Saturday, January 7, 2012
ABC NH GOP Debate Post-Mortem
Posted by on 1.7.12 @ 11:59PM
Here are my final thoughts on tonight's New Hampshire GOP debate which aired on ABC.
Jon Huntsman - A typical performance for the former Ambassador to China with more than a touch of snark. Somehow I don't think there's a significant Mandarin speaking community in New Hampshire.
Ron Paul - He had a couple of testy exchanges with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and squeaked at a high enough pitch that he could be heard by dogs residing at the animal shelter nearest to St. Anselm College.
Mitt Romney - He stayed on message, made George Stephanopoulos look ridiculous and got some laughs when he called Ron Paul "our constitutionalist." Nobody challenged him except for Santorum and Romney seemed to get the better of those exchanges.
Rick Santorum - He had a particularly testy exchange with Paul over his lucrative post-Senatorial activities. Drew jeers when he told Paul he wasn't telling the truth after a bell rang. He did challenge Romney on a couple of occasions but didn't knock him off his game. It wasn't one of his better debates.
Newt Gingrich - Contrary to expectations, Newt did not go nuclear on Romney. He reserved his toughest language for Ron Paul. Aside from that exchange, Newt stayed positive and drew applause when he challenged Sawyer and Stephanopoulos over their gay marriage questions and energy independence.
Rick Perry - He spoke little but earned applause when he spoke about the Obama Administration's "war on religion." When he suggested that New Hampshire adopt a right to work bill, the applause was far more tepid. Perry is clearly gearing up for South Carolina.
The next debate will take place tomorrow morning on NBC at 9 a.m.
It's All Mandarin To Me
Posted by on 1.7.12 @ 10:46PM
The dynamic between Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney during this debate has been interesting. On two occasions, Huntsman twice made note of the fact that Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job growth while Romney governed the Bay State while Utah was number one. Twice Romney ignored Huntsman as if he weren't on the stage.
So when the topic turned to China, Huntsman said you couldn't go around slapping tariffs on China (which Romney has suggested). Romney countered that Huntsman had spent two years implementing the policies of President Obama while he and others on the stage were trying to elect Republicans.
Huntsman replied by speaking in Mandarin. Romney said he couldn't understand. Huntsman said Romney's rhetoric would start a trade war. Romney countered that China didn't want a trade war.
Well, there was a certainly a war of words between Huntsman and Romney.
Sawyer & Stephanopoulos Are Quite Annoying
Posted by on 1.7.12 @ 10:08PM
Both Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos are being incredibly annoying. Sawyer is being annoying with the gay marriage questions (and I say that as someone who supports gay marriage) while Stephanopoulos kept pestering Romney with an irrelevant question about outlawing contraception. Huntsman had an amusing quip about getting away from the contraception when he mentioned he was father of seven.
Newt rightly took Sawyer and Stephanopoulos to task for their questions and noted that "bigotry cuts both ways" citing how Catholic Charities here in Massachusetts no longer provides adoption services because of its opposition to same sex adoption.
Ron Paul Calls MLK & Parks Libertarians
Posted by on 1.7.12 @ 9:40PM
Ron Paul just called Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks as his heroes and described them as libertarians. I think this is the first time King and Parks have been described as libertarians. Mind you this is the same Ron Paul who says he would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
NH GOP Debate Pre-Mortem
Posted by on 1.7.12 @ 4:56PM
We are a few hours away from tonight's GOP debate in Manchester, New Hampshire.
While I am sure a lot of people would rather watch the NFL I have a feeling there will be more hits in the debate than in the Detroit Lions-New Orleans Saints game.
Although Mitt Romney will try to stay above the fray he will be pounded upon by Santorum, Huntsman and especially Newt. Perry will save most of his amunition for Santorum while Paul will divide his time between Santorum and Newt. I suspect that Huntsman will be eager to go after Paul in light the "Manchurian Candidate" video allegedly put out by one of Paul's supporters.
The winner of tonight's debate: President Obama.
The debate begins at 9 p.m. EST on ABC.
The Granite State Circus
Posted by on 1.7.12 @ 3:38PM
Manchester, New Hampshire -- At 8 AM this morning, Mitt Romney was scheduled to appear at a gym at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, NH. This was the scene outside, where a contingent of Ron Paul fans had also shown up:
So Much Good Political Analysis, So Little Time...
Posted by on 1.7.12 @ 1:34PM
I have a much, much longer blog post compendium of good writing from the last week, at CFIF. It starts like this:
I've been so busy this week that I missed the chance to link to a host of excellent pieces as they came out. So now here's some one-stop-shopping for wonderful political pieces.
First, Jennifer Rubin was on fire this week. She still is bedeviling Newt Gingrich. And she hits Gingrich yet again here. She continues to praise Rick Santorum, this time for running a "thinking person's race." (She was one of the only columnists to take Santorum seriously as a candidate as early as late summer.) She defends Santorum from the charge from Rick Perry - whom he continues to criticize - that the Pennsylvanian is somehow a "big government conservative." (For that matter, I have a new piece answering that same charge, here at National Review Online.) On that same general topic, she blasts "the screechy voices in the blogosphere, the perfectionist pundits...," those who demand philosophical purity without any political context. (This last was a particularly well argued piece.) She closes a piece analyzing Santorum's big remaining challenges with a great paragraph: "Republicans can get awfully theoretical and sterile in their approach. Santorum can remind the entire field that politics is also about emotion, connection, inspiration and faith." And she provides a moving portrayal of Santorum's wife, Karen.
Whew! That was just in three days.
She's not the only one writing with eloquence and perspicacity. Two new pieces at The Weekly Standard make the case (as William Kristol has made for months) that it is foolish to anoint a nomination winner prematurely and that "moderate" or "establishment" or "safe" choices are often less likely to win than are candidates the establishment sees as risky.....
Again, read the rest of it here at CFIF. But IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, read this remarkable piece by former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis at NRO.
Friday, January 6, 2012
The Race for Second
Posted by on 1.6.12 @ 4:51PM
With Mitt Romney so far ahead in the polls, the conventional wisdom is that the race for second place is really what matters in New Hampshire. But if conservatives aren't careful, that's how the entire race for the Republican presidential nomination will shape up.
From the beginning, the thinking has been that this will be a race between Romney and a conservative anti-Romney. So with rare, ineffectual exceptions -- Tim Pawlenty's abortive attack on "Obamneycare," Rick Perry's ham-fisted effort to bring up the illegal immigrants who did work at Romney's house -- the conservative candidates have attacked each other than Romney. The entire contest has focused on becoming the anti-Romney more than beating Romney himself.
So you have Perry campaigning in South Carolina, hoping that Romney will defeat Rick Santorum in a landslide so that he can claim to be the viable alternative again. You have Newt Gingrich seeming to bow out of a rumored non-agression pact with Santorum and engaging in an argument over who is more responsible for 1994. You have Ron Paul going negative against Gingrich and Santorum, with Gingrich and Santorum responding in kind.
That's how you end up with a candidate who can't seem to reliably get much more than 25 percent of the vote outside of New Hampshire looking like an unstoppable juggernaut. The fight to be the anti-Romney has driven down the numbers of each conservative aspirant, with Santorum likely to be the next target. Can Republicans break this cycle?
Huntsman Gets The Much Coveted Boston Globe Endorsement
Posted by on 1.6.12 @ 4:21PM
Daniel Allott's piece today on how Jon Huntsman went out of his way to alienate conservatives and ingratiate himself with liberals is timely in light of the Boston Globe endorsing him in the New Hampshire Primary.
It won't do him much good. Even if he were to somehow win in New Hampshire and then even more improbably win the GOP nomination there's no chance the Globe, nor any other liberal newspaper, would endorse Huntsman against Obama. Liberals will always pick a liberal Democrat over a Republican who wants to be liked by liberals.
Planned Parenthood again proves that 'pro-choice' is a misnomer
Posted by on 1.6.12 @ 10:37AM
As I wrote in 2009, Planned Parenthood conducted 305,310 abortions compared to 4,912 adoption referrals in 2007. For every one referral, Planned Parenthood conducted 62 abortions.
The numbers are far worse for 2010, though, according to Planned Parenthood's latest annual report. In 2010, Planned Parenthood conducted 329,445 abortions and made 841 adoption referrals. A 392:1 ratio.
Pro-choice?
In response to my first column in 2009, a liberal friend countered that a wildly skewed ratio is understandable because Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider, and women don't go there for adoption services. That's self-evident. It doesn't explain why, if Planned Parenthood is truly "pro-choice" and not pro-abortion, its ratio of encouraging abortion over adoption is so abysmally one-sided.
The answer, of course, is that Planned Parenthood is pro-choice only when it comes to one choice — abortion.
Thoughts on the Dec 2011 Unemployment Rate
Posted by on 1.6.12 @ 9:32AM
The national unemployment rate fell to 8.5% in December 2011, its lowest level since February 2009. It has fallen 0.7% since June.
Although a good part of this decrease can be attributed to people dropping out of the labor market perception is nine-tenths reality. If the unemployment rate continues to trend downward it will, of course, improve President Obama's re-election prospects in November.
