November 1, 2012
Some Serious Libertario Delenda Est
Bill Whittle is sometimes -- well, usually -- over the top for my tastes, but I love his style and language. He has discovered the same thing I have here: I will not sway my lefty friends, but my libertarian friends can be reached with reason.
Pretty good, huh?
Yup, purdy good. Two thumbs up from me.
But I'll bet you a free beer for each of them that none of your Libertarian friends can be reached with reason. (Little-l libertarians don't count.)
Posted by: johngalt at November 1, 2012 6:46 PMHow do I email this link to someone?
Posted by: dagny at November 1, 2012 6:49 PM@dagny: http://youtu.be/wPjBXufufUU or click "share" in the title bar to send it from YouTube.
Posted by: jk at November 1, 2012 6:52 PM@jg "It's my dream, let me live it!" :)
You might be right, but through a mutual friend, I have discovered quite a vein of people of mixed case Ls. They have listened respectfully and I am not alone in my pragmatism.
I have moved exactly zero votes in the previous two Presidential elections, so I am potentially stepping up.
Don't think of my wager as discouragement, but a challenge. Not a barrier but a pot-sweetener for your interlocutors.
"...and if this video persuades you to actually pull the lever (in Colorado) for Romney/Ryan instead of [insert favorite wasted vote here] my Objectivist friend will meet us at our favorite watering hole and buy you a beer!"
I'll trust your judgement of each convert's honesty.
Posted by: johngalt at November 1, 2012 7:46 PMOctober 5, 2012
Happy Days are Here Again!
While some of the president's more ardent supporters are dancing about the September Jobs report (you can't spell bullshit without BLS...), James Pethokoukis peers a bit more deeply into the data:
1. Yes, the U-3 unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since January 2009. But that's only due to a flood of 582,000 part-time jobs. As the Labor Department noted:
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
2. And take-home pay? Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by just 1.8 percent. When you take inflation into account, wages are flat to down.
3. The broader U-6 rate -- which takes into account part-time workers who want full-time work and lots of discouraged workers who've given up looking -- stayed unchanged at 14.7%. That's a better gauge of the true unemployment rate and state of the American labor market.
But: HOORAY! 582,000 Americans found a part-time job at low pay! Woohoo! And that Romney fellow insists things are not going well.
If you believe, after reading this jobs report, that unemployment is actually down that much I have some renewable energy stocks I'd like to sell you. They are for a very progressive tech company that invented a process to produce electricity through non-combustion of magical unicorn farts. (It even consumes carbon in the process!)
Posted by: johngalt at October 5, 2012 3:34 PMRemember that old adage we learned in high school about graphs? "First, draw your graph, then plot the points you need to get there"? Yes, lesson learned; it's happening here. 783 new kilojobs, in this economy? Not gonna happen, Cap'n.
The Preezy and Hilda Solis sat down and figured how many jobs they needed to pretend were created in order for the U-3 number to get down to something that started with a 7, to counter the disaster that was the first debate. They reached down into the Magic Bag-O-Distraction, and their choices were cook the books on unemployment or launch an assault against Libya or Syria. Their third option - count on Joe Biden to trounce Ryan in their debate and save the ticket - is taking 100-to-1 money on the Vegas line.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 5, 2012 5:50 PMExcellent analysis KA. And being so much further from Vegas than are you, I hadn't noticed the 'Biden outwits Ryan' line. But I will disagree with you on one point: This October card had been stacked into the deck long before President Greek Columns waltzed into Romney's chainsaw.
Proof? I have no proof, other than that the President's campaign lies at every opportunity, on matters as important as an al Qaeda terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that murdered four American government employees including a freaking ambassador, and then accuses his opponent of being a "dishonest, untrustworthy scoundrel." [chutzpa noun Example sentence: Still stinging from rebuke, the politician accused his opponent of employing the very tactic that he had relied upon for his own very successful political career, thus illustrating an unmitigated display of chutzpah.]
But it has the feel of a dud. Too little, in answer to an epic fail on live TV with seventy-six million watching.
Posted by: johngalt at October 6, 2012 12:02 PMAugust 28, 2012
Huck-a-Whack
Allysia Finley calls for Gov. Huckabee to issue a little "tough love" for his pal, Todd Akin
Mr. Huckabee has been the loudest voice--aside from Ms. McCaskill--urging Mr. Akin to persevere. Last Monday he offered Mr. Akin his syndicated radio show as a platform to repent. When Republicans continued to insist that the candidate step down, Mr. Huckabee sounded off on his party for leaving Mr. Akin "behind on the political battlefield, wounded and bleeding.""He made his mistake, but was man enough to admit it and apologize," Mr. Huckabee added. "I'm waiting for the apology from whoever the genius was on the high pedestals of our party who thought it wise to not only shoot our wounded, but run over him with tanks and trucks and then feed his body to the liberal wolves."
Mr. Akin is unlikely to drop out without encouragement from the pastor. Which means Republicans who want a prayer of winning in November ought to be working on Mr. Huckabee. Regardless of whether they've erred, GOP leaders will likely have to perform an act of contrition in order for reconciliation to occur.
UPDATE: My Facebook friends are having fun with this: "Akin Claims Breastmilk Cures Homosexuality."
Doesn't look very well documented to me (the quote that is -- the science is clearly dead on) but I'm quietly hoping it is true.
I really like Governor Huckabee's "wolves" analogy. In politics, as in nature, when a weak and foolish member of the herd wanders too far off in a given direction it is not in the interest of the herd to "rescue" him. Without the weakened member the herd can move faster, and without his genetic contribution future members will be less likely to repeat his particular error.
By all means, let the "liberal wolves" devour him, along with Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Andrew Johnson.
Posted by: johngalt at August 28, 2012 12:36 PMAugust 22, 2012
Hmmm.
Potential suckage:
Hat-tip @GayPatriot
Is it too soon to:
1) Blame the hurricane on human-caused global warming?
2) Declare a Federal emergency?
3) Confiscate all guns from every Floridian?
4) Blame the hurricane on former President Bush?
5) Villify the oil and gas industries?
It's actually a Republican plot! They can control the weather with their chemtrails jets, you know. So some kid is going to have a palm tree about to fall on him and Mitt and/or Paul will snatch him out of the way, saving his life and winning by a landslide in November...
Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at August 22, 2012 8:49 PMImaginary Recovery
Hattip: Insty
Imagine there's no layoffs,
It's easy if you try,
No unemployed below us,
Nobody wonders why,
Imagine all the people living on the dole;
Imagine there's no voting,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to stump or lie for,
And no elections too,
Imagine all the people living life in chains;
You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will love The One.
Well, yeah, those RightWing NutJobs at CU!
That Koch-Brothers-funded rag, Boulder Daily Camera, has a most un-astonishing prediction:
A University of Colorado analysis that has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1980 based on state-by-state factors forecasts that Mitt Romney will unseat incumbent Barack Obama to become the new president in November's general election, according to a release.The prediction model looks at economic data from all 50 states and Washington D.C., including state and national unemployment figures and changes in real per capita income, according to CU political science professors Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry.
"Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble," said Bickers in a statement.
Polls look great today. I am trying to climb out of my Akinfunk® -- it's a long way.
Hat-tip: Brother Bryan on Facebook
Well, yeahbut ... who would ever take the predictive ability of computerized forecasting models seriously?
Posted by: johngalt at August 22, 2012 2:32 PMI KNEW the Koch brothers were secretly behind the Daily Camera, and now I have my proof!!!!!
Posted by: Bryan at August 22, 2012 2:43 PMThey try and keep it quiet, but I think we all know...
Posted by: jk at August 22, 2012 3:35 PMAugust 20, 2012
Makes Gov. Dukakis Look Good Actually
Vroooom, vrooooooom, vroooooooooooooooooooom!!!!
This comment wins the whole Intertubez for the day with this observation:
"Still no proof that anybody in Elizabeth Warren's family has ever ridden an Indian (@iowahawkblog)"
Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 20, 2012 11:44 AM!!!
Posted by: jk at August 20, 2012 11:50 AMYou know, it occurs to me that Lizzie is riding too far forward. There is a name for that aft seat, the one that the British politely call "pillion."
Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 20, 2012 12:17 PMI wonder if Ms. Warren would still make that facial expression for the camera if someone told her the slang expression for high-rise handlebars such as those she's grasping is "ape hangers."
Posted by: johngalt at August 20, 2012 6:47 PMAugust 17, 2012
No, it isn't just us.
While Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney didn't get an appreciable bounce after naming Paul Ryan as his running mate, the late Ayn Rand sure did.Hat-tip: @yaronbrook
The philosopher who favored individualism over collectivism has won renewed attention with the choice of Ryan, who in 2005 credited Rand as being "the reason I got involved in public service."
