attackability with his 1950s-inspired views on social issues. But how can Romney, a candidate whose greatest vulnerabilities in this primary are a lack of connection to the Republican base and a reputation for flip-flopping, attack Santorum from the left and get out alive?

It sets up a fascinating balancing act for Team Mitt. Can they paint Santorum’s views on gay rights and contraception as way out of the mainstream without feeding into the “Massachusetts Moderate” image that gets thrown at their guy? Perhaps his best possible argument that would avoid these traps is electability against President Obama, but now even that is highly questionable. So then where do you go?

It will be a lot of fun watching the Romney camp try to answer these questions as we approach Super Tuesday.

Posted by Philip Swibinski

In April of 2008, I began serving my three-year term as an elected school board member in the Town of Secaucus in Hudson County. So when I read that in January of this year, Governor Christie signed a law establishing procedures for moving a district’s annual school board election from April to the general election in November, I began to think what I would have done if I were still serving.

Now, under this new law, districts authorizing the November school board election will no longer have to put their budgets before voters if the budget is below or meets the two-percent annual increase cap. This all sounds good, but the two-percent cap is just somewhat of a guideline as districts have different tools and ways to spend more, not tremendous amounts, but the options are there, in special projects, appropriations and bonds, for example.

In my opinion, claiming a two-percent cap misleads the public. Voting on the budget is one of the foremost pillars of the democratic process, citizens voting on how much they will pay in taxes – a straight up or down vote.

My second issue is more process oriented with a school board election in November. You will always hear that we need to keep “politics” out of the schools – many on local boards or who have run for local office have probably said those exact words. So it seems counter intuitive to move the elections we claim we want to keep “politics” out of to the politically driven November general election, believing this will increase turnout. But let’s look into this further …

As I stated earlier, I am from Secaucus in Hudson County, so I will use the 2013 election cycle as my example. The Governor, State Senator, State Assembly, County Sheriff, local Mayor, local Council will all be on the ballot above a non-partisan school board election. Let’s say the legislature is looking for input from the public and there are two or four public questions on the ballot as well. A resident walks into their polling place to exercise their right to vote and to their surprise, they are told they have to wait on two lines … why?

Because by law, only so much space can be taken up on the physical voting machine, so in a year like I described, voters would be forced to vote on a second machine for local school board. I am willing to bet turnout from machine one to machine two drops by close to 50 percent. Even worse, you would be looking at multiple page vote-by-mail ballots, or potentially two separate ballots mailed to an individual. It is hard enough getting them sent back in the first place; imagine if they had double the work now?

If I were still serving, I would recommend voting against moving the elections to November. By no means do I think the system is perfect, but I think April is the better option for the school and the children.

Posted by Michael Makarski

In terms of my mother, the aforementioned metric does not apply to her – she is a vocal music teacher at Riverview School, responsible for educating kindergarten through fifth grade. Fortunately for her, the standardized tests do not test aptitude and overall grasp of basic musical principals so in essence, her job security should not be affected. The most troubling characteristic of Christie’s attacks on our state’s education system is that his mother, a former educator, has been a vocal opponent of her son’s stance on his proposed reforms.

In addition to fielding several questions on education, Governor Christie also came under attack for his support for same-sex marriage, or lack thereof. As per the Star Ledger, Denville resident Marisol Rodriguez asked Christie if he would keep his promise to “protect marriage.”

Christie repeated his vow to veto any bill that passes both chambers and pointed out his call for a referendum in the fall. Voters have taken up in the issue 31 times in other states, he said, leaving out the fact that it’s never passed at the ballot box. “The fact is they don’t trust the people of New Jersey to decide,” he said of Garden State same-sex marriage advocates.

Overall, the one theme I took away from yesterday’s town hall forum was that our Governor is not concerned about the here and now – but rather protecting himself politically moving forward into an election year. It is not naïve to assume that if he were to legalize same-sex marriage, he would catch serious flack from his fellow party members and could potentially seal his fate in terms of ever being considered a viable Republican Presidential candidate in the future.