However, economists are expecting slower growth in the first quarter of 2012 which will likely bring about an increase in the unemployment numbers. In which case, the Obama Administration will simply continue to say they inherited a bad economy. When in doubt blame Bush. So much for that new era of responsibility.
No Diploma Necessary
Posted by on 1.6.12 @ 8:25AM
In the latest bit of politically-correct economically-ignorant insanity to come from Washington, D.C., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) -- an organization which should (but won't) be at the top of any Republican president's list to eliminate -- has opined that employers may be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they require that potential employees have a high school diploma.
The concept is supposedly that an inability to graduate from high school might be a symptom of a learning disability, and a disabled person can't be disadvantaged in getting a job.
The confused thinking from EEOC seems to overlook the fact that an inability to graduate from high school probably represents something important about a person and that, from an employer's point of view, the reason someone didn't graduate usually is not and need not be important. Even if it were of modest importance, making a hiring process more complicated is an unjustifiable expense for most companies.
The impact of the EEOC's "informal discussion letter" can only be bad for employers and for the future of high school education.
For employers, they may fear being forced to hire a stupid or incompetent employee because that person claims his inability to graduate was due to a disability. Perhaps the EEOC thinks we all live at Lake Wobegon, where all children are above average.
Educationally, it diminishes the incentive for marginal students to finish school, something which would not only be good for their brains but is also important to show troubled or only modestly intelligent kids that persistence is a valuable trait and strategy for life.
And just as there is a cottage industry of doctors who will sign a medical marijuana prescription for any reason at all as long as the "patient" has cash, we will see a cottage industry of psychologists, therapists, and psychiatrists who will certify a slacker or a moron (sorry, EEOC, those people really exist) as disabled so that he can be forced down the throat of an unwilling employer.
The EEOC's letter says that an employer can only use a "standard, test, or other selection criteria" to screen potential employees if the standard is "job related… and consistent with business necessity."
More from the letter:
Continue reading…Thursday, January 5, 2012
Obama's Petty Tyranny
Posted by on 1.5.12 @ 4:32PM
Like others too numerous to mention, I am appalled at President Obama's abuse of his office in making recess appointments when Congress is not in recess.
Thus I am in partial agreement with Quin Hillyer that these are acts of tyranny. At the risk of quibbling with Quin, I am only in partial agreement with him because Obama isn't a tyrant in the sense that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Bashar Assad of Syria or Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe are tyrants. As much as one may dislike the manner in which Obama carries out his duties, he isn't ordering the murder of his political opponents and otherwise innocent civilians. It is an important distinction to make when critiquing President Obama's governance. After all, in Iran, Syria and Zimbabwe, there are virtually no means to remedy a President's capriciousness. This is not the case in the United States.
Indeed, I would argue that Obama is engaging in kind of petty tyranny that befell a number of his predecessors. FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 and Truman's nationalization of the steel industry in 1952 come to mind. The court packing plan was thwarted by Congress while the Supreme Court overruled the nationalization scheme. If FDR and Truman can be successfully challenged then why not Obama? Tyranny doesn't get any pettier than a President too impatient to wait for Congress to recess to make a recess appointment.
Landslide Lyndon and Mudslide Mitt?
Posted by on 1.5.12 @ 3:20PM
In 1948, then-Congressman Lyndon Johnson of Texas, who was under the distinct impression he had a special Senate election stolen from him in 1941, tried a second time for the Senate.
The election was close, there were reports of hanky-panky, but in the end LBJ was declared the winner by 87 votes. As a result, he won the nickname of "Landslide Lyndon."
Now here come the Iowa Caucuses of 2012.
There are no hints of irregularities. But there are angry charges from Newt Gingrich that Mitt Romney is a "liar," this resulting from a few million dollars worth of anti-Gingrich ads that were run against Newt in Iowa. In short, the charge is that the Romney campaign needed to throw mud to win.
Generally this kind of thing happens when the candidate is philosophically rudderless and is running a personality-based campaign.
So the question arises.
If, as Gingrich charges, the Romney campaign threw mud to win -- but only managed to win by 8 votes -- does this mean Romney wins a new version of LBJ's mocking nickname?
Has "Landslide Lyndon" become "Mudslide Mitt"?
Just asking.
Obama's Tin Ear Returns
Posted by on 1.5.12 @ 2:32PM
When even a New Republic writer suggests that Barack Obama's Wednesday recess appointments to the Consumer Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board are probably unconstitutional, you know we're in for a good fight… at least if Senate Republicans have the courage to take it on.
The left-leaning Politico also notes that "… President Barack Obama’s decision to jam the Senate and install three labor nominees and a consumer watchdog without a confirmation vote raises unsettled legal questions that could have a long-lasting impact past his presidency."
The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin has a good summary of initial Republican response to Obama's power-grab.
My view: While Obama is pandering to the far left and union (if you'll pardon my redundancy) parts of his base, his move is politically unwise.
Think about Obamacare: It was not just the content of the law which people hated; it was also the process. From "deem and pass" to "reconciliation" to "pass it so you can learn what's in it" every part of the Democrats' efforts to shove the measure down our throats stunk of heavy-handedness if not outright tyranny.
Obama's recess appointments were an unnecessary reminder by Obama that he is indeed a tyrant. It's one thing to fight "obstructionism." It's another thing entirely to say that he, rather than the Senate, determines whether or not the Senate is in session.
If these appointments are challenged in court and if Obama loses, it would do measurable damage to his election prospects -- not just because of the appointments themselves but because it is such a stark reminder that our president is a man who thinks himself and his vaunted goals so important that the rule of law should yield to his will. Other than among the roughly 20 percent of Americans (university professors, union members, and government employees) who strongly approve of Obama's job performance, this sort of autocratic behavior does not play well to the American sensibility. It is a sensibility that is figuratively and literally foreign to Barack Obama, who spent formative years living in anti-democratic places like Indonesia and Columbia University.
It may be that Obama is feeling his oats after his payroll tax cut "victory" over House Republicans and therefore trying to flex his muscles. But he's picked a stupid fight at a stupid time, with far more to lose than to gain, reminding us of the surprisingly tin-eared Chicago-style politician he spent most of 2009 and 2010 proving himself to be.
I'll Take Jeff Lord's Advice…
Posted by on 1.5.12 @ 1:52PM
The key to all of these problems is being able to do the difficult -- apply human common sense to the facts on the ground. Closing one's eyes to what can evolve is never ever a good idea -- particularly in a day and age of missiles and high tech. This is where Reid Smith and I disagree.
Jeff, in fairness, I'm not closing my eyes to the potential evolution of evil. Likewise, I've already expressed my "serious misgivings" with the extremity of Ron Paul's positions. However, I have consistently emphasized constructive caution -- perhaps in censure of the hyperbolic ramblings of several GOP candidates (and pundits) who have proven unfit to discuss foreign policy beyond their seemingly bottomless support for Israel, Obama's "toleration" of Arab Spring, and some vigorous fist-shaking in the general direction of Tehran. I'd like my candidate to bring more to the table than empty bluster when it comes to foreign policy.
With that said, I'm not entirely sure why you point to the Continent's intellectual dismissal of National Socialism in the '30s, unless to suggest we should be culling the colorful mosques of Qom to track down the next Khomeini, today? Uh...okay?
But speaking of Iran, the application of "human common sense to the facts on the ground" and your apparent desire to nip Iranian nukes in the proverbial bud… as I've written right here, on this very blog, an aerial assault conducted by the United State or Israel would produce drastic consequences.
Let's consider the blowback. *collective gasp* Such action would ensure violence against American and Israeli targets -- both at home and abroad. Iran would shed the yoke of international isolation and bask in the hero-worship of a suddenly-sympathetic Arab street. Historic rivalries and ancient antagonisms in the Muslim world would crumble, as Iran ascends the stage opposite the United States, playing the role of "Bête Noir du Jour" -- a dashing protagonist cast in the global tragedy of American Empire's promiscuous use of preventive war.
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. An attack on Iranian soil would immediately harden Persian consensus in opposition to intervention, and cement support for what has become an increasingly unpopular ruling cabal. Concurrently, support for a nuclear arms program -- which is far from monolithic, at present -- would skyrocket.
All this "blowback" to temporarily degrade -- not demolish -- Iran's nuclear ambition.
Jeff, what I'm trying to impart is that there's a teeny, tiny hint of "grey area" between handshakes with Hitler over Sudetenland at the '38 Munich Conference and our decision to take the fight against communism to the jungles of Laos. Decisions have consequences, and our "war of choice" routine and exhortation of "conditional sovereignty" do us little favor in the international arena.
In conclusion, Jeff, I'd say your rousing extrapolation of imprisoned Austrian painters and communist intrigue during the twilight of the Romanovs has paradoxically channeled your inner ostrich.
Growing consensus in the national security community -- and I'm talking about professional practitioners and academics, not talk-show blowhards on your radio dial -- suggests the preservation of American security and hegemony hinges on our ability to rebuild economic stability at home by cutting the federal deficit that has exploded under the current administration.