Ryan has since scaled back that praise, citing Rand's atheism. Rand died in 1982.
The Rand box set of two of her works -- "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" -- cracked the Top 100 "Movers & Shakers" list on Amazon.com earlier this week. The online retailer's gauge measures the biggest increases in sales ranking compared with the previous 24 hours. Rand's books jumped 20 percent in the rankings yesterday.
Giants walked the earth.
Posted by: johngalt at August 18, 2012 1:30 AMAugust 14, 2012
Robert Natelson on Romney, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Revival
First, buy Robert Natelson's awesome book.
Second, listen to Ari Armstrong's interview with him:
Third, and I should probably let it lay, but explain to me how Armstrong's associate and last night's Liberty On The Rocks -- Flatirons speaker is still "undecided."
UPDATE: Armstrong is "decided."
Prior to Mitt Romneys selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, I was going to vote "for" Romney in the sense of voting against Obama. In light of this development, however, I not only plan to vote for Romney-Ryan; I also emphatically endorse their ticket, and I urge readers of TOS, Objectivists, and fans of Ayn Rand to do the same.
A nice piece from Ari; I agree that this will bring Rand more into the public eye and stimulate real, substantive discussion of core issues--rather than who ate dog.
I disagree with him when he states that Ryan "doesn't understand what rights are or where they come from."
I will expand on that in a future post.
Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at August 14, 2012 8:09 PMTo clarify, Ari Tweeted the link but the "deciding" was by Craig Biddle, a respected Objectivist and publisher of TOS. I appreciate brother Ellis' comment and would also like to hear brother KA's take on the Biddle piece. If there is anyone on earth I know of who can properly address the Rand/Christianity duality embodied in Congressman Ryan it is he.
This is the cardinal topic of our age, for America - and all mankind - needs Objectivism in order to achieve a lasting freedom and prosperity, but Objectivism needs Christianity to achieve a plurality and a comfortability that Objectivism cannot, as yet, achieve on its own. Paul Ryan may well be a near perfect vessel for the first voyage of this journey. NED, please guide and protect him, and make sure the Secret Service is ever vigilant and undistracted. We embark upon a new Renaissance.
Posted by: johngalt at August 15, 2012 12:26 PMThank you for the correction Brother jg--I garbled that rather badly. In note in the comments to Mr. Biddle's piece, Dianna Hsieh writes:
Ryan's interest in Ayn Rand doesn't make him any less of a very dangerous theocrat and big-spending statist than he is. If Objectivists actively support him and Romney, I think they'll have to overlook or whitewash their very, very serious defects to do that. As a result, Ayn Rand's ideas will be watered down -- and worse, even more strongly (and wrongly) associated with conservatism than they are already.
I think her use of the term "theocrat" is more than inaccurate. It is irrational.
Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at August 15, 2012 3:30 PMObjectivists face a difficult task in reconciling the ideals of Ayn Rand's philosophy with the far from ideal state of human civilization at any given time.
John Galt had no interest in "saving" a corrupt government, yet Ayn Rand actively supported Republicans in defense of America's Constitional Republic which she called the greatest nation in the history of mankind. In her novel, Rand had her hero destroy the mixed economic system before returning to build a just system in its place. In reality Rand, like myself, had no interest in attempting to live through a complete economic collapse.
Support Romney/Ryan, postpone full-blown American socialism for another four years, and continue to advocate and educate and campaign for liberty. I'm betting that four years hence, this strategy will get Objectivists further than the one that necessarily must pass through collapse and civil unrest. That sort of thing is much more enjoyable to read about in you comfortably heated and lighted parlor than to actually experience - cold dark and hungry.
"To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think."
Posted by: johngalt at August 15, 2012 6:06 PMTo the extent that Ryan has, or does, attempt to constrain others to his religious beliefs via the law the term theocrat is applicable. I would dispute the adjectives "very dangerous."
Posted by: johngalt at August 16, 2012 3:29 PMAugust 13, 2012
The Clerisy
In her fascinating book, Bourgeois Dignity, Deirdre McCloskey picks up the delightful term "Clerisy" from my man Coleridge.
Yet in the late nineteenth century the artists and the intellectuals--the "clerisy," as Samuel Taylor Coleridge and I call it--turned against liberal innovation. The treason of the clerisy led in the twentieth century to the pathologies of nationalism and socialism and national socialism, and in the twenty-first century to the pieties of radical environmentalism, and to the dismal pessimism of the union left and the traditional right.
In Britain, they're called the chattering class, but I never felt we had a good word for these folks in America. But I like "The Clerisy" very much.
Amy Walter of ABC submits a successful application to membership today. She tells what voters want (and don't) and why they voted as they did in the last few elections. How very handy. The Yahoo teaser caught my eye:
More government? Less? An ideological battle that voters don't want
In picking Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney assured an ideological campaign where a debate over the role of government will be front and center.
Icky. Voters don't want that. If you click through, Walter will explain that crazies like us want it
In picking Rep. Paul Ryan, whose eponymous budget plan has become synonymous with political polarization, Mitt Romney assured an ideological campaign where a debate over the role of government will be front and center. It is a debate the Obama campaign and partisans on both sides are also eager to have. But it's not a debate that swing voters want.
They aren't as interested in choosing whether government should be more active or less. They are more interested in simply having it work.
Who's gonna buy my condoms? Huh? Which candidate gives you Cancer? Who has better hair? (you gotta like the GOP this year on that important metric.)
I loathe her hubris. She goes on to explain the last several elections. But I must concede that she has a point. If only there existed some enterprise that could inform and educate people on important issues. Perhaps it would even be popular enough to fund with advertising. Hmm....
Haven't read clerist Walter's piece yet but I suspect she's alluding to this poll showing that, while more than three quarters of those polled believe the cost of government entitlement programs will cause major economic problems for the country, neither raising taxes or cutting those entitlements could garner majority support.
To summarize: "Voters" may not want the ideological battle but reality has delivered it to them. Time for "voters" to pull their collective heads out of the sand and do something at which they're neither accustomed or accomplished - think.
Posted by: johngalt at August 13, 2012 12:02 PMHer trite close is the most comment-worthy thing she said:
"In other words, voters are looking less at ideology and more at competency. And that's not something that either side has been able to show that can deliver."
These "voters" she talks about are specifically the swing voters. Those with no guiding principle or philosophy. No surprise then that the only metric available to them is "it works." If it is given a chance - enough of a chance that it works - then it is up to all of us to explain to the swing voters why. Rest assured that the ideology of government will spend its dying breath trying to deny it was a predictable result from a competing ideology of success and prosperity.
Posted by: johngalt at August 13, 2012 3:33 PMQuote of the Day
Goin' meta today. I don't know whether I prefer the interior quote or the wrapper:
The boldness of Romney’s choice surprised some, including the mysterious blogger Allahpundit at the popular conservative Hot Air site, who invoked a science fiction analogy: "It's like watching C-3PO lead the raid on the Death Star." (This comparison of Romney to C-3PO, the comically effete robot of the Star Wars film series, might dismay Democrats who have spent the past several weeks trying to convince voters that Romney is actually Darth Vader.) -- Robert Stacy McCain
Hat-tip: Insty
August 12, 2012
Veepsteakin'
A good friend of the blog (from whom I learned about the Ryan pick) emails:
Does anybody still think Romney is cautious?By the way, the New Yorker already is concerned with his lack of private sector experience. I don't drink coffee, but I went and made a pot just so I could spit it at the computer screen.
Hahahahahahahaha!
Super Libertario Delenda Est Man (do I get a cape?) has his work cut out. My Libertarian musician buddy posted this yesterday:
My heart weeps. I suggested that when he produces such an enumeration of VP Joe Biden's great votes for liberty, we'll chat.
I am saddened but undeterred -- he admitted he will likely vote for Gov. Romney. Perhaps my niche is relevant.
That list is illustration why it would be difficult for me to personally serve in a legislative body - compromise. Some members are loathe to compromise, e.g. Ron Paul. How much of his legislation has passed? How much influence does he possess?
More importantly, as a member of the executive branch Ryan will no longer have to vote with the caucus against his principles. His principles will help guide presidential policy. Ask you friend to show you the video or the op-eds where Ryan endorses any of those votes on principle. THEN you can talk.
Posted by: johngalt at August 12, 2012 10:55 AMAugust 9, 2012
So, we lied -- Romney gives you Cancer!`
Politico gets the Obama campaign to admit that yeah, that guy we said we didn't know about was in a couple of our ads and yes, there is tape of his kinda being on our conference calls, and maybe Stephanie Cutter did tweet about it once or two times at the most.
