-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 79 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Ethanol Strategery
Thanks for Mitt Romney’s Iowa pander, Tim Pawlenty is looking especially good.
It’s a tale of two candidates, at this point the two frontrunners in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, each trying to create contrast not only with President Obama but also with the other. With each passing day, the contrast is becoming clearer — and in a way that could help Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty overcome former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s early lead in the Republican horserace.
It started several weeks ago with Romney’s “no apologies” approach to Romneycare, a Massachusetts version of Obamacare no matter how hard Mitt Romney tries to frame it differently. Even if it were substantially different, neither the “mainstream” media nor President Obama would let the electorate know it with Obama repeatedly thanking Romney for clearing a path for the president’s signature “achievement.”
This is in stark contrast to Pawlenty’s repudiation of his own prior position on cap-and-trade. Pawlenty has said he made a mistake and has apologized — which he should — for having ever supported that policy: “I’ve said I was wrong. It was a mistake, and I’m sorry. You’re going to have a few clunkers in your record, and we all do, and that’s one of mine. I just admit it. I don’t try to duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away. I’m just telling you, I made a mistake.”
Round one to Pawlenty, according to this judge.
Now comes round two, each man’s opening statements in Iowa.
In his remarks last week, somewhat overshadowed by President O’bama’s visit to his ancestral homeland (is he still “black enough” to be president?), Tim Pawlenty came out — and I repeat this was in Iowa — against ethanol subsidies:
We need to phase out subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. We simply can’t afford them anymore. Some people will be upset by what I’m saying. Conventional wisdom says you can’t talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street. But someone has to say it. Someone has to finally stand up and level with the American people. Someone has to lead — I will.
Romney, the would-be conservative, came out with this: “I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe it’s an important part of our energy solution in this country.” Again, Romney’s words could easily have come from Barack Obama.
For this judge, that’s round two for Pawlenty as well.
But I’m just one judge, and clearly some people disagree with me. In the past week, political betting has had Mitt Romney hovering around a 28% probability of being the nominee with Pawlenty falling off from 24% to 19% recently following a jump up from about 17% when Mike Huckabee got out of the race.
So what’s going on with these two very different approaches to ethanol strategery? Mitt Romney knows that he’s the frontrunner, though not necessarily in Iowa where he lost by a wide nine percent margin to Mike Huckabee in 2008 — a loss that some people say crippled Romney’s 2008 campaign. He’d like to have the momentum of Iowa so is willing to pander to those voters on the chance of winning a plurality.
Pawlenty knows that he’s expected to pick up many of Huckabee’s evangelical Christian voters if the existing field ended up being the actual field come caucus time. But in the last week, the betting odds of Sarah Palin running for president have jumped from about 37% to about 46%, and actually traded over 60% a couple of times in the past several days. Her odds of receiving the nomination have gone from just over 6% to about 8.5%. At the same time, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s odds of earning the nomination have jumped from about 2.5% to 6% with his just mentioning that he’d “think about” running for the presidency.
In other words, Palin’s and Perry’s gains have come directly from Pawlenty’s support, at least according to those willing to bet on such things.
Pawlenty is therefore thinking that the evangelical vote will be split (including with Michele Bachmann) and that Romney may well win Iowa by consolidating the “moderate” vote — not that that’s a very large number among Iowa Republican caucus participants. On the other hand, if Pawlenty can come in second in Iowa, and first among those running as true conservatives (whether or not he is one I’ll leave to your determination, at least for today), he could be in good position to run in New Hampshire and South Carolina. After all, Mitt Romney lost both of those states to John McCain in 2008 while nominally running as the conservative to McCain’s “maverick” aka moderate. This time around, Romney’s re-casting as a moderate hardly seems likely to endear him to conservative primary participants. It’s just a question of whether they think they have a better option.
While Romney has a geographical advantage in New Hampshire and the edge of a large Mormon population in Nevada, those races — especially New Hampshire — aren’t certain. Romney lost New Hampshire to John McCain by 5.5% and is already watching his 2008 supporters go a little wobbly despite a March poll showing Romney with a commanding lead in the Granite State. South Carolina is particularly unfriendly territory for Mitt Romney; in 2008 he came in fourth behind McCain, Huckabee, and Fred Thompson. Therefore, Pawlenty is wisely positioning himself wherever possible as the true conservative and as the non-Romney.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (129) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/31/ethanol-strategery
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
dee see| 5.31.11 @ 7:18AM
---4 decades of systematic Globalist RED China
TREASON op goes unpunished, ---even unmentioned.
And now? ----Time to roll in 'AWE-stare-IT-he'
(remember, we're the ITs).
MEANWHILE the chic style in restaurants and
cafes is 'EUGENICS realism' ---uh, we meant minimalism
---er, high infirmary ---or,uh, Bauhaus hospice.
Alan Brooks| 6.1.11 @ 2:52AM
Pawlenty can't beat Obama.
Intelligent Design| 5.31.11 @ 7:22AM
Rick Perry is the one who will beat Obama hands down.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 9:07AM
Intelligent post!
PCC| 5.31.11 @ 9:57AM
1. The 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on President Obama.
2. That referendum will be based on the economy. Broadly speaking, if unemployment is below 8%, he wins. If not, he loses.
3. If unemployment is above 8%, almost any of the current or prospective GOP candidates will beat him, unless some major skeletons come tumbling out of the closet post-nomination.
4. We should have a "no holds barred" primary contest to identify the most pro-growth, anti-deficit, pro-market candidate we can find.