If we're going to have a serious conversation then you need to consider the facts: our $15 trillion federal debt approaches the size of the entire economy, without accounting for the liabilities hemmed to Social Security, Medicare and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The United States has never been so vulnerable to an international run on the dollar that could begin overseas. Foreign governments can absolutely use their Treasury holdings to coerce American decision-making.
Sadly, the restoration of fiscal solvency doesn't jibe with a policy preference that prioritizes dropping JDAMs on Muslim countries. So I'm not sure what to tell you, Jeff. All I did here was "apply human common sense to the facts on the ground."
Thanks for the advice.
Romney Is Weak But Ahead
Posted by on 1.5.12 @ 1:08PM
The latest Rasmussen national poll illustrates two key things about the Republican presidential race: Roughly 70 percent of GOP voters are at best reluctant to nominate Mitt Romney; Romney faces a group of challengers to his right who are not in a position to take him down. But the fact that Rick Santorum went from the single digits to a solid 21 percent -- second place behind Romney's 29 percent -- based on his Iowa showing demonstrates the former Massachusetts governor's underlying weakness.
Everytime someone becomes the anti-Romney, they immediately become competitive with Romney, no matter how low their previous name recognition, how lousy their poll numbers were before, or what kind of organization they have in place. The national numbers (Rasmussen still has Newt Gingrich at 16 percent) are less important than the state primary contests, however.
Santorum has moved into the double digits in New Hampshire as well, at least according to the post-Iowa Union Leader poll. But at the moment, he is only in fourth place with 10 percent of the vote, behind Ron Paul at 17 percent and Jon Huntsman at 13 percent. Gingrich is taking 9 percent. Romney is way out in front 47 percent, 30 points ahead of Paul.
The Union Leader, interestingly, quotes a Granite State conservative activist as saying, "If it wasn't for the Union Leader's support for Gingrich, Santorum would have a decent shot at coalescing the conservatives, but I expect Newt will be bolstered by the Union Leader."
UPDATE: Gallup has Santorum in fourth nationally at 11 percent, behind Romney (27 percent), Gingrich (19 percent), and Paul (13 percent). Paul is at 12 percent in the Rasmussen poll.
Time to Cut Aid to Egypt
Posted by on 1.5.12 @ 12:15PM
Egyptian government officials promised the US ambassador in Cairo that material seized in last week's raids on non-governmental organizations, including US democracy-building groups, would be returned. That hasn't happened:
Egyptian officials still have not returned property or cash seized in a December 29 police raid on the Cairo offices of U.S. non-governmental organizations, according to two U.S.-based NGOs.
The actions by the Egyptian police contradict assurances the State Department says were given to the U.S. ambassador by Egyptian authorities.
"We had been assured by leaders in the Egyptian government that this issue would be resolved, that harassment would end, that NGOs would be allowed to go back to business as usual and that their property would be returned. It is, frankly, unacceptable to us that that situation has not been returned to normal," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters in her daily press briefing Tuesday.
Leslie Campbell, director of the National Democratic Institute's programs in the Middle East and North Africa, told CNN there has been "no change at all - nothing returned."
Campbell says there have been "mixed signals" from the Egyptian government about whether the group's offices can be used, "but we are being cautious until there is a definitive statement from the government."
[...]
Another U.S. NGO targeted in the raids, the International Republican Institute, told CNN that promises to the U.S. ambassador that the offices would be re-opened and possessions returned have not been kept.
Speaking by phone from Cairo, IRI President Lorne Craner said his group was promised on Friday that their material would be returned, but that hasn't happened.
"The agreement that we understood to have been made last Friday has not been undertaken and, in fact, we're being told there will be an investigation of us," he said. "Today (Wednesday) we had an Egyptian citizen and a U.S. citizen from our staff called in by the police, by the prosecutors, for questioning."
As I argued Thursday, it's asking for trouble to allow this to stand without some tangible affect on the $1.3 billion in military aid the US sends to Egypt annually. Elliot Abrams puts it more starkly: "[W]e must let the army know that if it is their policy to crush democracy activists, there is a price they will pay. It's $1.3 billion a year."
Virginia Republican Congressman Frank Wolf, who sits on the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, is pressing the administration of this issue.
Obama The Tyrant Must Be Stopped
Posted by on 1.5.12 @ 12:08PM
It is time for even the liberal sycophants to start standing up against Barack Obama's transgressions. At CFIF, both I and Troy Senik have columns out today (here's mine) explaining some of the lessons from Obama's appalling, dangerous derailment of one of the most essential bulwarks of American constitutionalism, namely the separation of powers, with his dangerously illegal "recess appointments" yesterday.
To be blunt, I am expressly saying that Obama's actions are illegitimate. He is a menace. Indeed, his actions are in a sense "seditious," in the (Webster's) definition of "incitement to resistance... against lawful authority."
No, Barack Obama is NOT "lawful authority." The Constitution is. And he has knowingly violated it, even by the testimony of his own solicitor general. On this front and many others, the man must be stopped. Period.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Reid and Ron: Part Next
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 11:24PM
However, if Mr. Lord is "unwilling or unable" to differentiate -- strategically -- between American response to Nazi genocide, Soviet Empire, and several thousand "freedom haters" scattered somewhere between Morocco and Malaysia, I'm not sure where to proceed with this conversation.
So writes Reid Smith here.
The problem with this is the tragedy of the things listed above didn't spring full blown. If one goes back and reads the New York Times as late as 1933 one finds the "smart people" of the day dismissing Hitler and company as nothing more than exuberant thugs. The Nazi monolith began in a very real sense with the angry, anti-Semitic scribblings of an imprisoned young Austrian corporal in the 1920s. There were no Panzer divisions. No vivid reports of smoking ovens and burning Jews. To have suggested this could be a problem would be to invite precisely the scorn demonstrated by Ron Paul of the notion that an Iranian nuke is no big deal.
The Soviet Empire arguably began with a lone Russian Communist (Lenin) being smuggled solo back into a strife-torn Czarist empire in 1917. For that matter, the America we know today that Ron Paul calls an "empire" began with a handful of shivering Pilgrims or, if you prefer, a handful of Massachusetts farmers at Lexington and Concord.
The key to all of these problems is being able to do the difficult -- apply human common sense to the facts on the ground. Closing one's eyes to what can evolve is never ever a good idea -- particularly in a day and age of missiles and high tech. This is where Reid Smith and I disagree.
A Non-Con Response?
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 4:58PM
Jeffrey Lord makes a fair point. We cannot perfect human nature. Human beings can and will be "extremely violent, psychotic, mentally unbalanced and a whole host of other." But, upon consideration of the policy options presented the world's lone superpower, does this flight of human identity demand equivalent response?
With all due respect, Jeff Lord's error is that he fails to recognize a profound variation in circumstance.
"Communists, Nazis, Islamic Fundamentalists, the Ku Klux Klan [and] the guy next door" not to mention "Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Osama, Al Capone, Lee Harvey Oswald or the husband in your town who beats his wife to a pulp" ALL exist… much to our shared chagrin.
Sure. They're all equally revolting -- but in their own special ways. But they don't present an identical threat profile and they clearly don't demand an equivalent response.
Precisely why the U.S. Marines don't police my neighborhood.
Conflating Neville Chamberlain's response to the menace of National Socialism -- let alone Oxford '33 -- with Ron Paul's criticism United States' unilateral, (nay, "bottomless") support for the "war on terror" is equal parts useless and inconsequential.
But first, let's all breathe a sigh of relief. Hitler's Panzer divisions are not flattening Vichy sod. We don't find ourselves huddled beneath school desk at risk of a Cuban missile crisis. For that, we should all be thankful.
However, if Mr. Lord is "unwilling or unable" to differentiate -- strategically -- between American response to Nazi genocide, Soviet Empire, and several thousand "freedom haters" scattered somewhere between Morocco and Malaysia, I'm not sure where to proceed with this conversation.
The fact is, sometimes the United States struggles under the burden of its own might. Despite public exhaustion with a robust military presence abroad, American policymakers are reticent to allow our allies and other nations to assume greater responsibility -- both for their own defense and for enforcing security in their respective regions.
I may be young, but I'm not dumb. Recognizing the fact that we're no longer duty bound to follow a foreign and defense policy committed to containing the spread of Nazism or communism around the globe, perhaps Ron Paul's perspective isn't quite so crazy -- and I mean for all of us, and not just those young folks out in Iowa Mr. Lord casually chides for their presumed, naïve pacifism.
Needless to say, it remains my sincere hope that this Cold War paradigm I previously mentioned dies with the armchair hawks who espouse it. I may be -- recently -- on the wrong side of thirty, but I can promise you my generation has already outgrown it.
The 'Pander Bear'
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 4:01PM
I remember when Mitt Romney boasted of voting for Paul Tsongas in 1992... That is why he was an independent at the time, to vote in Massachusetts' semi-open Democratic primary.
Reid Smith, Ron Paul, and the Non-Cons
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 3:40PM
The problem with Reid Smith's assessment, I would suggest, is that we have been here before and done that.
Literally, forever.