Jim Treacher summarizes:
"We just lied because we figured nobody would remember, and we'd get away with claiming we had nothing to do with that ad about Romney causing cancer," Psaki didn't add, not having to. "We're really pretty irritated that we even need to explain ourselves to you people."
August 8, 2012
Libertario Delenda Est
Some go their whole lives without realizing their true purpose. But this morning, I now know my calling. "Libertario Delenda Est: the Libertarian Party must be destroyed."
Reason puts Gov. Gary Johnson's new ad up on Facebook. And, what can I say, it is awesome! (Not sarcastic -- it is a very good ad.)
Jump in the pool -- the water's great! Be a Libertarian with me just this election! Establish the popularity of libertarian principles!
But they are not popular as in plurality popular. Yes, 50% favor treating marijuana like alcohol -- but do those 50% vote? Sixty-five do not believe troops in Afghanistan make us safer. Sixty two believe in marriage equality. I'll take his word on the figures, but how do those overlap? When you do a Venn diagram of who believes all of those, you'll see less than fifty (you're starting with 50 -- there isn't one guy who likes weed but favors traditional marriage?)
Uh-oh, we're already in electoral trouble. And we haven't mentioned -- over the snappy acoustic guitar beat -- that we are going to cut aid for poor people and privatize social security and legalize prostitution and heroin and quite possibly even lower the mandated percentage of ethanol in our nation's fuel supply.
How popular are we now? Before a single unfair withering attack ad is put on TV by an opposing Super PAC.
The answer is 9-19%, which polls always cite. I am proud to be in that small but wickedly intelligent minority. But I am not so naive to think that we will prevail in a first-past-the-post election. We need to make friends and build coalitions.
And that, dear readers, is my new raison d'etre. I cannot persuade my lefty Facebook friends -- they lack devotion to reason and critical thinking skills -- but I can perhaps bend the libertarian contingent into a more pragmatic voting pattern.
Libertario Delenda Est!
Well, I am with you brother. I voted for Ed Clark for President in 1980 and missed a chance to vote for RWR twice. I switched registration to Republican 22 years ago. As to how hard it was to vote for the George H.W in '92, perhaps I'll write a post someday.
Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at August 8, 2012 8:52 PMI voted for John Anderson in '80! The shame of my life. You can at least claim principle -- I bought into the Reagan is going to nuke us all nonsense.
I was a child, what can I say.
Posted by: Jk at August 9, 2012 8:09 AMI wish I could find some discussion of this but I recall a report that one or the other (I can't remember which) of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul would siphon more votes from Obama than from Romney. An interesting prospect.
Posted by: johngalt at August 9, 2012 3:25 PMAugust 7, 2012
Keeping in mind...
Keeping in mind it is a felony, bad taste, and in direct contravention of the ThreeSources Style Guide to suggest physical harm to an elected official.
Went to the site. Essentially, the SCOAMF is soliciting "letters to the editor" - I assume to the Dead Tree Media - from small business owners in support of his presidency.
Basically, blatant astroturfing, right?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 7, 2012 4:21 PMJuly 31, 2012
Our Position Hasn't Changed...
I like this:
Hat-tip: Insty
Waitaminnit- Did he just say, "And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided?" Did he really, truly also say, "The fact is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital." This isn't "right-wing spin taking him out of context" right?
This is important to get right because Saeb Erekat, a Mahmoud Abbas aide, made it quite clear that when Mitt Romney said this on Sunday it was "absolutely unacceptable."
Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2012 7:45 PMThat Mitt Romney is such a flip flopper -- and unwavering ideologue! And bully! And Wimp!
Posted by: jk at July 31, 2012 8:09 PMWhy Can't Mitt Talk Like This? (Bumped)
I don't think any ThreeSourcers are going to complain about this. I did a screen grab so you could experience as I did:
UPDATE: AP/Yahoo -- more in sadness than anger -- frets over the Governor's gaffes:
GDANSK, Poland (AP) -- It wasn't supposed to be this way.Mitt Romney outraged Palestinians on Monday, stirring fresh controversy on his visit to Israel just days after insulting the British on what was intended as a feel-good visit to the Olympics in London.
Brother jg is more concerned about disconcerting-gate than I. Anything that gets the Telegraph readers' panties in a bunch is okay by me. But if a Mulligan is offered, perhaps "fine" would suffice.
But to fail to see that the free, pluralist, racially tolerant state of Israel enjoys economic advantage over its kleptocratic, misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted, religious loony neighbors is such willful sophistry that only an academic could profess to believe it.
UPDATE II: Jim Geraghty compares it to Reagan's tough words for the Soviets and suggests "If a U.S. Leader Isn't Offending Palestinian Leaders, He's Probably Doing Something Wrong" [subscribe]
Regarding the Palestinians, when you teach your kids to become suicide bombers, and glorify that as one of the best things your children can aspire to, you're not going to find a lot of innovation, or education, or long-term planning. When Hezbollah and Hamas talk about their desire for a booming economy, they don't mean the term the way we do.
UPDATE III: Let it be recorded that MSM 100-day war on Romney started on foreign soil
The only people he pissed off are people who can't vote for him. I think he should have shut up and smiled in Britain, but who will even remember this in November?
Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at July 31, 2012 1:43 PMRomney's biggest deficit to Obama is the dreaded "likeability" factor. Just try to be friendly and upbeat fer cryin' out loud.
Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2012 2:07 PMI dunno. Let me lay out my concerns as a sort of syllogism:
1) All "undecideds" are complete morons devoid of any reason.
2) Undecideds will decide the election.
3) Yahoo/AP Headlines represent a conventional media view that likely reaches undecideds,
4) Yahoo/AP Headlines have had a Romney "foreign policy blunder" lead them all week. Olympics, pissed off Palestinians and perturbed Poles today (kiss my what?)
5) Undecideds decide that Governor Romney is incapable of foreign policy. He seems to make a big gaffe every day.
6) Second Obama Term
I disagree with 1). If your premise is true, however, the end of America is unavoidable and we should all just go to the beach.
Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2012 2:34 PMBring sunscreen.
Posted by: jk at July 31, 2012 5:10 PMBest of the "Didn't Build That" ads
Hat-tip: Terri
Heh. No, Mister President, YOU didn't build that, and your big-ass government doesn't do anything either without taxpayers "somewhere along the line" making it happen.
Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2012 2:12 PMJuly 19, 2012
Two Guys that Did Build That
The best answer to the President's "You didn't build that" which I have encountered. And it's not even silly.
John Kass describes his Dad and his uncle, getting up every day, driving the old white Chrysler out of the driveway before dawn to open their grocery store.
There was no federal bailout money for us. No Republican corporate welfare. No Democratic handouts. No bipartisan lobbyists working the angles. No Tony Rezkos. No offshore accounts. No Obama bucks.Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. They sacrificed, paid their bills, counted pennies to pay rent and purchase health care and food and not much else.
But what about those government helpers, John? Your Dad didn't pave the streets did he? What about government?
One of my earliest memories as a boy at the store was that of the government men coming from City Hall. One was tall and beefy. The other was wiry. They wanted steaks.We didn't eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn't sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.
"Thanks, Greek," they'd say.
That was government.
The link requires (free) registration to the Chicago Trib -- no doubt David Axelrod has my IP address now. But it's worth it to read the whole thing and see a brief clip of Kass feeling it.
Powerful -- Hat-tip: Robert Tracinski (RCP email)
Y'know, I'm just going to keep excerpting more, everytime I read it.
And for their troubles they were muscled by the politicos, by the city inspectors and the chiselers and the weasels, all those smiling extortionists who held the government hammer over all of our heads.
And the end:
And [President Obama] offers an American dream much different from my father's. Open your eyes and you can see it too. He stands there at the front of the mob, in his shirt sleeves, swinging that government hammer, exhorting the crowd to use its votes and take what it wants.Posted by: jk at July 19, 2012 8:33 PM
July 12, 2012
Mom Jeans-Gate
We can't be serious ALL the time can we? The President channels Ann Romney:
Courtesy of Lee Stranahan. Warning: if you click through, you see the Romney's picture is cropped and she actually has shorts, Yet as Stranahan observes: "Still. Dude."
July 10, 2012
If Only
Obama Pledges To Repeal Health Care Law If ReelectedWASHINGTON--Calling it a "poorly conceived and irresponsible piece of legislation, pure and simple," President Obama made a public pledge to voters Tuesday that, if reelected, he would fight to repeal the recently upheld Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
July 6, 2012
Accomplishments
David Boaz looks beyond the bad jobs numbers to give the President some solid accomplishments: most medical marijuana raids, most fundraisers, most drone strikes -- but I don't want to spoil them all.