Personally, I'd support any one of the GOP declared or undeclared candidates in the race, even Mr. Moonbat Ron Paul himself.
Do you disagree?
SonOfSam| 5.31.11 @ 10:09AM
PCC, here is my prediction:
$7 a gallon gasoline
10% unemployment, 25% real unemployment
15% inflation
sir, I think you are spot on. I don't think Ron Paul is a moonbat, but even if he was, better an honest moonbat than the crooks and gangsters we have infecting the White House right now
PCC| 5.31.11 @ 12:09PM
We agree, Sam.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 10:36AM
I'll vote for the best of a bad lot to get rid of Obama and the Democrats -- Palin, Paul, Huntsman or Romney. Though I'd really like to vote for the best candidate again not just the better than Obama candidate (McCain). My dog would be a better President than Obama.
The only way unemployment goes down is they cook the books.
Ned| 5.31.11 @ 1:15PM
What's your dog's name? She's (?) got my vote, if Mickey Mouse isn't running against Barry Bull$hit* in 2012...
*("Sometimes I even believe my own bull$hit")
Conserdude| 5.31.11 @ 2:32PM
could not have said it better, though I would have a hard time voting for Newt if he were the nominee.
Intelligent Design| 5.31.11 @ 2:14PM
Thanks. There is nothing more important than having a Republican nominee who can actually beat Obama. Put another way, there is nothing more important than getting Obama out of the Oval Office. He has done so much damage already; another 4 years would be a disaster for the United States. So I don't want the nominee to be any of the usual suspects, because I think each is likely to lose to Obama: 1) Palin; 2) Gingrich; 3) Romney; 4) Pawlenty; 5) Bachman; etc.. Perry is a man of conviction and stands by his principles, instead of drifting with the latest polls. He speaks with confidence and he speaks to the concerns of average Americans nationwide. He has years of relevant executive experience as governor. So far as I know, he has no major skeletons in his closet, but I'll bet Obama has his dogs looking for some.
Immortal 600| 5.31.11 @ 2:38PM
ID,
I respectfully disagree about not wanting the usual suspects. I'd take any one of them over Obama. I like Perry as well, but if he got the nomination, I can guarantee you that the first DNC ad against him would demagogue him on Social Security. They'd play a clip where you see Gov. Perry calling SS nothing more than a Ponzi scheme (which I happen to agree with). They would shout that Perry wants to destroy your retirement! That would be tough to run against.
florin| 5.31.11 @ 4:19PM
I think a Romney/Ryan ticket could beat Obama. I liked Pawlenty's interview with Chris Wallace and he was utterly boring and kind of sly - he really didn't answer important questions beginning with: "What would you do about..." He would say he had a plan but is not ready to reveal it...at least Romney and Ryan have plans - imperfect but a starting point. The Repubs. better start their strategy soon and come up against all the misinformation/lies being put out there by the Dems before them become too deeply embedded in the minds of the people...
Al Adab| 5.31.11 @ 5:10PM
Maybe Romney would win, but what's the point? At least with Al Naqis in the White House, the proper people get the blame.
John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 10:22AM
Intelligent Design,
I've live in Texas for almost forty years. Perry isn't evil, but he is getting a lot of leadership credit which isn't due. True, he is making the right sorts of noises, but the strength in Texas politics is the Lt. Governor. Perry's role is to sign what's sent him and call a special election. The legislativc calendar isn't controlled by him so beyond making a speech or two, his influence on Texas politics is minimal.
We could do worse than Perry, but he is getting the same sort of rock star treatment that got Obama elected. Look past the good hair, crisp white shirt and boots before voting.
He has been governor of Texas for TEN years. I know his name isn't exactly foreign, but ask yourself:
If you had heard the name "Rick Perry" four years ago, would "Governor of Texas" or "Television Star" have come to mind?
Charles Martel| 6.1.11 @ 5:10PM
Agreed. Governor Goodhair isn't exactly all that popular here in Texas anyway. In last year's gubernatorial election, he ran better than his Republican opponent in the primary, the uber-moderate Kay Bailey Hutchison, and handily trounced the Democrat, Houston's feckless ex-mayor Bill White, but the luster of that latter triumph is diminished when you consider how Republican this state is: McCain -- even John McCain -- won here in 2008 by nearly a million votes.
(We are repaid for 2008, by the way, with repeated slights by and occasional outright harm from the Obama administration: for an example of the former, look to where a retired space shuttle is *not* going; for the latter, please notice that affected Texas counties were denied disaster designations after April's wildfires despite suffering many times the damage necessary for that designation.)
Perry's instincts are often highly suspect. Perry has been governor for ten years, and was just re-elected to another four-year term. The powers of the governor are quite limited here, and he betrays every once in a while an itch to do something, to make himself relevant, to inject himself where none of us belongs. Look up the controversies around the Trans-Texas Corridor and the mandatory HPV vaccine for schoolgirls 10-years-old and up, and see then if you still want him to be president.
We all thought it was awesome when he shot that coyote that attacked his dog while they were out jogging, but that is no reason to reward him with the Republican nomination for the presidency.
On the other hand, maybe you were just thrilled with everything George W. Bush did, and you think that another Texas governor is just what this country needs. Against another four years of Barack Hussein Obama? No question. But against Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, or Michelle Bachman? No, thank you.