I confess that as I listen to all these young people going on about Ron Paul I hear exactly the same sentiments I heard… dare I say I myself occasionally voiced… when I myself was in college. All my peers running around college campuses or Washington or somewhere bemoaning exactly what Mr. Smith captures so exactly below:
However, I'm also bloody well exhausted of a Cold War paradigm that continues to shape presumptions about U.S. policy, and the seemingly insatiable need to rattle sabers from the comfort of our keyboards……
It would seem that Mr. Lord is either unwilling or unable to admit that I'm not alone. Many of my generation are similarly tired of this status quo. Although he dismissed the "non-cons" as a conservative aberration, Mr. Lord cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of young caucus-goers support Ron Paul. Before dismissing Paul's utter domination of the youth vote as anomalous, I would remind you that this is the same generation of young conservatives who have watched their friends, family and classmates blown to smithereens in the distant backwaters of the global stage -- their sacrifice financed by untold treasure spent to reshape and refine the political infrastructure of foreign failures. They're sick and tired of "business as usual" and their ardent support of Ron Paul is indicative of a genuine commitment to change.
The villains in those days were President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew. (No computers, unfortunately. Posters and typewriters sufficed.) I dallied with this for a bit, finally recovering and being one of approximately five Nixon supporters on a campus of Franklin and Marshall College's 2,000 or so member student body.
The Ron Paul of the day was, as I mentioned in passing in my earlier post, South Dakota Senator George McGovern. Senator McGovern had electrified the young with his defeat of two pillars of the Democratic Party's Establishment -- Maine Senator Edmund Muskie and former Vice President and then-Senator Hubert Humphrey. He was your basic leftist's leftist, as a young man a delegate to Henry Wallace's Progressive Party Convention in 1948.
All the buzz words Mr. Smith uses were in play then: the "status quo," "business as usual," and, well, as a much later Jerry Seinfeld might say, yada yada yada.
As I eventually later in life figured out, I was going through the standard and necessary youthful rebellion that always comes against the "status quo." But most assuredly neither I then nor Mr. Smith now are the first at this and in fact this is not about the "status quo" at all. Much less is it about a "Cold War paradigm" and rattling keyboards.
Long before either Reid Smith or Jeff Lord were even twinkles of thought, long before the Cold War or the "Cold War paradigm" there was the "King and Country" debate between the young students of Britain's Oxford Union in February of 1933. The formal title of the resolution was:
Continue reading…"That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country".
Complacent Conservatism
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 3:30PM
Leon Wolf reminds us that Republicans have regularly nominated presidential candidates who have done less to ingratiate themselves to conservatives than Mitt Romney, arguing that this should temper or at least contextualize anti-Romney sentiment. Wolf concludes that "we should recognize that we as conservatives have successfully moved the party to the right over the past two decades" and not succumb to the "infantile madness" of opposing Romney.
It seems to me that if the best we can do is either Romney or fairly obscure conservatives (like ex-CEOs of mid-sized pizza companies), that should tell us to the limits of how far "we as conservatives" have "moved the party to the right." Look, I'm a Massachusetts native. I voted for Romney in the 1994 Republican primary for Senate, the general election against Ted Kennedy, and for governor against Shannon O'Brien in 2002 -- races where he positioned himself to the left of where he is now. I would have voted for him in a gubernatorial primary against Jane Swift had she been foolish enough to run and I would have supported Romney's reelection in 2006. I did support Kerry Healey, the lieutenant governor who was to Romney's left even then, for governor that year.
So I know something about settling and political reality. I also know that over that period Romney went from being someone who emphasized he was an independent during the Reagan years to trying to be a full-spectrum Reagan conservative, someone who described himself as a "progressive" in this decade to a "four-legged stool" movement guy, someone who with equal conviction defended both sides of the abortion debate, did not just flip-flop on abortion once but zig-zagged for over nearly two decades, and has generally acted as if none of this ever happened.
These are all very good reasons to wonder if conservatives are going to get much different results from someone who is telling them what they want to hear than the nominees in the past who didn't even flatter them. (And remember that John McCain did flatter us.) Conservatives have had great success in pushing the Bushes and the Romneys to the right, at least rhetorically. They have also had some success in increasing the importance of candidate platforms and principles in primaries. But the fact that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are the only two movement conservatives who have been in a position to win the nomination since 1964 -- both men who predated the conservative movement -- and that only Reagan has actually been elected should tell us that maybe we have been doing something wrong.
Hoist on McCain's Petard
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 3:15PM
This old John McCain commercial helps put into perspective the reasons McCain thinks so little of Mitt Romney that... he now endorses him. Well, at least it shows the consistency of Romney through the years -- consistently what his late Massachusetts colleague Paul Tsongas would have called a "Pander Bear."
The Rick Perry Video of the Day
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 2:40PM
Not that anyone paid it much mind, Rick Perry's Iowa sign-off last night was of a piece with his goofy, if not daft performance in the Republican primary. So it's not surprising that no one's really noticed that his fifth place showing in Iowa ended his undefeated streak in political elections. And no one is much surprised that instead of withdrawing as he essentially signaled he would he now says he's going to compete in South Carolina. My only question is whether there's any politician anywhere who would have included such a tribute to himself as Perry did when, in his short-lived valedictory last night, he read from devoted Perry volunteer Colt Smith's letter to him, which included these words: "He said, 'I know you were a good man, but I never realized what a great man you were.'" Naturally, Perry teared up as he read this testimony to his own greatness.
But again, who could hold it against him? Certainly it was preferable on the likeability scale than Newt Gingrich's utterly classless promise to kick around Newt Romney all he can until there's nothing left of the GOP's chances this year. To think that just a few weeks ago Newt was preaching Republican unity against the one opponent that matters, Barack Obama. At this rate, Rick Perry will finish well ahead of him in South Carolina.
The Trouble with the McCain Endorsement
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 1:14PM
So John McCain will be endorsing Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. It is the logical circling of the wagons around the shaky frontrunner Republican leaders hope will be the nominee. But it seems to me that Romney doesn't need much help among the voters who would be impressed by a McCain endorsement -- I think he has a surprising number of McCain 2008 voters already -- while the endorsement reminds disaffected conservatives of what happened the last time they ignored their concerns about a Republican's conservatism.
A Few Quick Thoughts on Ron Paul and the 'Non-Cons'
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 1:13PM
Jeffrey Lord has sounded the death knell for Ron Paul's foreign policy perspective, and an effective end to so-called "non-conservatism." While Mr. Lord admits that Paul's most ardent supporters are unlikely to vanish, he suggests their numbers are effectively limited, and ultimately marginalized by his personal interpretation of authentic conservatism.
As a professional and a (hopefully) emerging academic in the field of international relations, I have some serious misgivings with respect to the degree to which Rep. Paul emphasizes America's need to avoid foreign "entanglement." However, I'm also bloody well exhausted of a Cold War paradigm that continues to shape presumptions about U.S. policy, and the seemingly insatiable need to rattle sabers from the comfort of our keyboards.
It would seem that Mr. Lord is either unwilling or unable to admit that I'm not alone. Many of my generation are similarly tired of this status quo. Although he dismissed the "non-cons" as a conservative aberration, Mr. Lord cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of young caucus-goers support Ron Paul. Before dismissing Paul's utter domination of the youth vote as anomalous, I would remind you that this is the same generation of young conservatives who have watched their friends, family and classmates blown to smithereens in the distant backwaters of the global stage -- their sacrifice financed by untold treasure spent to reshape and refine the political infrastructure of foreign failures. They're sick and tired of "business as usual" and their ardent support of Ron Paul is indicative of a genuine commitment to change.
In his farewell address to the nation, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned his fellow Americans about the evolving danger of a "military industrial complex." But he also implored his countrymen to meet the measure of an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry." While the youth numbers suggest Mr. Lord's celebration of the demise of "non-conservatism" is ephemeral, if not altogether premature, I'll take it a step further. Paul's supporters have not failed in their commitment to Eisenhower's emphasis on those "peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." I'd day that's something to consider moving forward.
Conservatism and Talk Radio Iowa Winners
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:27PM
My conservative colleague in arms Jay Homnick has a great piece today titled "And the Winner in Iowa Is… Rush Limbaugh."
Jay is correct… and I (ahem!) pointed this out here a while back in terms of the 2010 elections.
I will confess to writing along these lines with some frequency. About Rush, who is the irreplaceable original here. And about Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.
A word about these three people that needs to be said again post-Iowa.
The other week I wrote a piece about the need to make the case for a conservative in the 2012 race. One of the points in there is that time, alas, always moves on whether we want it to or not… and there is always a generational hand-off of, well, everything.
In the case of the modern conservative movement, this moment has arrived -- and actually been here for a while. The Goldwaters and Reagans, the Buckleys and Rushers and Kemps are gone.
Who will replace them? Strictly speaking, that's impossible. They were -- as with every human being who ever walked the planet -- unique.
But that said, there is in fact a "next generation" of conservative leaders who have picked up the baton and moved forward. Without question, Rush Limbaugh is, if you will, the new William F. Buckley. The man acknowledged by his colleagues and peers in the talk radio business as the man who sets the pace, the man with The Voice, the man American conservatives look to at moments like Iowa.
And, thankfully, he isn't alone.