JOBS Numbers are out
Concerning the abysmal 80,000 jobs figure from the BLS -- did you know Romney once put his dog on the roof?
He also cut a kid's hair when he was 15, don't forget. Look, a squirrel!
Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at July 6, 2012 1:15 PMDoes anyone remember the President's 2009 claim that passing the Stimulus bill would prevent the unemployment rate from surpassing 8 percent? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
Congress gave the President his stimulus, then this happened.
Posted by: johngalt at July 6, 2012 1:34 PMJune 29, 2012
Purdy Good RNC Ad
Hat-tip: Terri
June 27, 2012
A Little Appreciation, Please!
Sen. Claire McCaskill (TV - MO), throws President Obama under the Bus!
June 20, 2012
Getting to like this guy...
I'm wondering if Brother JG or anyone else here acquainted with equestrian sports might enlighten me on Mitt's wife Ann and the issue of theraputic riding...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 20, 2012 3:30 PMDagny will have plenty to say on the subject but I'll start by saying yes, riding a horse is very therapeutic, both physically and mentally. And dressage is even more physically and mentally challenging FOR THE RIDER than pleasure riding, and much more so than your basic nose-to-tail trail horse dude ride with which Mister "I'm on my high-horse" O'Donnell is likely familiar.
Hey Larry, turn around so I can see what the FRONT of a horse looks like.
As for the cost, riders buy the horse they can afford but ALL horses are ridden by equestrian ATHELETES.
Hey Larry, show us how easy it is to ride ol' Widermaker here!
Posted by: johngalt at June 20, 2012 3:58 PMJune 15, 2012
Headline of the Day
3. Mitt Romney: Rigid Flip-Flopping Ideologue -- Robert Tracinski [subscribe]
"Professor Reynolds would caution against cockiness"
A very good friend of this blog sends a link to Dr. Krauthammer today:
What remains is a solid, stolid, gaffe-prone challenger for whom conservatism is a second language versus an incumbent with a record he cannot run on and signature policies -- Obamacare, the stimulus, cap-and-trade -- he hardly dare mention.
"Excited yet?" Asks our friend.
I'll accept the Romney critique, though I have been very pleased with the campaign so far. But the raps against the President and the excitement on the right are premature.
I will be cautious until the concession. The President has a winner today in stealing Sen. Rubio's DREAM-ACT-LITE. The Tancredo wing will overreact and we'll be the Old Straight White Boys club again.
I will confess that when I read the title, "Professor Reynolds would caution against cockiness," my reaction was:
"So would Winston Wolf."
Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 15, 2012 3:21 PMThe allusion ninja strikes again! Glad I nave Bing®
Posted by: jk at June 15, 2012 3:31 PMWhen You've Lost Dana Milbank...
WOAH! Dana Milbank, WaPo: Skip the falsehoods, Mr. President, and give us a plan
I had high hopes for President Obama's speech on the economy. But instead of going to Ohio on Thursday with a compelling plan for the future, the president gave Americans a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy.The falsehood is that he has been serious about cutting government spending. The fallacy is that this election will be some sort of referendum that will break the logjam in Washington.
Milbank does not go on to endorse Gov. Romney or the Ryan Plan or 9-9-9 or anything. Republicans get some harsh words. Yet, none worse than these:
Of more concern is Obama's nonsensical claim that he has a deficit plan that would strengthen Medicare for the long haul. He has called for doubling Medicare spending over the next 10 years, to nearly $1 trillion in 2022. His cuts in the rate of growth amount to just a few percentage points. As The Post's Lori Montgomery has reported, the president's 2013 budget marked "the second year in a row Obama has ignored calls to restructure Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs."Nothing in Obama's speech came close to a proposal to fix the debt problem; he dealt with that only at the end of the speech -- largely by complaining about Republicans' refusal to consider higher taxes on the wealthy.
Ow! That's gotta sting!
Hat-tip: Insty, in a collection of bad reviews.
June 14, 2012
When You've Lost Jonathan Alter
Tough room over there at MSNBC
Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers
UPDATE:
Whoa, wait a minute. Did he just call President Obama a confusing blowhard?
Posted by: johngalt at June 15, 2012 12:43 AM"Sharper, cogent message:" I'm incompetent, you're incompetent, but there are all these competent people out there making obscene amounts of money that we can just confiscate and share with each other if you'll just vote for me.
Posted by: johngalt at June 15, 2012 12:46 AMJune 12, 2012
Jon!
Ahh Happy Days...
Recycling a half cubic yard of political mailers yesterday, I saw one from Jon Huntsman and was curious to see what that was about. Glad I was curious as it contained a $55 check.
The Governor says "Hi" to ThreeSources (well, mostly hb and me...)
May 30, 2012
A Damned Good Point
I was licking my chops for a "libertario delenda est" post when I saw Reason's "Why Rand Paul Shouldn't Be Romney's Running Mate."
Surely I was in store for some libertoid belly-aching, unpragmatic nonsense, and perfect as enemy of the good. And Jesse Walker fails to disappoint. Yet, it is difficult to argue with one point:
The problem is the idea that it would be good to take the guy out of his Senate seat, where he's well-positioned to battle actual bad legislation, and stick him in a job where he'll be expected to suppress his disagreements with his boss and serve as a public face of the Romney administration.
The loss of him in the US Senate and the general lack of independence he would have in Joe Biden's job do not seem fitting. And I hereby retract my endorsement.
May 9, 2012
Gov. Romney in Ft. Lupton
I need to read more -- I had no idea the Governor was so close. Brother JG tweets a picture:
"The picturesque setting of Romney's Ft. Lupton, CO visit today. Real energy, real jobs, green fields. #3Src #Mitt2012 http://t.co/bJSdTw5W"
Note to East Coast readers: that is not a typo, Colorado residents actually do consider that a green field.
Posted by: jk at May 9, 2012 3:03 PMThere is more green in the picture in the post above this one, and in the pic at this Denver Post coverage of the event.
Posted by: johngalt at May 9, 2012 3:25 PMOr for a more sweeping field of green, this Twitter pic by an ABC News pool reporter.
Posted by: johngalt at May 9, 2012 3:27 PMBut yes, absolutely, Colorado has a semi-arid climate. That means, "dry as crap."
Posted by: johngalt at May 9, 2012 3:29 PMApril 30, 2012
Last Man Standing
W. James Antle's The Last Man Standing: Rep Ron Paul's curiouser and ever more interesting plan.
But even when they were disappointed by their popular vote totals, Paul supporters stayed behind and tried to win delegates at the low-turnout state and congressional district conventions. This cost-effective insurgent strategy seemed stalled, but now appears to be finally paying some dividends.
Many other Republicans are demoralized. The near-certain nominee doesn't excite them. There are fewer high-profile Tea Party primaries than two years ago. The other conservative presidential candidates have been beaten.
Ron Paul's supporters remain. They are still trying to win delegates and reshape the Republican Party.
I share Brother BR's concern that some convention mischief might hurt the party's chances in November. Yet, long term, the GOP must shift to embrace some of these ideas or cease to be worthy of Tea Party support. Not today. Not this year. But I am sticking by my Paul-as-Goldwater and looking for Reagan.
April 26, 2012
The Fallon Contretemps
Nobody seriously believes that there will be a cost to Jimmy Fallon or President Obama for campaign finance transgressions. It's a great example of absurdity of regulation, but far more serious examples are going unpunished.
I almost embedded a clip yesterday -- have you seen it ? Both the American Spectator and Ann Althouse provide the clip and effective criticism.
I agree it is bad but the audience reaction makes me fear for the republic. No, that's not a representative sample of Americans, and it remains possible that many of those people will not get up early enough to vote in November. But ThreeSources has spoiled me a bit.
Anyhow, I have a solution. And some awesome free advice for the Romney Campaign. Demand equal time (It will be granted) and have Governor Romney come on to "slow jam the news." Insist that it is only right. It would be a very funny sketch. I know the NR folks hate the entertainment-political nexus -- as do I but you cannot wish it away. White bread, Mormon, Mitt Romney "slow jamming the news" would be one for the ages.
UPDATE: Danielle Pletka engages in a little wishcasting in "The manifest uncoolness of Barack Obama."
Really, who wants a President Cool? I’d settle for a President Grown-up.
I agree with every word. But the cheers in Fallon's audience (and many of them will indeed vote) tell me to be concerned.
The bigger problem was the enormous cheer when he said that he was going to freeze student loan interest rates and Fallon nodded approvingly.
On the other hand, Obama was booed at Fenway Park last week.
Posted by: hb at April 26, 2012 12:19 PMTyler Cowen, call your office, eh?
Well, the President will not likely lose either New York or Massachusetts, but it is a disturbing reminder of how little people know or care.