+++
Redstateboy| 5.31.11 @ 4:22PM
A Perry/Pawlenty or a Pawlenty/Perry or a Perry/Cain or a Pawlenty/Cain - any of these scanarios spells "Doom" for Das Messiah and as for Romney?? Me and my Tennessee Politicos are all say'n F! Romney! And this Ethanol BS endorsement of his tells me he just wants to be all things to all people. Forget it Romney.. Ethanol is one of Thee biggest Liber-ul Scams out there.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.31.11 @ 7:33AM
Design,
We Texans really do need Perry right where he is. He is head of the nationl association of Governors, and is a strong advocate for strong States rights and the tenth amendment.
Check his teaparty tax day speech on youtube.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 9:08AM
Ken:
It is time we pulled the country's fat out of the fire again. We can share.
John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 10:25AM
Ken,
I have to agree. Perry is in a good spot. He's like Ron Paul, if you ask me, perfectly positioned where he is. The trouble is, Perry is out of options at the end of this term. A run for the President, even if he loses, get him into national party politics. I don't think he will be so good there.
Lawrence of Lutz| 5.31.11 @ 7:52AM
I will NEVER vote for anyone who votes for government subsidies for a product that is costing me for the repairs incurred on my small engines and older vechicles. Not to mention loss of milage.
SonOfSam| 5.31.11 @ 8:46AM
Not to mention how much its driven up the price of EVERYTHING else that uses corn in its production, including every ounce of meat in the country. Last I heard, upwards of 40 PER CENT of our corn crop went to ethanol last year. Not sure if that's true, but if it is its insane..we will be the only people in history who went hungry by burning our food instead of eating it
I agree Lawrence, no more subsidies and no more bailouts. "Too big to fail"? No way: more like "too dumb to survive"
Conserdude| 5.31.11 @ 2:35PM
I agree.
btw, why is your internet name the same as a serial killer in NYC in the 1970s?
Charles Martel| 6.1.11 @ 5:12PM
Maybe his dad's name is Sam? Maybe his real name is Samson? Not all answers involve demonic messages conveyed to him by his neighbor's dog.
+++
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.31.11 @ 9:49AM
LofL,
It was me. I have fought ethanol since its inception, I have fought it in the public arena, I have fought it in the halls of academia, and I have fought it tooth and nail in every forum you can find. This “subsidy” is so inherent in every aspect of and “agricultural State” that is like the Holy Grail – the cup of your money that always overfloweth. Why me, well because there is not a single candidate available in my state that would touch this. We also are beef producers (they do not actually advertise this) so they all turn a blind eye to the predominate source of labor for the packing plants.
It is like they are all crazy, they feed corn to cattle (10% return of food value, the red meat most of which people cannot afford) and they turn much of it into “fuel” that is less efficient than the petroleum they rely on to produce corn. Absolutely brainless, bordering on insanity.
richard ryan| 5.31.11 @ 10:49AM
Good points....and exactly what is the argument against using Natural Gas? Seems to me it would come close to eliminating our dependence on foreign oil- we've got enough here in North America to last a century. That's long enough to perfect crystollic fusion and other technologies.
JayDick| 5.31.11 @ 1:07PM
Our biggest need is for transportation fuel. To use natural gas that way would require modified motor vehicles and a new infrastructure for supply, both of which are expensive. Vehicles would require large, highly pressurized tanks to carry the gas. This looks to me a lot like a bunch of bombs going down the highway at 70 MPH or more. Some vehicles might require complete redesigns to accommodate the large tanks. Gasoline vapor is also explosive, but tanks don't have to be pressurized. Diesel fuel is not explosive but it is flammable.
Ore Gone| 5.31.11 @ 12:52PM
That is another hair brained idea that I hope will go away like: global warming, fluorescent bulbs, wind mills and solar panels. They each have a base in reality but they have been skewed to be the end all. Where did all these Chicken Littles come from!
Redstateboy| 5.31.11 @ 4:26PM
Bingo!!! and Hussein's EPA - if our chicken-schitt Congress allows it - will INCREASE Ethanol content Up to 15% per Gal.!! So say goodbye to those Fuel and Exhaust Systems on those JetSki's, ATV's, Motorcycles, Lawnmowers
steve lakin| 5.31.11 @ 7:54AM
Denatured alcohol has one or more substances added to it to prevent it from being used for drinking.
http://www.zimbio.com/Skin+Car.....+Trial+Now
Stormzeye| 5.31.11 @ 8:16AM
There is absolutely no justification for backing a Six Billion Dollar subsidy for ethanol. It's based on junk science, it drives up food prices and only curries favor with midwestern voters. By the way, remember when Sen. Phil Graham was the leading fund raiser of his day with the strongest political machine and best resume? He was a RINO too and couldn't even defeat Bob Dole for the nomination.
Stormzeye| 5.31.11 @ 8:17AM
Sorry, I meant to say Phil Gramm...not Graham.
Have you considered| 5.31.11 @ 8:24AM
I would never support Romney simply because of Romneycare.
I was at TheHill.com and was encouraged to see that Romney's position regarding ethanol was castigated even by the folks there.
I am at this point still reserved about T-Paw as I can't tell that he is a truly Constitutional conservative, but I am willing to learn more.
I like a politician who can admit a mistake, and I like his negative positions on subsidies and cap & tax, and he seems to have the courage to say what needs sayin' on social security and medicare/medicaide.
SonOfSam| 5.31.11 @ 8:48AM
Same here; also, I thought Romney was a coward for not battling McCain all the way to the convention as Hillary did on the other side. If he's too gutless to take it to the guy who lost to Obama last time, what assurance do we have that he won't be a scrotumless Ken doll this time around?