Continue reading…Richard Cordray Gets His Recess Appointment
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:21PM
President Obama is expected to bypass the Senate and install Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board today. Recess appointments are common and provided for by the Constitution, but it is the first time in two decades one has been made during a Senate break of less than three days. Senate Republicans are not happy.
Perry: Here We Come South Carolina
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:06PM
While Michele Bachmann may have exited the GOP presidential race, Rick Perry is planning to stick around despite a fifth place finish in Iowa last night.
A short time ago, Perry tweeted, "And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State....Here we come South Carolina!!!"
So does this mean that Perry is bypassing New Hampshire altogether? Is he skipping the two debates scheduled for Saturday night and Sunday morning in Manchester and Concord?
I guess we shouldn't be totally surprised at this turn of events. Unlike Bachmann, Perry has money to spend. But is it money well spent? At this point, his presence in the race increases the likelihood that Romney could prevail in South Carolina.
Bye-Bye Bachmann - For Now
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 11:45AM
As I suspected last night, Michele Bachmann has stepped aside and suspended her presidential campaign after garnering only 5% of the vote in last night's Iowa Caucus.
Bachmann certainly had her moments in this campaign but they were fleeting. For all her talk of being a consistent conservative she rarely got beyond platitudes and simply didn't inspire confidence. I think she did a lot of damage to herself when she claimed she had been told that the Gardasil vaccine caused mental retardation.
At the moment, Bachmann's political future is unclear. She hasn't decided if she will seek re-election in Minnesota's sixth congressional district. However, I don't think this is the last we'll hear of Michele Bachmann. It wouldn't surprise me if she were to challenge Mark Dayton in the 2014 Minnesota gubernatorial election.
Santorum Won More Than a Moral Victory
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 9:46AM
John Tabin is correct to say that the history books will show that Mitt Romney won the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus. But Rick Santorum won far more than a moral victory.
A month ago, not only was Santorum was polling in single digits, he was polling behind Michele Bachmann. If any of us had said one month ago that Santorum would finish second in the Iowa Caucus much less miss first place by single digits we might have found ourselves consigned to a white room with rubber walls forced to listen to Jon Huntsman's speeches.
Santorum made efficient use of his limited resources in Iowa. He ran a Moneyball campaign. As Michael Li points out, Santorum spent $1.65 per vote while Romney spent $113.07 per vote. So Romney outspent Santorum by a margin of nearly 100-to-1 and yet finished on top by only eight votes. Romney attained the emptiest of victories.
In light of last night's second place triumph in Iowa, I'm sure Santorum will soon have more resources at his disposal although I'm sure they won't approach Romney's treasure chest. But Santorum does have a formula for success and it could take him far.
Even if Romney wins New Hampshire, his nomination is far from inevitable. The most recent poll in New Hampshire had Romney leading Ron Paul by 23 points and Santorum by 38 points. If Romney wins the Granite State by less than 10% then he's in deep trouble in South Carolina. Santorum will smell blood in the waters of Lake Marion.
Romney Wins -- By 8 Votes
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 2:37AM
That's the word according to Iowa's Republican Party chairman.
Obviously this is functionally a tie, and, as Aaron and Jim say, a moral victory for Santorum. But the technical first-place showing does matter to Romney's narrative; if his commanding lead in New Hampshire holds, an air of inevitability may build around his candidacy.
Okay, good night.
Misunderestimating Rick Santorum
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 1:06AM
Mea culpa. Did I underestimate Rick Santorum, screwing up my Iowa predictions. In addition to his win -- and this is a win even if Mitt Romney somehow scrounges up a five-vote margin over Santorum -- the former senator gave a great speech that shows he has given some serious thought as to how to compete with Romney for the nomination while maintaining real crossover appeal for the general.
I still have my doubts as to whether Santorum has the tools necessary to be a successful anti-Romney candidate. But he worked hard for his Iowa win, he deserved it, and he should enjoy it. On the issues where we agree, we agree strongly. I'll leave the issues where we disagree just as strongly for another day. I'll try not to misunderestimate him again.
Santorum's Grandfather
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:45AM
O.K., I'm not ready to go to bed just yet. As I write this, with 98% of the vote, Santorum is leading Romney by five votes.
Although I find myself in agreement with Santorum in foreign policy, as I listen to his speech I feel like I am connecting with him for the first time. It's the first time I've heard Santorum talk at length about his grandfather. His grandfather was a coal miner and so was mine. His grandfather mined the fields of southwestern Pennsylvania and mine was underground in southwestern Alberta. I don't always agree with Santorum, the way he presents himself and am sure I will find myself at odds with him between now and November. But there's now some real common ground, literally and figuratively.
I was struck by his comment on the values of working people, Santorum said, "These are the people who Barack Obama says cling to their guns and their Bibles. Thank God they do."
If Republicans choose wisely, President Obama is in for one hell of a fight. As Santorum put it, "Game on."
Perry Likely Dropping Out
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:45AM
He says he's going back to Texas to "assess the results of tonight's caucus [and] determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race." Sounds like he's finished.
(Thanks to our pinko friends at TPM for the video.)
What an Eloquent Speech by Santorum
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:38AM
Santorum's remarks tonight perhaps lacked the lightness and joy that should come with such an unlikely victory. But in every other way it was an incredibly superb speech, very eloquent, very focused, and very, very authentic. Many congratulations to him. Now comes Romney, who I expect will also be gracious.
Ron Paul Foreign Policy Trounced
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:34AM
The Ron Paul Non-Cons have tonight been effectively marginalized.
Whatever else comes out of this Iowa Caucus night, one thing is clear: conservatives -- Reagan conservatives -- triumphed.
The combined vote of Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and even the moderate Mitt Romney swamped Ron Paul's controversial and decidedly non-conservative foreign policy.
As this is written, either Santorum or Romney are first, the other second. Between them that's about 50% of the vote to Ron Paul's 25% or so.
Which clearly means that no matter how Congressman Paul -- a good and decent man with a wildly left-wing foreign policy -- spins the results, his ideas have taken a thorough beating. His candidacy and his controversial foreign policy views have effectively been sent packing.
As well they should. There is nothing remotely historically conservative about Paul's views.
Will the non-conservatives -- the Non-Cons -- behind Mr. Paul vanish? Hardly?
Will they win? Not in Iowa, that much is now crystal clear.
The Non-Con revolt in the cornfields has been husked clean.
Ron Paul's Third Wave
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:31AM
Ron Paul led in many December polls of likely Iowa caucus-goers. He was statistically tied for the lead in the last Des Moines Register poll, a solid barometer of the caucus. He led in tonight's entrace polls, before it was found that they exaggerated his support among evangelicals and the percentage of crossover voters. The candidate himself predicted a first or at least second-place showing.
Paul led at various points tonight, particularly in the early returns. But in the end, the antiwar, libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas finished third. Paul lost the expectations battle. Perhaps it was karma for a rude tweet -- promptly deleted -- sent out under Paul's name that mocked Jon Huntsman, who bypassed the caucuses, for his poor showing. The disappointment was evident on Rand Paul's face as his father gave his concession speech.
Yet by almost any measure, Paul has made huge strides in just four years. He more than doubled his Iowa tally from 2008. He brought in a large number of independents, Democrats, and young voters while improving his standing among key Republican demographics. He competed with fully engaged candidates preferred by social conservatives and the Republican establishment, and was competitive with both. And he may still come away with the most delegates.
It's true Paul needed a large crossover vote to compete at Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney's level, which will limit him in the Republican race (ask the 2000 version of John McCain). But these are exactly the kind of voters the GOP has lost in the past six years, some of whom they need to win back. It's also true that there is still a ceiling on Paul's foreign policy views within the GOP, especially as Paul communicates them. But they are less of a liability than they were in the Bush years.
The bottom line is that Paul showed his "secret plan" can actually work, especially caucus states that will receive less attention than Iowa. The big test is whether the volunteers who got clean for Ron can avoid disappointment and keep their eyes on the prize. Unlike those of his rivals, Ron Paul's presidential campaign is more about building a movement for the future than winning the Republican nomination in 2012.
Santorum Wins Iowa Regardless of the Result
Posted by on 1.4.12 @ 12:09AM
It is just past midnight and with 97% of the vote in, Rick Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by 37 votes in Iowa.
Even if Romney should prevail, Santorum is tonight's winner.
A fortnight ago, Santorum was in Bachmann territory and likely headed for the exits.
Now Santorum has a chance to be the Republican nominee. Meanwhile, Romney can't break the glass ceiling of 25%.
Time for bed.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Newt's Concession Speech
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 11:29PM
My takeaway from Newt's remarks are very different from Quin's. They do make a certain amount of sense from the perspective of keeping alive anti-Romney sentiment, especially if he is preparing to endorse Rick Santorum (whom he did not attack). But the opening complaint about negative ads and press coverage, the swipes at Mitt Romney (who could be his party's nominee) and Ron Paul, and the moments of petulance undermined the moments of grace. It was a stark reminder of the personality traits that led Republican voters to reject him in the first place.
UPDATE: Rick Perry's concession is more to my taste.