Why does this matter now? Because in a few cases – notably the 2010 Senate elections in Nevada and Delaware – I was actually correct in my hypothesis. The Republicans did nominate unelectable candidates (Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell) that flopped in the general election. And now it may be happening again, on the biggest stage imaginable.

Newt Gingrich didn’t just beat Mitt Romney in Saturday’s South Carolina Primary, he crushed him. Gingrich has a genuine chance of becoming the Republican nominee for President. Early polling in Florida has him at least even and possibly way ahead of Romney in the first winner-take-all state. He captures the essence of conservative resentment better than anyone else in the field and appeals to voters whose biggest desire is to knock Barack Obama down a few pegs.

It’s a real race, and the Republican establishment cannot be happy about it. Why? Because Newt’s numbers among the general public are incredibly bad. TPM’s Poll Tracker has him at a net favorable-unfavorable of 26.5% to 58.6%. A Republican nominee with minus-32 favorability cannot win a general election against Barack Obama.

The Republican Party has a real mess on its hands, and if it’s not careful, it may doom itself to a landslide loss in November.

Posted by Phil Swibinski

The frontrunner stumbled through much of last night’s debate, seemingly unprepared for questions his campaign should have known were coming. The real story last night wasn’t Romney though – it was the return of the angry, backed-into-a-corner Gingrich that worked so well a few months ago. Newt’s full-throated takedown of CNN’s John King, the moderator in last night’s Republican debate, was inspired in its brutality, calling King’s question about reports of Gingrich’s ex-wife claiming he asked for an open marriage “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”

Here’s the clip:

This video is like a playbook on how to reach into the hearts of true conservative voters. Newt goes on the offensive, attacking the media and anyone who would dare to think his ex-wife’s comments are newsworthy. Since Mitt Romney won big in New Hampshire, the narrative has been that he has the race won.

A loss in South Carolina was perhaps to be expected. But now with Newt surging, conservative competitors like Michele Bachman and Rick Perry gone, and Romney taking heavy fire, the question you have to ask is – what if Mitt gets absolutely blown out tomorrow? What happens then?

Posted by Philip Swibinski

A recent survey from Public Policy Polling showed the former “Daily Show” correspondent leading former Utah governor Jon Huntsman by a percentage point. Huntsman, who has spent most of the campaign at the bottom of the pack, just finished third in New Hampshire.

“I am proud to announce that I am forming an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for President of the United States of America of South Carolina,” Colbert said during the Thursday evening show, several hours before airtime on Comedy Central. “This is a difficult decision. I’ve talked it over with my money. I’ve talked it over with my spiritual adviser.”

The move by Colbert is designed to emphasize the absurdity of U.S. election law.  Although he will not compete for the Republican nomination in other states, his candidacy gives Republicans a form of protest against Mitt Romney and his fellow pols in a state where every Republican nominee since 1980 has won the primary.

Now begs the real question – what does it say about our society if a talk show host can challenge seasoned politicians for a potential Presidential nomination?  If anything, Colbert is making a mockery of the Republicans and is proving with each passing day that as long as you say what your constituents want to hear, people will vote for you.  It is absolutely baffling to think that any Republican would consider voting for Colbert, considering his entire program is one, giant satire of their ideology.

Although Colbert readily acknowledges that receiving the Republican nomination for President would be a long shot, he is certainly making the race more interesting.  Additionally, his satire of the party he is claiming to represent can only help President Obama.

Now much of this has already been reported, so I thought I would point out a few things people have not really mentioned: the turnout for the caucus and the impact on the convention down the road.

The Iowa caucus is heavily covered by the media, political pundits and donors. It sets the tone for the primary elections in January and can make or break candidates through its impact on fundraising. But for all of that prominence, the number of people who participate is very small. While Iowa’s total population numbers more than three million people (approx 3,007,856), the people participating in this “important early state,” about 105,000, could fit into the Dallas Cowboys Stadium. So about 3.5 percent of the state decided this contest about the Republican nominee for President.

Secondly, the results are non-binding. Meaning Mitt Romney’s or Rick Santorum’s 25 percent of the Iowa delegates do not have to vote for them at the convention. In fact, they can vote for whomever they please. “Iowa’s Republican caucuses are non-binding, so once delegates are selected they are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

Things are starting to get interesting.