Mutch Moore | 6.1.11 @ 1:35AM
SonOfSAm you're spot on about Romney but your screen name is kinda weird - not in a disparaging sense of the word.
Conserdude| 5.31.11 @ 2:41PM
Pawlenty I think is the best chance to defeat Obama, if only because he has the fewest negatives compared to the other GOP candidates, e.g., Romney (Romneycare & chameleon); Newt (being Newt); Palin (quitting her Gov job); Bachman (House member); Rudy (liberal on social issues); Paul (too libertarian); Cain (no experience or policy background); Santorum (lost PA by 18 pts); Johnson (Gary who?)... did I miss someone?
Conserdude| 5.31.11 @ 2:42PM
oops - forgot Huntsman (RINO!)
Jack in Wi.| 6.2.11 @ 1:03AM
Ron Paul has polled best against Obama in 3 national polls. He has been right about what is happening in this country for the last 30 years. Pawlenty is Casper Milktoast. He will never win and if by a miracle he won he would be a lousey president. Obama can be beaten, but not by another Bush, Dole, or McCain.
Hillel| 5.31.11 @ 8:31AM
Do you mean to say that the're ruining perfectly good booze by "denaturing it?' Oh the shame the ignomy...
PattyMor| 5.31.11 @ 8:32AM
TPaw will gain momentum right up to the time that Sarah Palin announces. Then Sarah will suck the oxygen out of the other conservatives. Sorry TPaw supporters, Sarah is simply a better candidate.
SonOfSam| 5.31.11 @ 8:50AM
who says they couldn't team up? I happen to like Pawlenty, but that much being said, I will lay down in front of a truck to get Sarah Palin elected. "Palin-Pawlenty" has a nice ring to it
Ryan| 5.31.11 @ 8:53AM
No, I doubt it. Pawlenty had a better governorship in a state that is harder to govern.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 9:41AM
It is time the GOP dumped the stupid philosophy that it is someone's turn, because they were the Veep nominee on a failed ticket (Bob Dole & Sarah Palin) or they did pretty good running against the nominee so they've earned it (McCain and Romney). We need to nominate a successful Governor with a solid running mate – Pawlenty-Cain, Pawlenty-Rubio long shot Pawlenty-Ryan. Substitute Perry or Christie for Pawlenty and we’ll be just fine. (Huntsman worked for Obama -- HELL NO!)
If Palin runs and wins the nomination (definitely not a given) she better pray for a recession or she’ll drag the GOP down to a pointless defeat.
Like Barack Obama and Ron Paul fans the Palin supporters ignore how polarizing she is. It doesn't matter that she energized the base in 2008 we LOST and LOST bad to a second rate community organizer and Palin was a part of the problem (McCain was the big problem).
If you want to win you don't nominate a loser. Nixon took a break and rehabilitated himself before running again. If Palin wants to prove she can take the heat of politics then run for the Senate in Arizona and serve at least one full term. We don’t need another lightweight in the White House after the last 4 years.
SonOfSam| 5.31.11 @ 10:11AM
Hey Mike,
never mind recession, how STAGFLATION?
$7 a gallon gasoline
10% unemployment, 25% real unemployment
15% inflation
That's my prediction. You heard it here first
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 10:19AM
Sam I'm afraid you could be right. If Obama wins reelection this will be a lost decade of pain, misery and suffering. That's why we've got to clean the table in 2012.
Ross Kaminsky | 5.31.11 @ 9:52AM
Sarah Palin is a better candidate if you're a Democrat. She would have little chance of beating Obama, in my opinion. Pawlenty would have a much better chance, though I still wish the GOP had at least one compelling candidate.
SonOfSam| 5.31.11 @ 10:13AM
Well Ross, since you're an obvious liberal troll, the GOP will never field a candidate you find "compelling" until they start talking like Democrats. As for Sarah Palin, they absolutely FEAR her. All you have to do is watch the left's screeching every time her name is mentioned: they're like vampires being confronted with sunlight, holy water and dudes swinging machetes
George S| 5.31.11 @ 11:25AM
(I hate "what if's" but bear with me...) If Ronald Reagan were to return and run for president in 2012, would he have a chance of winning? If the theory that constant attack by the left destroys a candidate's viability, then Reagan would stand no chance as he has been attacked for 30 years compared to Palin's two and change. But I think not only he would win, but he'd take CA, NY and IL and maybe repeat the 49 state landslide of 1984.
That's because a leader is loved or hated -- practically no one has an indifference. Palin, like Reagan, minces no words or bows to the moderates -- a huge plus (see: Trump). Palin also attracts crowds, will cause more people to donate money willingly, and get more enthusiastic volunteers on board. That is hard to stop. Can she lose? Of course, but it's much easier to lose if you have no excitement behind you than by having it.
The winner, IMO, is the one who elicits a visceral reaction -- one way or another. Obama already's got that one covered...
Steve A| 5.31.11 @ 11:53AM
Ross has officially consumed the Kool-Aid. Such a shame.
victor| 5.31.11 @ 12:18PM
Kaminsky is a Lefty Libertarian who actually has the gall to blame those who want to keep illegal drugs illegal for the deaths of drug addicts and those involved with drugs.
He's a loser.
Ross Kaminsky | 5.31.11 @ 3:24PM
Very deep, Victor.
Please tell me what aspect of my views counts as "lefty".