Graceful Speech by Gingrich
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 11:27PM
I thought Newt Gingrich's remarks just now were right on target, on multiple fronts. It was a very gracious speech, and well focused on the right issues going forward. I still think Gingrich should withdraw in favor of Rick Santorum. But Gingrich, when he's on, has the capability of doing the right thing.
Where Does Newt Go From Here?
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 11:19PM
As much as it pains me I find myself in agreement with Quin Hillyer. It would probably be prudent if Newt Gingrich drops out of the race along with Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.
But I don't think Newt should drop out just yet.
Given his animosity towards Mitt Romney, Newt is no doubt salivating at the opportunity to lay his gloves on Romney during the two New Hampshire debates scheduled for Saturday night and Sunday morning.
Unless he finishes in double digits, methinks Newt will drop out after New Hampshire and throw his support Santorum's way once the attention focuses on South Carolina.
UPDATE: I am watching Newt speak. He praised Santorum for running a positive campaign "unlike other candidates" (a not so subtle dig at Romney.) While Newt also congratulated Ron Paul he also called his foreign policy "a stunningly dangerous for the survival of the United States." It looks like that Newt will be laying his gloves on both Paul and Romney this weekend.
About the Also-Rans
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 10:17PM
We know who the top three are, though we don't yet know what order they will finish in. But we do know for certain that some former Iowa frontrunners now have the same chance of winning the caucuses as Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, Herman Cain, and Fred Karger: zero. Let's examine what happened to each of them.
Newt Gingrich: Like the other not-Romneys before him, Gingrich couldn't withstand the sustained scrutiny of his record and temperament. Gingrich led House Republicans to the promised land in the 1990s and his majority produced some solid conservative policy accomplishments from 1995-97. But he always had a side to him that was undermining his own cause, whether it was pushing himself to the left of the more committed spending-cutters in his caucus or simply coating his message with arrogance. That history came back to haunt him and there were enough new manifestations of these character traits to make the anti-Gingrich ads sound plausible to Republican ears.
Rick Perry: Perry seemed to briefly square the circle for Republicans who wanted a nominee who was more conservative than Mitt Romney but could still beat Barack Obama. He was the governor of a large state with a record of job creation that contrasted nicely with Obama's. But in his disastrous debate performances, Perry quickly cast doubt on his two strongest assets: his conservatism and his electability. Voters began to suspect he wasn't as conservative as advertised and that his sub-Bush speaking skills, among other problems, would get him clobbered in the general. Recent reporting suggests his campaign team was divided between Texans who thought running for president would be no different than running for governor and outsiders whose anonymous quotes to news outlets like Politico raise questions about how invested they were in the outcome.
Michele Bachmann: What caused Bachmann to crash from winning the Ames straw poll -- and leading scientific polls of Iowans -- to last place among the major candidates actively contesting the caucuses? My sense is that she had three problems: Perry jumped into the race at her moment of triumph, stealing the spotlight and many of her still-fluid supporters; she spent a lot of money to win Ames and wasn't immediately able to fight for the support she was losing to Perry; Republicans were initially attracted to her because she was one of them but ended up wanting a little bit more out of a future president.
It remains to be seen what these three candidates will do in the aftermath.
Time for Bachmann, Perry and, Yes, Even Gingrich to Vamoose
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 9:42PM
Rick Perry spent something like $4 million in Iowa. Michele Bachmann spent about the same -- if not more. Yet they are both getting creamed tonight. Spending $4 million to get 10% of the vote (where Perry is now) or 6% of the vote (where Bachmann is in early returns) is horrendously embarrassing. Meanwhile, not a single national poll or poll in New Hampshire or South Carolina in recent weeks shows any significant support for either of them going forward. All they can do, from now on, is be spoilers.
Both ought to withdraw with dignity, and let conservatives coalesce around Santorum. I know it's hard to put forth so much effort and then quit after one state, but the political realities are that neither one has a prayer going forward. Not a prayer. Perry, in particular, has seemed to take personal umbrage at Mitt Romney's record and his personality. Perry should want Romney to lose. The only way to help ensure that is for Perry to withdraw. It would make him more of a hero to conservatives to do so than not to do so, and it would set him up for a nice Cabinet post -- something that won't happen if he continues to show just how weak he is by continuing to compete but losing badly.
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich showed, as he did repeatedly in the 1990s, that he cannot take a punch. Indeed, he has a horrible glass jaw. Not only did he drop by a massive amount in the past three weeks, but he did so without any grace or graciousness. He whined about being attacked; he flat-out called Mitt Romney a "liar." If this is the big tough guy who can take on Barack Obama, Obama can play golf for the next 10 months and coast to re-election, because Gingrich will be easy to pound into submission with just a few well-aimed TV ads.
Sure, Gingrich can point to national polls showing him still doing well nationally -- but he now has established himself as a major loser in a state he was leading by a large amount just 3 or 4 weeks ago. Where will he get the money or the organization to continue? How can he possibly win? He can't.
But he does seem to like Rick Santorum. Alone among major contenders, Santorum hasn't attacked Gingrich. They repeatedly traded compliments during the debates. Gingrich could give Santorum a huge boost against the man, Romney, against whom Gingrich's anger seems to be burning with a fierce and broiling flame.
Conservative movement leaders should be on the phone first thing in the morning to talk to these three candidates and reason with them. If they don't, Mitt Romney will continue in the cat-bird's seat. For Romney fans, this would be a great thing. For all the anti-Romneyites out there, it would be a sickening result.
UPDATE: After watching Gingrich's remarks just now, I wish I had better modulated my commentary on his status in the race. I still think he ought to withdraw. But I myself should have been more gracious about it.
Bachmann: First to Worst in Iowa
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 8:58PM
Megyn Kelly at FNC just said that Michele Bachmann will finish last in tonight's Iowa Caucus (Jon Huntsman can't be said to have actually campaigned in Iowa.)
It is a remarkable reversal of fortune. In five months, Bachmann went from winning the Iowa Straw Poll to grasping at straws. Her decline began the moment Rick Perry jumped into the race and she never recovered. Bachmann's staffing issues didn't help her cause either.
Her campaign was something of a paradox. While she did damage against Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Paul in the debates she derived no benefit from her critiques.
I can't see her carrying on from here. Should she drop out I predict she will endorse Romney and be in consideration to be his running mate if he wins the GOP nomination.
Tracking the Results From Iowa
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 8:31PM
Iowans are currently listening to speakers make the case for their favorite candidates at the Iowa caucuses. Results should begin to trickle in soon; here's a page where you can watch them come in, which also gives some context regarding the counties where the results are coming in from.
Romney vs. Santorum: Is It Better To Have Fought & Lost?
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 4:30PM
Where it concerns Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney I think it is fair to ask, "Is it better to have fought and lost than not to have fought at all?" Even if Rick Santorum had the tar beaten out of him by Bob Casey in 2006, Santorum does have a point (as noted by Jim Antle) in saying that he stood for re-election when Mitt Romney would not do the same here in Massachusetts.
As I have written here previously had Romney faced off against Deval Patrick five years ago, Patrick would have wiped the floor with him and his presidential ambitions. O.K., maybe Romney wouldn't have lost by 20 points but he would have stood no chance against Patrick and his campaign team headed up by David Axelrod.
With that said, in the event Romney does win the nomination there is no way in hell that he carries Massachusetts against Obama. Not if Bay State voters are in any kind of mood to vote for Elizabeth Warren.
No Recess Appointment for Cordray (Yet)
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 4:01PM
It was widely expected that President Obama might offer Richard Cordray a recess appointment to become head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's nomination had been blocked by Senate Republicans, who have also warned the president against further recess appointments.
Talking Points Memo reports that the president passed up on a chance to make the appointment today.
Today was the day that legal experts and many aides in both parties thought President Obama would provide a recess appointment to Richard Cordray, his nominee to administer the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The rationale is quite technical, but here's the bottom line: one reading of the Constitution and of executive branch administrative law suggest that today is Obama's last day to recess appoint any of his languishing nominees, at least until the next time the Senate leaves town several weeks from now.
It is unclear whether Obama wants to avoid further recess appointments or if he thinks he'll get another opportunity.
A Prediction Based on a Prediction Based on a Hypothetical Occurrence
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 2:59PM
At CFIF I predict what will happen IF -- IF, IF, IF, not when -- Rick Santorum wins the caucuses tonight. Basically, I think if he wins the caucuses straight-up, he will end up winning the whole nomination.
Okay, but what then?
I've said for well over a year that IF Santorum wins the nomination, he would have an easier time winning the general election than he had in winning the nomination.
In short, if he is the Republican nominee, he will defeat Obama and become president. Why? Because he knows how to appeal, on a sort of "keeping it real" level, to the proverbial "middle American." And also because Obama can win only if he can effectively demonize his opponent. Well, Santorum can only be demonized so much. His record is consistent, and he's rather squeakily clean -- and his only serious drawback, his media caricature as a one-trick pony of social conservatism, is easy, in a long campaign, to refute.
Rick Santorum has been underestimated by the punditocracy for his whole career. Even as he surges in Iowa, he is being underestimated, in terms of his campaign's long-term viability, again. Pundits don't know squat.