Posted by: jk at April 26, 2012 1:52 PMApril 18, 2012
Right Wing Twitterverse: too much fun.
As the Democrats prepared for quadrennial Seamus-gate where we whack the Romneys for allowing their dog to ride on the roof in a carrier, somebody found the paragraph in "Dreams from My Father where a young Barack tastes the delicacies of tiger and dog meat.
Hilarity has ensured much of the day "Better the Roof of Mitt's car than the roof of Barack's mouth!" But this one (Hat-tip: Insty) is a keeper:
UPDATE: Really? Got this on WaPo:
UPDATE II: James Taranto provides the whole story, relays a few good tweets, and grabs "Quote of the Day" for:
It doesn't seem to have occurred to [Josh] Marshall that as dogs are haram, this should put to rest the Muslim rumors.
UPDATE III: IMAO I can’t believe Romney strapped his dog to the roof of his car. That ruins the flavor.
Now I'm wondering who will get the coveted Michael Vick endorsement.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 18, 2012 3:34 PMAnd Taranto stole Brother Keith's joke!
Posted by: jk at April 19, 2012 10:21 AMWhat is freely shared cannot be stolen - and I have no objection to it getting some free mileage.
On the other hand - I'm wondering if there's any such thing as Waygu Weimaraner. That's like two references for the price of one, and if that one starts getting around, I expects royalties.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 19, 2012 12:49 PMApril 16, 2012
Colorado & Virginia, Baby!
Walter Russell Mead has an interesting interactive electoral map. Two tabs show President Obama winning and Governor Romney winning. The difference is flipping Colorado & Virginia.
I have not played that game yet this year, but I am not painting Colorado red in spite of its name. I wonder about Iowa, New Hampshire and possibly Wisconsin. But my state is going to be tough.
You can call me negative (yeah), or point out that I spend too much time with Boulderites (yeah). But there is another item which suppresses my natural sunny optimism. Colorado can be bought. I saw that in the 2010 Senate race. Compared to big markets around the country, the media markets are cheap and can easily be flooded by demagogic commercials from campaigns and 527s. I'm not necessarily pessimistic on the entire race but Colorado will be almost impossible.
I don't want to admit it but I fear you are right. Particularly if the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney.
Posted by: johngalt at April 16, 2012 12:14 PMNo kidding. Dude's going to let a chick pick his VP nominee!
Posted by: jk at April 16, 2012 12:30 PMI agree with yesterday's FoxNewsSunday panel that there's no rush to name a running mate. This seems like a good way to satiate the salivating press without tipping his hand.
But what's with all those grammatical errors in the transcript of Mitt's quotes? "an instead of a?" "an instead of and?"
Posted by: johngalt at April 16, 2012 12:38 PMBack to that map again: Romney could afford to lose Colorado if in turn he could flip Pennsylvania. AlexC? Come in, AlexC!
Posted by: johngalt at April 16, 2012 3:07 PMThe map is sobering. WaPo's nine swing states sound about right, and the WRM maps both assume NC, Florida, and Ohio. Only Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire seem in play and blue.
Posted by: jk at April 16, 2012 3:44 PMApril 12, 2012
Doing The Jobs Americans Won't Do...
I want to give a shout out to Internet-censorship lobbyist and Democratic Apparatchik Hilary Rosen for doing the impossible: uniting the Republicans behind Governor Mitt Romney.
Attack his lovely wife, mother of five, MS patient and Cancer survivor -- man why didn't I think of that?!?!
If anybody doubts this works to Team Red's advantage: Tom Raum of AP is already showing the white flag:
The sides skirmished over assigning blame for rising female job losses.The latest provocation: an assertion by Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen that Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life."
The candidate's wife fired back on Twitter that she chose to stay home and raise five boys and that, "believe me, it was hard work." She told Fox News on Thursday that women should respect each other's choices.
A cease-fire, anyone?
RETREAT! RETREAT!!! RUNAWAY!!! Chris Cillizza, WaPo:
Mitt Romney was losing the so-called "war on women." Badly. Until Democratic operative Hilary Rosen appeared on CNN Wednesday night and seemingly derided his wife's decision to stay at home and raise the couple's five boys.
What the Clinton campaign referred to as the coveted "soccer mom" vote, team Obama derisively calls "slacker moms."
Don't forget that the sanctimonious career women in this administration are the same faction the President sided with in the Catholic contraception controversy. It may not be the leftists who are Obama's undoing, but the radical feminists.
Point of order here, Mr. Moderator:
If it's appropriate to say that devoting at least two decades to raising five boys is not hard work, with the attendant hardship and struggle that goes with the job, but is actually a life of leisurely slackerdom... then how is is "punishment" to have to become a mother and bring a child into the world?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/apr/08040105
I'd REALLY like to have that explained to me.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 12, 2012 5:29 PMLife's mysteries abound, Brother Keith. I'd think that comment would be distasteful across the spectrum.
My lovely bride has another addition to this odd tale (though after my third fund-raising email, I'm willing to admit the dear GOP might overstep...)
Really, Ms. Rosen's complaint is that Ms. Romney made good choices. Had the Governor's wife had no job, a drug habit, and two children with no dad -- then she'd be swell! A heroic figure like the mythical Las Vegas waitress! But choosing a good man (while he is not any of our's dream candidate, I think we would all confer good guy status) getting married and creating a successful home makes her an outlier.
Strange world.
Veepwatch!
Let the games begin!
Sabato's "Crystal Ball" emails are awesome, and free! [subscribe]
Please don't use the word rich!
Posted by: johngalt at April 12, 2012 3:17 PMI'm hurt that my man Allen West didn't even make the "total long shots" list!
I could support any of the 1st tier prospects but I really hope Mitt doesn't choose Rob "Dan Quayle" Portman. Of the 2nd tier suggestions only Pawlenty or possibly McDonnell makes sense to me. The others are either baggage-laden, non-photogenic or too charismatic for the "Robin" slot.
I was pleased that most of the slate is composed of individual members of the only non-protected oppressed minority class: white males.
Posted by: johngalt at April 12, 2012 3:35 PMApril 10, 2012
Tweet of the Day
Waterloo
It isn't quite a perfect metaphor - General Lee was defeated at Gettysburg but did not surrender there - but the historic civil war cemetery there is apropos for hosting the end of Rick Santorum's GOP presidential nomination bid.
"We were very concerned about our roles as being the very best parents has we can be to our children," Santorum said. "We made a decision over the weekend while this presidential race is over to for me and will suspend our campaign effective today -- we are not done fighting."Well, okay, technically Santorum hasn't surrendered either. But really, he's blaming the end of his candidacy on the need to be good parents? After all this time? C'mon Rick, say it: "We got our butts whupped."
Larry Flynt's 'Obama 2012' campaign earmarks may not be spent after all. And br'er JK's plea has been answered.
And when Gingrich realizes that he's polling below Ron Paul... naw, even then, he won't quit.
You know who this helps, right?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 10, 2012 3:52 PMUmm, he of JK's plea?
Still, he ain't got a snowball's chance at the nomination.
Posted by: johngalt at April 10, 2012 4:53 PMSorry, JG - I'm guilty of being a little esoteric on that one. It's a reference to broadcaster Hugh Hewitt, who in 2008 repeated the phrase "you know who this helps?" or "you know who this benefits?" on the air so frequently - followed by the answer "Mitt Romney" - that it became a meme.
I posted a link to the Santorum presser on Facebook, with the lead-in "And then there were two." I've been waiting with bated breath for someone to correct me and tell me that there are three left. But, as we learned from Highlander, there can only be one.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 10, 2012 7:26 PMI'm hurt. I corrected you to 1.375.
Posted by: jk at April 10, 2012 7:30 PMHAH! So that's what you meant. I was trying to figure out if that was Celsius, or in Canadian dollars, or something. I can be a little slow on the uptake. I bow to your superior esoterica...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 11, 2012 12:17 PMApril 5, 2012
Anti-Obama Union Boss!
It was only a matter of time...
While the United Mine Workers of America likely won’t actively oppose President Obama’s reelection bid, Roberts said the new EPA regulation could prevent the union from endorsing the president.“That’s something that we have not done yet and may not do because of this very reason. Our people’s jobs are on the line,” Roberts said, adding that Obama has “done a lot of great things for the country.”
Roberts's [sic] comments underscore the vehement opposition to the new EPA regulations in coal states whose economies rely heavily on the fossil fuel.
I also really enjoyed this quote:
Roberts, in Tuesday’s interview with host Hoppy Kercheval, took aim at the Sierra Club, arguing the environmental group’s campaign to shut down coal plants is killing jobs.“This is a broader problem for me than it is for the Sierra Club or the EPA,” Roberts said. “And I’m convinced, Hoppy, that if you give the Sierra Club enough money, they could shut your job down. I don’t know how they’d do it, but they’d figure out a way.”