By the way, I don't blame prohibitionists for the deaths of addicts. I blame them for the deaths of civilians along our border. There's a big difference.
Steve A| 5.31.11 @ 3:51PM
Ross, If you had to pick a GOP candidate today, including those who have not declared & may not run ( Ryan, Rubio, Christie etc.), who would it be??
Ross Kaminsky | 5.31.11 @ 9:08PM
Steve,
I really like those guys who won't run, though I do think they're not ready either.
I am sorta friends with Paul Ryan. You can hear my rather long interview of him for my radio show here: http://rossputin.com/blog/back.....-paul-ryan
At least we're friendly enough that I call him Paul and he calls me Ross... I have encouraged him NOT to run at this time.
I don't know Rubio or Christie but would suggest the same to them.
I was leaning toward Mitch Daniels, but that's not going to happen.
I think Pawlenty has potential but I don't know enough about him. Same story for Rick Perry.
I'm open to Romney's changing my mind but I'm having a hard time finding him as authentic and I think that will be a real problem in 2012.
In short, I don't have a great answer for you, but I think that Pawlenty seems perhaps the best choice right now, but just barely.
I wish there were someone I could be enthusiastic about.
I truly believe a Palin campaign would be a GOP disaster. I've met Palin, I like her, and I like her out doing what she's doing, but I don't want her running for president. I understand that Palin supporters, of whom there are many and who tend to be intense, don't appreciate my view, but it is what it is.
Steve A| 6.1.11 @ 9:14AM
Ross, Much thanks for your well reasoned & thoughtful reply. I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to do so. I think you are likely right on the $$.
I do believe that the GOP nominee, whoever it is, has the odds way in their favor.
Regards, Steve
victor| 5.31.11 @ 7:40PM
"Very deep, Victor."
What's deep is your condescension and feigned moral superiority, that is so typical of the Lefty Libertarians who claim intellectual superiority high and above the rest of us peons who want to keep the moral decay from progressing, and want to keep illegal drugs illegal.
Excuse me while I kiss your ring.
And you want to ask "what aspects of my views are Lefty?" What a joke.
And you did NOT say anything about the deaths of civilians "along our border" in your post to my wife recently, but in typical Lefty Libertarian fashion, you don't mind lying, eh?
Major Fail, bud.
Here is your pitiful and condescending post to my wife:
Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 9:32PM
Margie,
If you don't understand the difference between a law against prostitution and a law against murder, then there's little point in the debate.
People should have the freedom to make mistakes.
Furthermore, you turn logic on your head by staying that drugs should stay illegal because drug dealers are evil. But the murders that are committed over drugs are committed because the prices are high, which is the case because they are illegal.
People who support keeping drugs illegal -- especially marijuana -- have blood on their hands at this point."
Ross Kaminsky | 5.31.11 @ 9:04PM
Victor, not one thing you have said answers my question, nor does it support your original characterization of me as a "lefty". I am pro-freedom, period. It's pretty simple.
I have never voted for a Democrat (or any other form of liberal) in my life.
That said, I am not a social issues conservative and if that alone is what makes you call me a lefty, well let's just say I can sleep soundly knowing that.
LSinAZ| 5.31.11 @ 9:27PM
victor, I am compelled to make this reply. If you would actually read the Libertarian platform, you might see that it comports well with the US Constitution, as a matter of fact much better than than either the Rs or Ds.
There are two points that I think deserve some honest thought.
Firstly, I believe that drug prohibition at the federal level is unconstitutional, as there is no Enumerated Power in Article 1, Sec 8 which allows them to even consider it.
I will support this argument in this way. The perfect case study is the 18th Amendment in which they Constitutionally PROHIBITED Liquor. http://www.ushistory.org/docum.....tm#amend18
Makes you wonder why they didn't just ban it....
Secondly, criminal acts create victims...that is why "justice" is called for. Now ask, who is the victim of drug use? Only the user.
I will concede that drug use often leads to other crimes, such as robbery, driving under the influence, etc.. but so does being alive, and these acts are already crimes.
The libertarian position is that harming yourself should not be a crime. It is that simple.
Al Adab| 5.31.11 @ 5:16PM
Libertarians are allies of Conservatives but suffer from a systemic moral error in rejecting absolutes. Too much Liberty becomes license and is just as destructive of social order as is Leftist statist tyranny.
victor| 5.31.11 @ 7:42PM
I'm sorry, Al Adab,
but just HOW is the above example an ally?
Occam's Tool| 5.31.11 @ 2:15PM
Pawlenty is making all the right moves. Still not a "compelling" guy, but he's an obvious choice against the Obamination.
Immortal 600| 5.31.11 @ 2:53PM
Ross, you are stating a true fact that upsets some people here. Sarah Palin would lose to Obama, and it wouldn't even be close. It would be just a bit closer than 4 years ago. I would certainly vote for her in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean she'd win.
John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 3:51PM
Immortal 600,
For ANY of the candidates to lose, they would have to lose the middle and suppress the base. I'm sure there are people who prefer Obama to Palin. The question becomes how far does that margin extend over the middle. With such a polarizing choice, I don't really expect many to change their minds.
If, in fact, the majority of voters prefer Obama to Palin, we are already in a heap of trouble. Perhaps, I'm so far to the right that the parallax error keeps me blind.
Immortal 600| 5.31.11 @ 5:32PM
John,
Good analysis. I agree, however I worry that the MSM has poisoned Sarah's chances to the point she can't possibly win. Unfortunately, I think, this election is going to be determined by that segment of the population that swings back and forth, not really paying attention. The media has been so negative towards her, I worry about her chances. At this point I just can't see it. God, I hope I'm wrong.