Stray Romney and Santorum Thought
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 2:45PM
Rick Santorum is often criticized for losing reelection to his Senate seat in 2006 by 18 points, winning roughly 41 percent of the vote. Yesterday he hit back by saying he ran even though the polls looked bad while Mitt Romney declined to seek reelection that year.
This reminded me: Romney also got 41 percent of the vote in a Senate race, losing by 17 points. Yet this performance was good enough to convince Massachusetts Republicans to draft him to run for governor in 2002!
I grant that breaking 40 percent against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts is an accomplishment.
If Rick Santorum Wins
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 2:04PM
Say Rick Santorum manages to pull off the upset in Iowa tonight, beating not only Ron Paul but also Mitt Romney to come in first. Then what? Many will say if Santorum could pull off the impossible once (by winning Iowa), why not a second time (by winning the nomination)?
The trouble with that line of thinking is that Santorum had the luxury of spending months in Iowa running a bare-bones campaign. He won't have anywhere near as long to work New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida. After that, Santorum will need to be able to campaign in multiple states and media markets at once. All with Q4 fundraising totals the candidate himself has said aren't very good and little time to build up a professional organization.
Being the anti-Romney will confer certain benefits, as many (perhaps most) Republicans would still prefer not to nominate the frontrunner. Santorum could win some Southern primaries simply by showing up. But he didn't qualify for the ballot in Virginia and has no committed delegates in Tennessee, where Mike Huckabee won in 2008. Both of these are the kinds of states Santorum would need to win to beat Romney.
Santorum will emerge as a giant-killer if he wins the Iowa caucuses. But capitalizing on that win may prove a taller order.
Have at me in the comments.
Mark Levin Challenges Ron, Rand Paul on Third Party
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 1:50PM
Hmmm..
So. Mark Levin has returned from vacation, and in his characteristic low-key style has immediately announced he would not ignore the elephant in the room that everyone else seems to be so desperately trying to ignore.
The elephant in the room?
That would be?
That would be Congressman Ron Paul's refusal to rule out a third party run for president if he loses the Republican presidential nomination. And the not so coincidental relationship Levin sees with Senator Rand Paul's future career.
Considering that Congressman Paul has already once left the GOP -- with much fanfare in 1987 -- and then shown up as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he has already amply demonstrated his willingness play hardball politics and throw the GOP under the bus if he doesn't get his way. In the December 16th debate with other GOP candidates Paul was asked the question directly and refused to rule it out. Wrote Boston Globe reporter Michael Levenson of Paul's debate refusal to rule out a third party run:
Paul has made similar comments in the past. On "Meet the Press," last Sunday, for example, he said he was not thinking about a third-party run, but left the option open.
"I have enough on my plate right now," Paul said. "We have a lot of campaigning to do. We're going to be very busy the next couple of weeks. That's what I'm concentrating on, and we'll see what happens."
Meaning, even as Iowans go to their Caucuses tonight Paul refuses to say he will accept the verdict of the conservative rank-and-file voting base of the party if he doesn't like the verdict in Iowa and the succeeding primaries.
Two things.
First, in an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Paul admits to Moran that, well, gee, no. Actually he -- Ron Paul -- doesn't really see Ron Paul in the Oval Office. But in spite of this admission to Moran, Paul is not ruling out a third party run, as he made in 1988.
Second. Mark Levin has raised a serious point of interest here that didn't apply when Paul left the GOP the first time to run third party. This time there is another Paul in the picture -- Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son.
Taking his cue from Ron Paul's willingness to play hard ball with the GOP, Levin played right back. Said Levin:
Let me make myself clear. I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love my family. And I believe with all my heart and soul that four more years of Obama is a disaster to all three of them.
And if some egomaniac who knows he cannot win chooses to run as a third party, I will do everything in my power, as limited as it is, to fight them every damn step of the way. And -- if Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third party, which is detrimental to this nation, and pulls a million votes -- which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things -- I will do everything in my power to defeat his son in Kentucky. I will do everything in my power to defeat his son Rand Paul in Kentucky.
Wow. Hardball indeed.
Mixing metaphors that's not only calling attention to the elephant in the room, it's getting the elephant's attention with a Louisville slugger right between the eyes.
Rand Paul, unlike father Ron, is a conservative favorite. And displaying a superb sense of family values Senator Paul has been out there working his heart out for his father in a standard intra-party nomination skirmish. For that Rand Paul should be applauded. No one should ever expect other than loyalty of a son to a father, and Rand Paul has shown himself to be stellar in this area.
The problem, though, is the obvious. If Ron Paul loses the GOP nomination as all but one other as yet undetermined candidate will do -- and leaves the GOP for a second time to run as a third party nominee, re-electing Obama as a result -- this no longer becomes a question of son/father loyalty in an intra-party primary fight. It will in fact morph instantly into an issue of Ron Paul's disloyalty to a GOP that took him back after he left the first time -- and provided him with all the benefits of party membership as a Member of Congress. And in that case -- if a Republican senator, son or no son -- indicates he too will abandon the GOP for a third party and that third party is seen as re-electing a socialist president, Levin's point instantly kicks in.
The entire Kentucky electorate will be turned upside down as Republicans and conservatives all around the country seek to do in Senator Paul's re-election -- both as a Republican or anything else. It would be decidedly un-pretty -- and a decided and entirely purposeless waste of a promising Senate career that could in fact lead to a later Rand Paul nomination for president.
So Levin has, in typical style, called Ron Paul out.
What happens after all the caucus and primary ballots are counted -- and Not Ron Paul is the GOP nominee?
We'll see, won't we?
In the meantime, kudos to Mark Levin for getting the subject out there for discussion. For forthrightly tying the future career of Rand Paul to the current post-nomination career of Ron Paul.
This is why Mark Levin has such a loyal audience. He never ducks.
Iowa Predictions
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 9:15AM
Based on the recent polling, this year's Republican race in Iowa could resemble the 2008 Democratic contest between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (not necessarily in that order). You will see a top three bunched closely together with the rest of the candidates lagging behind.
If Iowa was a primary, Rick Santorum would clearly win. He has the momentum, the support of late deciders, and a poll surge that will allow him to peel off support from other similar but less viable candidates. But Iowa is not a primary, and in this byzantine caucus system I am going to give the edge to ground game and organization over organic popularity. (I'm aware that Michele Bachmann was able to beat organization with popularity in Ames and that this all goes out the window if 60 percent of the caucus-goers are evangelicals.)
Mitt Romney wins the Iowa caucuses. He is the candidate who does best under the most scenarios. Again based on organizational strength, Ron Paul squeaks past Santorum. Santorum finishes a strong third. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry both break into the double digits, but are separated from the top tier by more percentage points than the top three candidates are separated from each other.
Caucus Day
Posted by on 1.3.12 @ 4:30AM
With the Iowa caucuses convening tonight, a few points to consider:
Who shows up? Jim discussed the Des Moines Register poll Saturday night, which has a very good track record and showed Mitt Romney leading with Ron Paul in second -- but Rick Santorum in second in the last two days of polling. DMR pollster Ann Selzer walks through how the results change if the sample is weighted differently:
EVANGELICALS - In 2008, they were 60 percent of those who participated in the entrance poll at the Republican caucus and famously handed Mike Huckabee the win. This year, our polls are showing far fewer likely Republican caucusgoers identifying themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians - about one in three.
When we weight our data from the last two days in the field to match 2008, Rick Santorum wins with 25 percent, Mitt Romney is second at 20 percent, and Ron Paul has 16 percent. Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry barely break into double digits. Each is within a point of one another.
SENIORS - In 2008, they made up 27 percent of the entrance poll respondent pool. We are showing them under 20 percent in our polls this year. When we weight our data from the final two days of polling to match 2008, this greatly benefits Romney, who would rise to 26 percent and a 7 point lead over Santorum, 19 percent. Paul drops to third place, with 17 percent.
Selzer goes on to explain that a surge of independents helps Paul (though it doesn't put him quite over the top according to her data); PPP's photo-finish poll, showing Paul with a statistically trivial lead, is based on 24% of caucusgoers being independents and Democrats; this seems unlikely, but not impossible.
The fight for fourth. If Romney, Paul, or Santorum don't finish in the top three, it would obviously be a huge loss in the expectations game (probably fatal, in Santorum's case). There's an old saw about there being "three tickets out of Iowa," but this year there's probably a fourth ticket; if Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Michele Bachmann comes in fourth, he or she will declare it a victory and continue the campaign. Nate Silver's forecasting model -- which averages polling data with weights designed to factor in pollsters' track records -- shows Gingrich holding steady in fourth place after factoring in the two polls (Insider Advantage and ARG) that came in after PPP's. It's possible, though, that Perry can sneak past Newt with a strong ground organization.