Yet they will line up to reelect him. The rank and file might wander behind the closed curtain (Taranto Metaphor Alert!) but the leadership will do all they can to give him another term.
Posted by: jk at April 5, 2012 4:38 PMApril 4, 2012
Put a Fork in it
May I now call the primary contest over? Governor Romney swept the three primaries last night (and Erie Mayor Joe Wilson was re-elected by 41 votes).
Beyond the commanding delegate lead, the reaction of talking heads on FOX News speaks to a race that is over. The people with the most to gain from a continued race -- the FOX News team, panel and paid pundits -- were all on and not one could suggest a plausible excuse for Senator Santorum to stay in. And nobody mentioned Mr. Gingrich's name: he was Speaker Voldemort last night.
I have reconciled to Governor Moisturizer. He gave a good speech and appeared Presidential taking the fight to President Obama while SenSweatervest sniped about evil establishment GOPers like Sens. Marco Rubio (HOSS - FL) and Ron Johnson (HOSS - WI). I can't call myself excited, but you go into battle with the candidates you have. I hope he selects a Tea-Party-friendly VP, but I am ready for prepare for November.
Works for me, brother. My Thomas Sowell post arguing against nominating Romney almost made me forget my Robert Tracinski post arguing in favor of it.
And last night's speech, with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson and Representative Paul Ryan in the wings (and obviously in his ear) sounded much more like the unapologetic fiscal conservative that TEA Partiers have been pining for than any prior Romney effort. "We are for a prosperity that is grown and shared rather than restrained and divided." It is the actualization of what Robert Tracinski described:
"I can live with Romney as the Republican candidate. While he won't be a staunchly reliable defender of freedom, he will at least respond pragmatically to outside political pressure, giving pro-liberty grass roots activists a chance to keep the ideological momentum in our favor."
Messrs. Johnson and Ryan are a good influence on the "well-oiled weathervane" that is candidate Romney.
Another excellent influence would be, running mate Allen West. Game on!
Posted by: johngalt at April 4, 2012 2:29 PMHasty, hasty! A Santorum loss in Pennsylvania, I am assured, will destroy the Senator's future prospects. He lost badly in his last Senate race, and a Romneythumping will cement his loser cred.
Go Rick, Go! Ignore those pointy-headed establishment bastards saying that you can't win! Delegate math? Schmelligut-math, I say.
Posted by: jk at April 5, 2012 10:42 AMApril 3, 2012
Tweet of the Day II
Primary night, I get another. It hurts me still. But I can at least laugh about it...
March 29, 2012
Good News on the GOP Primaries
"Nobody ever stops running for President, they just run out of money" -- N. Old AdageLooks like the Speaker is about to leave the stage. It has been fun, but I think he stopped adding to the dialog some time ago and I will be pleased to see one fewer.
Now, if we can just get rid of Senator Sweatervest, then Governor Romney and Rep. Paul can slug it out, mano à mano...
This explains why Newt has taken to charging 50 bucks for a photo with him.
I agree it is time for Newt to go. Even if he is the best of the candidates, which is and has been debated, he's not rallying the electorate. In the end, that is what matters most.
Posted by: johngalt at March 30, 2012 2:06 PMMarch 25, 2012
Tweet of the Day
March 23, 2012
May have surpassed Gov Huckabee
So, the loser will not support the winner. "We might as well stay with Obama."
Disgusting and tiresome, Senator. Enjoy President Obama's three SCOTUS picks!
Amen. Not only is this a major fail, but you have to be completely naive to not expect new focii in the campaign once you switch from primary to main election.
Posted by: Terri at March 23, 2012 2:34 PMMarch 21, 2012
Quote of the Day
Romney spox Andrea Saul: Other candidates complaining about Romney's spending is like a losing bball team complaining about tall opponents. -- @GuyPBenson
Oooh, not the best analogy for a guy who aspires to a game of political one-on-one with President Obama (D-Unionbux).
Posted by: johngalt at March 21, 2012 12:28 PMPerhaps, but I am awfully tired of the continuous whine from Gingrich and Santorum: "we were outspent X:1 in <insert state name here>."
Senator Santorum did not get a full slate of delegates in Illinois or Ohio, Speaker G did not get on the ballot in his home state (umm, that's Virginia, Georgia is a faded memory of ex-wives and Peaches...) For this one-on-one, organization and money matter.
I'm all for propelling your candidacy through ideas and clear positions. But you have to convince me that you could assemble a good general campaign.
March 15, 2012
Boo Freakin' Hoo.
Wow. I really respected this guy a year ago! (The WSJ's "Professor Cornpone" editorial precipitated the decline.)
But Speaker Gingrich's petulant whines and destructive lashings-out are truly too much to bear. First it was the brave Speakinator against the WallStreetMachine™; now the system is broke because it does not recognize his total awesomeness:
PALATINE, Ill. -- With the future of his presidential ambitions uncertain in the wake of losses in two big southern states on Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich delivered a gloomy address in this Chicago suburb Wednesday night in which he at once reaffirmed his plans to stay in the presidential race and bemoaned a country and Republican Party that he described as unreceptive to "big ideas" such as the ones on which he.s hinged his White House bid.
Quick! Somebody call a Waaaaahmbulance!
However, the Speaker is going at as he came in -- two adverbs at a time!
At Illinois GOP dinner, a gloomy Gingrich bemoans 'methodically and deliberately stupid' political system
UPDATE: I see the linked "Cornpone" post is dated 1/31/2011. Make that "Wow. I really respected this guy
UPDATE II: Also: "his total and existential awesomeness." The sell-by date on that joke is coming fast and I don't want to be caught with a whole box.
March 14, 2012
Really, Really Scary Thought of the Day
No, I am not making a 2016 category yet, but -- as Republicans always nominate last quadrennial's second-place finisher...
Which brings up the real scary possibility for those of us who find Santorum frighteningly anti-libertarian: He does look positioned to run second, putting him in line for 2016 or 2020. Any rational person would say, come on -- second-place Rick Santorum stronger the next time around than Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley, Rand Paul, Jeff Flake, Bob McDonnell, Bobby Jindal, etc.? But there's that pesky rule -- Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, and now Romney all got the nomination after running second previously. So defenders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should probably start a project now to move Republicans off that rule. -- David Boaz
Which is worse, Santorum or Huckabee?
Posted by: johngalt at March 14, 2012 3:04 PMI have heard Senator Santorum deliver several convincing speeches on liberty and limited government. I fear they both suffer from the same disease (government dogooderism) but I definitely prefer Senator Sweatervest.
Posted by: jk at March 14, 2012 5:10 PMWell then, just call me Brother Sunshine!
Posted by: johngalt at March 14, 2012 5:57 PMMITT!
Jim Geraghty pens the winning tagline for the Governor of the Commonwealth:
James Taranto offers something of a sales pitch for the Republican front-runner: "I can understand why some people would be scared of President Santorum, and I'm a little scared of President Gingrich, but c'mon, Romney?"Mitt Romney: He doesn't scare anybody.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:27 AM | Comments (0)
March 13, 2012
My Sentiments Exactly.
An unusual endorsement from a hero of mine. Reading Nassim Taleb's books is enjoyable both for the content and for the peek into his preternatural intelligence.
Taleb is not into politics but sees -- as I do -- that there is only one guy and only one guy talking about repair, as everyone else offers "Novocain."
Posted by John Kranz at 7:50 PM | Comments (0)
March 7, 2012
Ron!
Rep Paul did indeed speak last night, in North Dakota:
Posted by John Kranz at 2:35 PM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:"The dollar of 1913 is now worth one penny." I guess he's basing this on the price of gold, which doesn't account for any increase in demand (or supply fluctuation) in the intervening century.
What say we just, ala daylight saving time, re-state all dollar denominated balances, wages and prices to one-hundredth of their value the prior day? Voila! 4 cent per gallon gasoline!
Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2012 3:09 PMBut johngalt thinks:Loved hearing the Pauliacs cheer wildly [18:20] for, "If our life and our liberties come from our creator we ought to have the natural right to keep the fruits of all our labors also." Wonder how many of them were #Occupiers.
Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2012 3:22 PM
MITT!
We interrupt our 24x7 contraception and monetary policy debates for an election bulletin: The GOP primary contest is over. Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) mails my thoughts exactly in a short blog post
Given the choice between Romney and nothing, to turn the old adage upside-down, I'd take nothing. But in politics "nothing" isn't one of the choices.
Correction: You can vote for nothing, but then worse-than-nothing wins by default.