John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 6:55PM
Immortal 600,
I must agree that the media have successfully Quayled Palin.
Charles Martel| 6.1.11 @ 5:17PM
Sarah Palin would indeed suck all the oxygen out of the room. She would also, barring a heinous crash-and-burn, probably get the nomination. But she has the highest "negatives" of any possible Republican candidate, and has the greatest likelihood of losing in November.
We love her; many hate her; there are very few in-between. That is not a recipe for capturing 270 Electoral votes.
+++
Old Soldier| 5.31.11 @ 8:33AM
Yet another reason I won't for Romney.
Good for Pawlenty - I like Cain but if it comes down to Pawlenty vs. Romney, the decision will be easy.
john dubose| 5.31.11 @ 8:37AM
Palin, Cain, Romney, Pawlenty, .. almost any other Republican. Look for the one most likely to win.
Bob| 5.31.11 @ 8:40AM
Though Romney's economics are putrid he is A+ concerning social issues. Pro-abortion and supports Planned Parenthood, pro-gay marriage, amnesty and the Mass. Health Care Plan aka Romneycare served as the blue print for Obamacare. Well done Mitt, the rest of these GOP pikers should emulate you.
Ryan| 5.31.11 @ 8:55AM
With some political savvy, Pawlenty may be able to position himself the a good, experienced alternative to Romney that Southern conservatives are looking for.
Hmmm...Pawlenty/Cain, anyone?
Pawlenty is starting to become my "default" candidate rather quickly.
SonOfSam| 5.31.11 @ 10:14AM
We can do better than "default", Ryan. And we will
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 10:49AM
Pawlenty is a principled candidate and that is going to make him standout against sleazy Obama if he gets the nomination.
Time to go after Democrat Schumer's Medicare scheme making all doctors Democrat's Jack Kevorkian.
Ore Gone| 5.31.11 @ 1:03PM
Pawlenty is a good man. Thank god, we have a lot of outstanding candidates and just a handful of not so good. I just want some common sense, adherence to the constitution, and a strong dose of honesty would be refreshing. Obama makes anyone look good even Clinton.
bill carson| 5.31.11 @ 9:14AM
I'm starting to like this Pawlenty guy.
Al Adab| 5.31.11 @ 9:43AM
Thanks to Romney we see ever more clearly just what is the long term problem with Republicans. The east coast GOP establishment, or country club Republicans if you prefer (can't use RINO because they control the party) are nothing more the the same old song. They, including Romney's father, opposed the Conservative movement from its inception. Republicans like Romney can't bring the country back to its roots. Certainly somewhere there is someone who can once again show us the way. It is up to us to find and nominate that one.
Ross Kaminsky | 5.31.11 @ 9:54AM
I forgot to mention, since the article was really about candidates more than about policy, the incredible notion that anybody thinks it's a good idea for a nation to start burning its food. Really, the fact that anybody supports corn ethanol is a triumph of "crony capitalism" and environmental extremism over common sense and the good of the nation.
Al Adab| 5.31.11 @ 11:10AM
Absolutely correct. These policies are leading us down a path of no return. Subsidies for selected industries or preferred "solutions" like CFLs, "green energy" and other chimeras are both expensive and destructive of the ingenuity we nationally need. It all relates to federal spending and that spending is the issue of our time. Thank you for a stimulating article.
Steve A| 5.31.11 @ 11:56AM
Yes sir Ross. Eat corn, burn oil. Would be a good slogan.
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.31.11 @ 4:03PM
Eat corn, DRINK ethanol, burn oil.
Al Adab| 5.31.11 @ 5:12PM
I prefer the 16 year old barley water from Scotland. Corn liquor too sweet.
Charles Martel| 6.1.11 @ 5:20PM
Ireland produces fine products as well, and I'm pretty sure they don't make it from corn either.
+++
Old Soldier| 5.31.11 @ 12:12PM
And they are willing to force us to do it with mandates and subsidies - not through the free-market.
Mutch Moore | 6.1.11 @ 1:58AM
Crony capitalism indeed Mr. Kaminski. Or even call it corny capitalism. It is the mother of all gifts to the corn producing states at the expense and detriment to the nation as you say. Really, more than just an affront to "common sense," this form of cronyism rises to the level of high crimes against the American people. What bliss it would be to see these ethanol scoundrels, every one of them who voted for this, in a prison jump suit. Great article Mr. Kaminski but you understate the damage done to our nation.
Enchanting Ethanol | 5.31.11 @ 10:33AM
So much corruption surrounding ethanol! Newt Gingrich has taken ethanol money. Gore supported ethanol when he was running for president and recently admitted his folly. B.Clinton who had money invested in an ethanol plant in Brazil that engaged in slave labor, recently rejected ethanol. Bush put the high levels of ethanol mandate in place. It goes on and on.
The sad thing is it looks like this problem is going to continue with the new trend in reporting on ethanol. Finally, most news outlets are reporting that corn ethanol has problems— inefficiency, land use issues, waterway pollution, food security/inflation, etc. The new narrative is that cellulosic ethanol is the real answer and corn ethanol has been sucking up all the subsidies. If we just give cellulosic “the capital” we will have cheap “homegrown” energy for all.