The weather. As Stacy noted on Christmas Day, it's been posited (by Mike Huckabee, among others) that a snowstorm would help Ron Paul, the idea being that his younger and more dedicated core of supporters would show up even when others decided to take a pass on the caucuses. Today's weather in Des Moines is expected to be cold, but clear.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Santorum's Appeal Isn't Just "Social"
Posted by on 1.2.12 @ 6:25PM
If Rick Santorum comes in first or a strong second tomorrow in Iowa, the establishment media will fall all over themselves "explaining" that it was all those "social conservatives" in Iowa who did it for him. Certainly, his consistency on social issues will merit a great deal of the credit. But that's hardly the whole story. As Rich Lowry at National Review has pointed out, one reason Santorum is "connecting" is that, alone among the candidates, he so seamlessly ties the "family issues" of "social" policy into the "family issues" of economic policy -- in short, he shows how they are connected. He has always done as much. That's why he always did so well in a tough district and a tough state in Pennsylvania, where he "connected" well in four straight races with blue-collar voters, or, put another way, with "Reagan Democrats" as well as Republicans.
In truth, he's been solid across the board, and, again, rather seamless in his ability to tie everything together coherently. Herewith, then, my earlier columns on those Santorum issue positions: on economics, on foreign and defense policy, and on the role of faith in politics. And, despite the supposed boldness by Newt Gingrich on the subject of judges, the truth is that it is Santorum who has long been a signal leader in the fight for a better judiciary, as I explained here:
Also, almost unique among Republican senators not on the Judiciary Committee, Santorum fully grasped the importance of federal judgeships and fought hard on judicial nominations when others weaseled out. His staff usually provided more of an entrée to conservative judicial enthusiasts than did the staffs of the Judiciary Committee or the party's Senate leader. And Santorum understood that judicial fights aren't just important in principle, but good politics too, because the public agrees with conservatives on judges.
Back in July of 2010, I foresaw a path to victory for Santorum, for many of these reasons, and because he had won against the odds before:
[C]onservatives do themselves and their cause a huge disservice if they don't take a Rick Santorum candidacy seriously. It would be crazy not to acknowledge that the odds seem long. But he has beaten the odds, repeatedly, before, and he knows how to leverage public opinion for conservative ends. "I'm someone who moves the ball," he told me. "I get a lot of stuff done."
Iowa's voters may give him a major boost in proving he still can do it.
Obama and the NDAA
Posted by on 1.2.12 @ 4:40PM
Remember when Barack Obama disdained presidential signing statements? As with so much else, there is a difference between candidate Obama and President Obama. The president signed the national defense authorization act while expressing concern about provisions some have argued could lead to the indefinite detention of American citizens.
While signing the bill into law, Obama assured everyone that he would never allow for indefinite detention. To do so, he argued, would violate sacred American traditions. But habeaus corpus for U.S. citizens isn't just a tradition. It is a requirement of the Constitution.
It is understandable that the president would not want to hold up money for our national defense over a disputed provision that supporters insist will not change existing law regarding the detention of Americans. But if the president is truly concerned about its meaning, his promise to interpret it narrowly is hollow -- like many other hollow Obama promises before it.
Catholics Santorum, Hannity Attacked by Ron Paul Activist
Posted by on 1.2.12 @ 1:51PM
Bear with me as we connect the dots.
This latest journey into Paulville began when I received a missive from a self-identified South Carolina Catholic Ron Paul activist named Chris Golden. The note, clearly part of a mass e-mail, and addressed to "Dear Fellow Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and other Patriotic Americans," attacked the surging former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum -- a famously staunch Catholic -- as being a "heretic."
The all-important South Carolina primary is scheduled for January 21.
Curious, no? As a Pennsylvanian who knows Mr. Santorum a bit (and if needed to know, voted for him for U.S. Senator), I am well aware that he is constantly under attack from the left precisely because he is a Catholic. So to see this odd missive attacking him as a heretic was, well, strange.
So what's up here? Ahhhhhhhh. As always, more than meets the eye.
Included in this hot note from the South Carolina Catholic Ron Paul supporter were two very interesting articles. By which hangs the yet again inevitable tale that always seems to pop up in Paulville. On the surface the attack revolves around Santorum's national security beliefs -- famously far apart from Ron Paul. But this difference of political opinion between two presidential candidates was used as an excuse to circulate two quite specific articles on Catholics to Paul supporters.
The first article attached by Golden and circulated was by one Robert A. Sungenis. In which this Protestant boy was startled to see our friend Sean Hannity, a Catholic, attacked in this fashion:
Typical examples of leading Catholic figures who have been ensconced by the Neo-con agenda (or, worse, are mere plants posing as Catholics) are Sean Hannity who, having advertised his stance against the pope's opposition to the Iraq war, had the temerity to host Protestant Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's son) on his popular Fox television show, allowing him to chastise the pope. So enamored is Hannity with the Evangelical agenda that his best-selling book, Deliver Us From Evil, contains the Protestant, not Catholic, version of the Our Father on the inside cover.
There was more, but you get the flavor.
Nor was Hannity alone. Also attacked by Sungenis were Catholics George Weigel (biographer of Pope John Paul II), the late William F. Buckley Jr. and his brother, former New York Senator and federal judge James A. Buckley, the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak, Princeton's Professor Robert P. George, former Reagan Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, former Judge Robert Bork and wife Ellen Bork and… well… you get the picture.
The second article attached was by Daniel McCarthy. The 2005 piece, attacking Catholics like the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, can be found here at the American Conservative -- but that isn't where I found the link. Where did I find the link to the McCarthy piece?
That's right. Over there in Paulville -- aka the Lew Rockwell Report. Mr. Rockwell, you will remember, is the longtime Ron Paul ally and ex-chief of staff who was publicly fingered recently in the Wall Street Journal by no less than Cato Foundation president Edward H. Crane as the "likely source" of those controversial Ron Paul newsletters.
So, who is Robert A. Sungenis that his writings would be cited in a mass e-mail as back-up evidence of Senator Santorum's alleged heresy?
Continue reading…The Iowa Expectations Game
Posted by on 1.2.12 @ 11:57AM
Jonathan Karl of ABC News just reported that Newt Gingrich doesn't expect to win tomorrow's Iowa caucuses. Earlier today, Rick Santorum was quoted as saying he hopes to finish ahead of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann -- a bar he should clear easily. Chalk this up to the expectations game.
Fairly or not, the media is going to judge candidates not just by how the perform but by whether their performance measures up to what is expected. Those expectations change over time. Just weeks ago, a third place showing would have been a victory for Ron Paul. Now it would be a bit of a disappointment. Similarly, there was a time when Perry would have been devastated by a third place showing. Now he'd be ecstatic. Santorum would have been pleased by a fourth place finish earlier this month. Now it would be shocking for him to end up outside the top three.
In an ideal scenario, Mitt Romney probably would have preferred to still be flying underneath the radar. That said, there was a time when it seemed unrealistic for him to win the caucuses. Now it doesn't, so there will be more of an impact if he winds up second or worse. Over the next 24 hours, nearly as much effort will be expended managing expectations as trying to get out the vote.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Latest (Possibly Last) Iowa Poll Has Paul, Romney, Santorum Virtually Tied
Posted by on 1.1.12 @ 11:47PM
Public Policy Polling has come out with the latest survey of Iowa caucus-goers and it looks like a photo finish. Ron Paul leads at 20 percent, Mitt Romney is in second at 19 percent, and Rick Santorum is right behind at 18 percent. PPP sees plausible scenarios where each of the big three could win Tuesday.
Newt Gingrich finishes fourth at 14 percent, Rick Perry next at 10 percent, Michele Bachmann at 8 percent, Jon Huntsman at 4 percent, and Buddy Roemer at 2 percent. Like every other recent poll, it shows Santorum with the momentum -- the former Pennsylvania senator has gained in overall popularity to the point where he has the best net favorability and he has strong plurality support among late deciders -- while Paul has declined. The more traditional the Iowa turnout, the better Romney does. The less traditional, the better Paul does (to vastly oversimplify).
Welcome to 2012
Posted by on 1.1.12 @ 2:04AM
Well, it is now just a little over two hours into 2012 in the Eastern time zone.
My roomie Christopher and I brought in the New Year by partaking in First Night Boston. First we saw Jazzrael, an Israeli jazz ensemble perform at St. Paul's Cathedral. That's right. We went to see a Jewish act at an Episcopalian church. From there we took the T to Jordan Hall to see Suzanne Vega in concert. She was a last minute replacement for The New York Dolls and was well worth the price of admission.
We returned home in time to see Dick Clark countdown the final seconds of 2011. There is something reassuring about seeing him in Times Square. I wish I could say the same for Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber.
Later today, I will make my way over to the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge to see the annual Marx Brothers Movie Marathon. Lord knows I am in need of a good laugh. I know I am far from alone in this feeling.
Because we will see plenty of man's inhumanity to man in the coming year as we have seen in all the years that have come before. From time to time, we shall see acts of charity, kindness and mercy. Unfortunately, these acts will be remarked upon not because of its inherent goodness but because of its rarity.
So I will make the most of the joy and laughter that comes my way today. Beyond that I shall continue to provide my observations about our state of affairs, those who have passed on, more than a few notes about baseball and just about anything else I darn well please.
And with that I wish you all the best in 2012.
ADVERTISEMENT
- Medicaid Freedom of Choice
- The Continuing Crisis
- Tenured and Powerless
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