So keep that in mind when I call on Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to surrender gracefully tonight, and to pledge their delegates to... this isn't easy for me to say... to pledge their delegates to Romney.
Green wrote that yesterday and I didn't see any results last night to change my mind. In fact, watching Gov. Romney, Sen. Santorum, and Speaker Gingrich speak (did Ron Paul not? I missed it), I am completely convinced.I'll concede that the fight to now has been good for Candidate Romney, I was concerned but I was wrong. He improved his positions and his debate performances and his campaign style because of the competition. But that ended about 1:30 AM Eastern this morning.
Speaker Gingrich talks up his "positive campaign" as he blasts Romney as "Wall Street" and tells his small government supporters that he is going to set gas prices.
I feel for Senator Santorum. His opponents in media have distracted him from a fairly cogent economic freedom message to social issues. Entrapment may not be fair, but it put John DeLorean away (I can hold a grudge), and it exposed Santorum for what he is.
Both have served their purpose and added to the debate -- as did Rep. Bachmann, Gov. Perry, and The Herman Cain. It is time for them to follow the others offstage.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:00 AM | Comments (6)But johngalt thinks:Whoa, big fella! The result you seek is the most likely one but with SuperPAC millions I don't see anyone surrendering soon. I agree that the sometimes painful campaign has been constructive. Why the rush to end it now? Best of all, it divides Campaign Obama's attention and resources or, better yet, forces them to sit on their hands this much longer.
I'm also going to defend the Speaker from what I think are unfair charges. Stripping away barriers to production is not "setting" gas prices, and crony investment bankers deserve to be tarred. That Mitt is not one of them will not stop the Democrats from the same tack.
Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2012 11:53 AMBut jk thinks:Is there not a scarcity of SuperPAC millions? Is this the best way to spend them? Again, I concede that the last time we had this identical argument you were right and I was wrong (man, I do hate saying that!)
I suggest that in the past the other candidates were offering ideas, enthusiasm, and ideological challenges. I don't think Santorum and Gingrich have much in the tank.
If the message were "get the government the hell out of the way and watch prices fall," I'm all in. But Gingrich surrogate The Herman Cain calls it "the two-five-oh plan." The President does not set the gas price (yet...) it grates on the free man's ear.
Also gotta say that the Speaker was the unquestioned loser, coming in third or fourth except in Georgia. He's a regional candidate who cannot carry his region, and whose region will solidly back any breathing Republican in the General. Been fun, Mister Speaker, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
Posted by: jk at March 7, 2012 12:07 PM
But johngalt thinks:Well, yes, if our campaigns were centrally planned like the Dems often are. But those SuperPAC billionaires seem to think their guy is more swell than the other billionaire's. I guess I'm just advocating an "accept the things you cannot change" strategy.
Retail politics will always rely on a large measure of populism. I think energy and gas prices are good bludgeons against the incumbent, but Obamacare and other totalitarian mandates are the soft underbelly of the Obama reelection machine. How our candidate and his surrogates choose to sell liberty to the 'Idol generation' is less important than that they do it effectively.
Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2012 3:01 PMBut jk thinks:Maybe. If Governor Romney were to take up the Speaker's energy position which so energized Kim Strassel, it would disprove my premise.
Posted by: jk at March 7, 2012 3:46 PMBut johngalt thinks:Let me cut and paste the reason I now accede to a Romney nomination - by Robert Tracinski in last week's 'Santorum Delenda Est' post:
I can live with Romney as the Republican candidate. While he won't be a staunchly reliable defender of freedom, he will at least respond pragmatically to outside political pressure, giving pro-liberty grass roots activists a chance to keep the ideological momentum in our favor. But in Santorum we would be up against a self-righteous crusader against individualism who looks down on the cantankerously independent spirit summed up in that motto on the Gadsden flag.Romney may be a squish, but at least we will be able to squeeze him too.
Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2012 5:44 PMBut jk thinks:Kumbaya.
Posted by: jk at March 7, 2012 6:03 PM
March 6, 2012
What if?
This clip is about much more than just Ron Paul.
Hat tip: M4GW
And then there's this Whittaker Chambers-esque rebuttal.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM | Comments (1)But jk thinks:I wondered where the Judge went, I have not seen him in some time.
Put me in the Occam's razor group: bad ratings. (I don't have much other truck with in your rebuttal link. The Founding Fathers were horrified at the development of "Factions," not proud developers of the first parties. Rep Paul's spending record is better than Senator Santorum...)
I did get itchy fingers because I have seen several lefty Facebook friends post this -- with approbation. I guess half bashes Republicans, it must be 50% okay. But I was still surprised. My favorite comment was "How did they slip this past the FAUX censors???" Umm, he does this about every night, people.
In the end I have to put the Judge -- entertaining as he can be -- in my "Libertario Delenda Est" camp. I may not be overwhelmed with Governor Romney's liberty bone fides, but the idea that he's "just like Obama" will go a long way to giving us a second Obama term.
Posted by: jk at March 6, 2012 5:26 PM
March 2, 2012
Santorum Delenda Est
It does seem the theme of the week...
I read this from Robert Tracinski via email last week. Today I found it posted in full with excellent comments.* The major issue I see is the specter of Santorum highjacking the TEA Party Movement:
Santorum's views have zero cross-over appeal; there will be no "Santorum Democrats." They have no appeal to independent voters, who will peg him as a self-righteous prig who wants to impose his religious views on them. And it's worse than that. The resurgence of the right that produced the Tea Party movement and the huge Republican victory in 2010 is based in large part on an alliance between two wings of the right: the more religious wing and the more "libertarian" wing. They have been able to work together because of a de facto truce on the "social issues" while we drop everything else to save the country from a government takeover of the economy. I would add that there has been no need for any kind of truce on birth control or gambling, because those issues haven't even come up. But Santorum insists on bringing them up, and in doing so he breaks the Tea Party alliance and splits the right. He puts the libertarian wing of the right on notice that if they vote against Obama's version of big government, Santorum will use their vote to promote his version of big government.Someone needs to stand up and speak on behalf of the Tea Party movement to proclaim that we did not come out and march under the banner "Don't Tread on Me" so that we could be hitched once again under the yoke of the "common good" as determined by politicians in Washington.
* The good comments are the first ones, at the bottom of the thread. The recent ones, as is often the case, seem to have degenerated into various tangents.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:18 PM | Comments (2)But jk thinks:Excellent linked article. Might I be indulged another excerpt?
Note how this concedes Obama's basic premise: that it is the job of the state to decide for us what is in our best interests and to impose it. Obama wants to do what he thinks is optimal for the physical health and economic well-being of young women. Santorum wants to manage our spiritual well-being. Or as conservative blogger Conor Friederdorf puts it, while linking to the statement above, "Rick Santorum wants your sex life to be 'special'," which makes this sound as creepy as it really is.Any ThreeSourcer want a do-over on his/her caucus choice? If Senator Santorum does well on Super Tuesday I might wish to trade in my principled Rep. Paul vote for a more strategic anti-Santorum vote for Gov. Romney. (Hey, stop laughing in the back, Refugee!)
Posted by: jk at March 2, 2012 1:25 PM
But Terri thinks:Yes, I'd like the do-over.
Posted by: Terri at March 3, 2012 9:10 AM
I'd now choose door number 3, the Ron Paul even though we aren't going to win vote just to make a louder statement and get away from these ridiculous social conservative discussions that have nothing to do with why everyone I know chose Santorum.
February 23, 2012
Romney - Paul - Mentum
Romney - Paul 2012 is in the mainstream news today courtesy of, Rick Santorum's top strategist:
"Clearly there’s a tag team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. For all I know, Mitt Romney might be considering Ron Paul as his running mate. Clearly there is now an alliance between those two and you saw that certainly in the debate."The story was also mentioned by Rush Limbaugh in his first hour today:
The partnership is all speculative, but “it’s clear there’s a hands-off policy with Romney and Paul,” Limbaugh said, noting it will be interesting to see how Romney supporters would handle the possibility of a Paul vice presidency.At the same time, Reason Magazine contributor and Ron Paul book author Brian Doherty sez, 'Move along, nothing to see here.'
Alas in some quarters, such as this diary entry by a user of Erick Erickson's RedState.com, there is not much love for Congressman Paul potentially being a sellout.
I hope Libertarians who thought Paul was a honest broker can go to Libertarian party rather than support this fraud Ron Paul! Ron Paul turned out to be the "typical Washington insider that wheel & deals to get himself & his family taken care of ". This guy, just like Obama, fooled all his followers especially the youth! Also, I feel sorry for the Judge Napolitano, Stossel & few other openly libertarians who thought this guy is for real…shame on you Paul especially aligning yourself with a MA liberal!Sigh.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:51 PM | Comments (0)
February 22, 2012
Tweet of the Day
I'll be glued to my seat, but this is still pretty funny:
Posted by John Kranz at 7:43 PM | Comments (4)But jk thinks:I thought Senator Santorum had a bad night. He got caught weaselling a couple times -- I think that might break his momentum.