Cellulosic ethanol has received subsidies and has been unsuccessful. Look at Vinod khosla’s Range Fuels and Cello Energy. Range Fuels has gotten about 162 million in tax-payer dollars and about the same in private funding, but has not produced the cellulosic ethanol it promised. WSJ reported that the Range Fuels CEO says that no one has figured out how to produce commercially viable portions of cellulosic ethanol. And Cello Energy is bankrupt. (See WSJ 2/10/11 The Range Fuels Fiasco) (enchantingethanol.blogspot.com)
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 10:42AM
There is only one solution for ethanol -- OIL! Drill baby drill!
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.31.11 @ 4:05PM
Two solutions; Drille baby drill, and small onions or olives.
Indy| 5.31.11 @ 10:55AM
Anyone else out there frustrated with our election process? Iowa, NH and SC have a huge influence on who the primary winner will be...for those of us who live in other states we have less influence on the outcome of the primaries. Ethanol subsidies are wrong just like other energy subsidies are wrong, Romney is pandering to Iowa for votes, I may not agree with every position Pawlenty takes but it is refreshing to see him risk losing Iowa because he is taking the correct stance on ethanol policy, I like people from Iowa but America first, Iowans are good people who will adapt and manage to make a living without those subsidies.
David T| 5.31.11 @ 11:01AM
If Pawlenty gets the nomination, it will be the 1984 election in reverse, with Barack Obama as Ronald Reagan and Tim Pawlenty as the hapless Walter Mondale.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 11:07AM
What is it with you Democrats? You hated Reagan when he was alive now you want to wrap his mantle around the corrupt and failed Barack Obama.
Obama has destroyed the housing market and destroyed the majority of middle-class Americans wealth. Unlike Reagan his policies are to empower him and take from those who work and give to elite Democrats and foreigners.
David T| 5.31.11 @ 11:51AM
You completely missed my point.
Nate B| 5.31.11 @ 2:17PM
Missed what point David? That you assume the economy will be booming and unemployment will be below 8%, and gas prices will be back to normal? Perhaps you're glossing over the differences between Reagan's recovery and Obama's "recovery" non-recovery. Wasn't 2010 supposed to be "Recovery Summer" as claimed by the White House? Obama's advisers are even admitting that unless the GOP nominates Palin or Gingrich, they expect the race to be really close. 1984 comparisons don't fit anywhere here. More like 1992, but in reverse.
David T| 5.31.11 @ 9:32PM
You completely missed my point, too, so let me explain it for you:
Pawlenty is a total loser for the GOP.
Clear enough?
Charles Martel| 6.1.11 @ 5:22PM
How thorough, not to say convincing, of you to offer a reason for that assertion. What makes you think that Pawlenty wouldn't win an Electoral majority against the socialist messiah?
+++
Oldefarte| 5.31.11 @ 11:03AM
Great article Ross, and I couldn't agree more with your analysis. From what I know about Pawlenty, he currently seems to be an extremely viable candidate in opposition to El Chosen One. I especially like his TRUTH and HONESTY, as opposed to Romney's idiotic refusal to disavow his insanity of Romneycare [granted he was governor of a liberal Democratic state, but so was Pawlenty who has now admitted his environmental oriented mistakes]. People/voters need to research Pawlenty's political record, personality, life history; and I think that in doing so will come to the same conclusions so far that I have concerning him. The only question so far with me is does he have the mettle/courage to take on Chosen, to call him out on political issues, to stare him in the face, and to call a spade a spade. The liberal left/Democrats are all about political gamemanship, deception, deciet, propaganda etc all purposed toward minipulating voters' minds toward their socialistic points of view. If any Republican allows this to continue by pulling a McCain, a W, or even a Hillary; then Chosen gets re-elected easily. It's that simple, folks. Obviously, Palin and Bachmann have the kahonees to call Chosen out, but I'm leery of Palin's obvious political historical pitfalls regarding her marriage, her children and her universal political knowledge in a showdown with Chosen [whose intelligence and Chicago Way political smarts cannot or should not be denied]. Again, I like Pawlenty, but am keeping a open mind going forward!!!!!
NikFromNYC| 5.31.11 @ 11:11AM
Not even Al Gore supports EtOH subsidies any more!
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....16076.html
Here I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming:
Denial: http://oi52.tinypic.com/35c4ojm.jpg
NikFromNYC| 5.31.11 @ 11:11AM
Denial: http://oi52.tinypic.com/35c4ojm.jpg
Oceans: http://oi53.tinypic.com/35b9g08.jpg
NikFromNYC| 5.31.11 @ 11:11AM
Thermometers: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2upvlvm.jpg
NikFromNYC| 5.31.11 @ 11:12AM
Earth: http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg
Authority: http://oi53.tinypic.com/345bol5.jpg
Sarah| 5.31.11 @ 11:39AM
I see that the libertarian crowd still remains irrelevant. Good luck with your Ron Paul rallies - the road to no where.
loulou| 5.31.11 @ 11:52AM
The fact that Romney is a pandering 'ho doesn't make Pawlenty look good.
Dream on, Kaminsky.
The GOP will not win in 2012 with a passive, timid and weak candidate like Timid Timmy Tiptoes.
Oldefarte| 5.31.11 @ 2:00PM
They certainly can ".....win in 2012 with a passive, timid and weak candidate like Timid Timmy Tiptoes...", if voters are intelligent enough to read/understand/hear his words, his political history of conservative accompolishments, etc. The problem with this country always [except for electing the Gipper] been stupid in demanding to be inspired by the traditional silver-tongued devils in both parties [Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Obama etc], and people need to quit needing s political bullexcrement fix from some idiot snake-oil politician. They need to demand, understand and know the TRUTH, and to vote for those who have/will have the experienced knowledge to repair the problems/economy. As the old saying goes, WORDS ARE CHEAP, AND ACTIONS ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT COUNT!!!!!!!