Posted by Michael Makarski

Vision Media’s online capabilities improved by leaps and bounds in 2011. We made a real commitment to social media and can now boast more than 1,500 Twitter followers. We embarked on an internal Search Engine Optimization campaign that greatly strengthened our website, made us the top Google search result for many high-traffic, relevant searches and gave us the expertise to begin offering SEO and Inbound Marketing services to clients in 2012. And, of course, we started this blog!

Our government-sector public relations business remains stable, and we continue to provide outstanding work for municipalities, boards of education and governmental agencies. Private-sector public relations work is growing, and we plan to make a serious sales push in 2012 by incorporating online techniques with more traditional public relations. We also began offering in-house survey research, further increasing our available services.

With a dedicated and talented staff, stable management structure and increasing list of capabilities, Vision Media is well-positioned to continue growing in 2012. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation and see how Vision Media can help your organization reach its audience with award-winning, targeted media and messaging.

Posted by Philip Swibinski

Despite my scrooge-like sarcasm, I really do enjoy holiday lights and decorations, but I just can’t help but think of all the energy we waste at this time of year. So I’m here to remind you that the holidays are an excellent time to keep our commitment to environment-friendly practices – think of it as a gift for the whole planet!

You can still dazzle the neighborhood with your display; just switch to sustainable, energy- efficient LED lighting instead. Accord­ing to the Energy Star pro­gram, LED lights use 70-to-90 percent less energy than the incan­des­cent ones and last 10 times longer. The bulbs need to be replaced less often, and the energy savings will really add up – that will make opening your January electric bill a lot less painful.

Accord­ing to the Energy Star pro­gram, “If all dec­o­ra­tive light strings sold in Amer­ica this year were ENERGY STAR qual­i­fied, we would save over 700 mil­lion kWh of electric­ity per year and reduce green­house gas emis­sions equiv­a­lent to those from about 100,000 cars.”

And that is not the only way to save with LED lighting. Just start fresh by ridding yourself of the old sets that are a drain on your wallet. Check with your local retailer; many of them offer dis­counts on the purchase of new LED hol­i­day lights when you turn in old sets – and they don’t even need to be in working condition.

You know what they say, “Timing is everything.” Ok, corny but true. An easy way to save energy and money on holiday lights is to set them on a timer. This can work for both your indoor and outdoor lights. Not only does this make sense monetarily and environmentally, but more importantly, it keeps you from having to trudge out in the cold to unplug your lights at night.  It can also be a deterrent to theft when you are out visiting family and friends, as lights turning on and off make it appear that someone is home.

So I hope I shed a little “light” on the many benefits of switching to energy-saving LED holiday lighting. I want to wish you and yours a wonderful holiday season and a prosperous, healthy and environmentally-friendly New Year!

For more information on ENERGY STAR-qual­i­fied LED lighting, visit http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=DS.

Moderated by the renowned pollster, Jeffrey Pollack, the first speaking panel offered insightful commentary, strategy and opinions on the Republican primaries, President Obama’s chances and key indicators to watch as the race heats up next year. Political reporters, leading consultants and a popular blogger at our firm (Ben Smith, see http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/) shared their thoughts.

The panel I enjoyed the most covered Digital Trends, Tools & Techniques – experts from consulting firms, Google and others discussed online advertising and its incorporation in this campaign’s communications strategy. Despite their technical know-how, they stressed that nothing in new media offers a fail-safe silver bullet. Instead, new media provides ever-evolving tools the campaign must use in coordination with traditional and earned media for a well-rounded, comprehensive communications plan.

However, the true highlight of the day was the keynote address from an industry founder and one of the people I’ve always admired, Bob Shrum, a savvy veteran and senior advisor to countless Presidential, Senate, gubernatorial and international races for 35 years. In the context of the current Presidential cycle, he discussed the media and the “power of moments,” as well as the critical question of whether the 2012 election will be a referendum or a choice.

On a personal note, Mr. Shrum was a great guy, down to earth and willing to listen to us young upstarts after all his success.

Posted by Michael Makarski