Steve A| 5.31.11 @ 12:00PM
I have to say, honestly, I am not sure about Palin's chances, but I will tell you this. I would pay big bucks to watch her absolutely shred him in the most highly rated televised debate ever seen in American politics. It would be a blowout of epic proportions. Palin would make Ears O Plenty grit his teeth & turn the tips of those ears red as Rudolph's nose.
Dave Williams| 5.31.11 @ 12:21PM
Romney will hold the lead until and unless he is stupid enough to get onstage in a debate with Herman Cain. Mr. C will then show him up as the empty suit he is, and after that, it'll be time for some wonderful chaos.
Ore Gone| 5.31.11 @ 1:09PM
I do like Cain. He has a lot of charisma going for him and he is a common sense take charge guy. He is very likable and just needs some face time. He makes Mitt look like the RINO wishy washy which way is the wind blowing candidate that he is.
BA Cyclone| 5.31.11 @ 1:29PM
It seems to me that it was Pawlenty's "triangulation" that must have led him to accept that humans cause global warming, and government can fix that.
I can accept his apology for being wrong on that, but that doesn't endear me to trusting him with 4 years at the helm, hoping he doesn't continue his habits of triangulation while enacting conservative policy. The statists will eat him for lunch in 100 days.
Sukamadek| 5.31.11 @ 5:18PM
Pawlenty is so tough, his "wink-nod" BS with the ethanol boys is like an inside joke with these thieves and their totally owned politicians (like pawlenty and Romney and Newt) ending or reducing the subsidies does not matter to them, they'll just pass the higher price on, and you and I thanks to the mandates HAVE to buy this crap. The guy that stands up and says he's ending all the mandates (ethanol and Biodiesel) gets my vote. The only feasible one might be Rick Perry as govenor he appealed for a state waiver of the mandate (he didn't get it but he wasn't president then).
Richard Baker| 5.31.11 @ 5:47PM
Regardless of who said it, turn off the ethanol subsidies to the farmers. In fact, turn them off for everybody. When I lived in Missouri years ago, a farmer friend said once "You know how to starve a farmer? Tear down his mailbox." Agree with the sentiment.
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.31.11 @ 7:21PM
You know why you have to bury ethanol farmers at least two feet deep? If you don't their hand will stick out of the ground.
Pam| 5.31.11 @ 6:41PM
We need an energy policy in the country which should include renewables, drilling , perhaps nuclear, coal, natural gas. Developing the renewable may cost R & D but we need to look to many forms of energy to get off Middle East oil. Right now, there is a knee jerk reaction (without much basis) that the Republicans hate Ethenol subsidies and the Democrats hate Oil subsidies. It just may be more complicated. Everyone needs to take a breath and get informed about the issues rather than just listening to other people.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 5.31.11 @ 7:26PM
Yet another typical "Anybody But Palin" column from Ross Kaminsky. Ross you change allegiance to different RINOs running for POTUS faster & more frequently than a man with chronic dysentery changes his underwear. If I read this column without noticing the name of the writer I'd have swore Michael Smerconish or Michael Medved wrote this column. RINO = Democrat Ross. There is NO difference other than that letter next to their name.
Ross Kaminsky | 5.31.11 @ 9:10PM
First, I did not say I have allegiance to Pawlenty. I just said he's off to a better start than Romney.
Second, I thought Daniels was a decent idea, and only people who don't understand much think he is a RINO.
Third, I opposed John McCain publicly because he was a RINO.
Fourth, I have never voted for a Democrat.
Fifth, as I said above, I have met Palin and I like her but I believe she cannot beat Barack Obama.
David T| 5.31.11 @ 9:36PM
Ross--to your fifth point, please add "and neither can Tim Pawlenty."
I Survived Arlen Specter| 5.31.11 @ 9:43PM
He already knows that David. Denial is rampant in RINOs.
Oldefarte| 6.1.11 @ 1:20PM
Not if possibly voters hear/read his words, research his political history/expertise and start understanding that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!!!!!
I Survived Arlen Specter| 5.31.11 @ 9:40PM
Ross, the state controlled media have just announced they need volunteer journalists to help follow the Palins' tour bus around the country so they don't miss that "gotcha" moment they need so desperately. I'd sign up if I were you. You may be aiding the next RINO POTUS nominee in the process. Good luck with it!
Ross Kaminsky | 5.31.11 @ 11:02PM
(Response deleted by me due to impoliteness, not that you deserve politeness...)
Charles Martel| 6.1.11 @ 5:30PM
I read the other day that there are some among the MSM who fear for the safety of their producers trying desperately to tail Mrs. Palin's bus. I think if one or two of them were to fall in the line of duty, no one would notice or care.
Mrs. Palin is having a great deal of fun, and she's making them spend their money -- kind of like what Reagan did to Gorbachev, and for pretty much the same reason.
+++
Oldefarte| 6.1.11 @ 1:22PM
Now what was that which Forrest Gump once said????????????????
ティファニー 通販 | 6.1.11 @ 3:17AM
just soso
AlPacker| 6.1.11 @ 2:20PM
I've always told my wife I'd vote for the first conservative to go to Iowa and call out ethanol subsidies for what they are. Looks like I have found my man (at least for now).