Posted by: jk at February 22, 2012 10:47 PMBut johngalt thinks:I liked the way Paul took Santorum apart for voting for NCLB and then campaigning for its repeal. He said that is a recurring theme for many Republicans: Campaign as a fiscal conservative and then spend when you get in office. He also did an excellent job deflecting Santorum's critique that he is one-hundred-forty-something on the list of "most conservative" congressmen: "I don't vote for foreign aid" he said, or any other spending bill.
Hey, has anybody heard the rumor that Ron Paul Is Electable?
Posted by: johngalt at February 23, 2012 11:28 AMBut Keith Arnold thinks:As an interesting follow-up, former candidate (and popular name around here) Jon Huntsman made a bold statement:
The debate floor is open.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 23, 2012 11:50 AMBut jk thinks:Maybe I'm still carrying H2O for the Governor, but I think the headline gets a little out front of what he said. I winced at the story, but the actual interview seemed reasonable.
Posted by: jk at February 23, 2012 12:08 PM
February 21, 2012
Two Minute Hate: Sen. Santorum Edition
"Satan has his sights on the United States of America!...Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition." -- Sen Santorum circa 2008Posted by John Kranz at 3:35 PM | Comments (7)But johngalt thinks:You are posting from where, exactly, KA? California? That kind of linkage evaporated there 'round about the Beach Boys. Rural Pennsylvania on the other hand...
A good friend who is no stranger to this blog once told me he considers the religious right more of a threat to liberty than the collectivist left. Today, more still than then, I hold the opposite view. I read the Santorum remarks, much like the bible, as a figurative rather than literal description. In that light his remarks are quite valid.
As for Beezelbub, his precinct is in Cook County Illinois.
Posted by: johngalt at February 21, 2012 6:35 PMBut dagny thinks:Pride and sensuality are virtues and not vices. I might even be able to make a case for vanity if I tried. No wonder Senator Sweatervest keeps dropping in the dagny approval ratings.
Posted by: dagny at February 21, 2012 7:03 PMBut johngalt thinks:Lest anyone suspect I have no love for anything Chicagoan I now link to the Heartland Institute - "The mission of the Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2012 2:52 PMBut johngalt thinks:Dear dagny defends "pride" from Senator Santorum's apparent besmirchment. However, she refers to the fourth definition while Santorum's warning certainly referred to the first.
America's first president surely felt the civic pride that dagny so cheerfully defends, while a good example of faulty pride embodied is the Oval Office's current occupant.
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2012 3:09 PMBut jk thinks:I will step in to defend definition #2 -- in fact all of them.
Amid Keith's serious points, I hate to step into minutia (especially in my best shoes), but I feel very strongly that courageous folk like ThreeSourcers must uncompromisingly reject all the "seven deadly sins." None is sinful.
Nothing wrong with pride, even in the personage of the 44th President. As the great philosopher Yoda said "Luminous beings are we, not this stuff..." Eighty percent of the universe is dark matter and I am an adult human being with free will and reason. Look the hell out!
The obverse of my coin is to succumb to the Hijab, claiming "modesty" as a virtue when it is the sin -- not pride. Lust, Anger, Jealousy, Envy, Greed, Gluttony and even a little bit of Sloth each has its place in a productive free person. Distrust anyone who seeks to remove them!
Posted by: jk at February 22, 2012 4:06 PM
But johngalt thinks:I wouldn't downgrade this topic as minutia - vice versus sin, inordinate versus immoral - these are important distinctions on an essential topic - morality. I'll borrow again from today's favorite quotes page:
"It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government."Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2012 5:05 PM
February 20, 2012
Colorado Caucus Update - February Edition
Unlike every other county in Colorado, Weld holds an intermediate set of local assemblies for selection of delegates to the state political conventions. As the next step after caucus night, the District Assemblies convened on Saturday morning and yours truly was elected as one of twelve delegates from District E.
My optimism in America and in freedom was renewed by this meeting of neighbors. The evangelical conservatives and the libertarian conservatives played nice together and exchanged views in what I thought to be a very constructive and open-minded way. No Ron Paul delegate or mention of the name Ron Paul was booed, or even grumbled. I made new acquaintance with several neighbors, including a gentleman who boards horses a few miles north of Atlantis Farm. A couple more questions revealed our mutual friend, blog sister Terri. And if this gentleman hadn't fully endeared himself already he would have when he requested, after the meeting was closed, that it not be held in a school building in the future since that pre-empted his Second Amendment right to self-protection. [PSA - Never attempt to rob a conflagration of Republicans.]
While we're here I'd like to share a link to Rick Santorum's speech to the Weld County Lincoln Day Dinner on February 5. I haven't watched the video yet but the speech was very good in person.
UPDATE: Skip to 13 minute mark if your time is limited.
Next caucus update in March.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:29 PM | Comments (2)But Terri thinks:That's excellent! He is definitely, as they say, good people.
Posted by: Terri at February 20, 2012 3:39 PMBut johngalt thinks:And he spoke very highly of you too, Terri. Meeting him kinda made me rethink my idea to woo your horse over to board in our indoor arena. ;) Now, if he were a Democrat...
Posted by: johngalt at February 20, 2012 5:36 PM
February 16, 2012
Getting Worser all the Time!
Governor Romney's guest editorial on China was not as bad as I feared.
Then again, I expected it to be incredibly bad.
Unless China changes its ways, on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction. A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender.
Day One, huh? I think the Governor is lifting this riff from Speaker Gingrich's effective South Carolina speech: "On my way to the first inauguration ball, I will repeal ObamaCare!" It works better with a crowd, a good idea, and a fiendish glint in the presenter's eye.I happen to be a fan of the yuan/dollar peg. But a larger issue is our countries' relationship. Not content with a trade war, Governor Romney wants to prepare for a shooting war -- with our banker and best customer.
We must also maintain military forces commensurate to the long-term challenge posed by China's build-up. For more than a decade now we have witnessed double-digit increases in China's officially reported military spending. And even that does not capture the full extent of its spending on defense. Nor do the gross numbers tell us anything about the most troubling aspects of China's strategy, which is designed to exert pressure on China's neighbors and blunt the ability of the United States to project power into the Pacific and keep the peace from which China itself has benefited.
Maybe I've been watching too much Rep. Ron Paul lately, but I see managing the China relationship in the context of trade. Intellectual property theft and human rights are legitimate concerns. And, to be fair, the Governor discusses them eloquently.But bluster seems unlikely to win the day, and -- more importantly -- it marks Romney's being outside the free-trade camp. Larry Kudlow would join him on human rights and piracy; so would I. But currency manipulation is a canard. And, while military strength should be watched, who is surprised that an advancing economic power with a long history is spending newfound wealth on its military?
We could influence them a lot more with trade.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:19 PM | Comments (2)But hb thinks:So fixed exchange rates are now considered currency manipulation?
Posted by: hb at February 16, 2012 2:05 PMBut jk thinks:If used to sell us things too cheap, yeah! Dirty Foreigners.
Posted by: jk at February 16, 2012 2:16 PM
Couldn't get any Worse? Couldn't get worse?
I did not think the GOP presidential nomination process could possibly get any worse. But I was a fool.
Romney doesn't rule out Santorum as veep.
Nooooooooooooooo! Do not even joke about that, Byron!
Posted by John Kranz at 10:47 AM | Comments (7)But jk thinks:As long as it is not the end of "An Officer and a Gentlemen" with Governor Romney swooping the Senator up in his arms...
Posted by: jk at February 16, 2012 1:42 PMBut johngalt thinks:"Governor Romney, in the big picture could you see a scenario where you and Donald Trump team up?"
This serves to illustrate two points:
1) There are very few Republicans about whom Mitt would answer anything other than, "it's possible."
2) There is still something worse than Romney/Santorum.
Posted by: johngalt at February 16, 2012 3:58 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:"Governor Romney, in the big picture could you see a scenario where you and Donald Trump team up?"
"Negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full. Full of other bad ideas."
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 16, 2012 4:09 PMBut jk thinks:The ThreeSources Variety Show is especially good today. Thanks for the good cheer!
Posted by: jk at February 16, 2012 4:36 PMBut johngalt thinks:Hey KA, have you "lost that lovin' feelin'?"
Posted by: johngalt at February 16, 2012 5:57 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:Righteous rejoinder, JG - righteous.
(See above on JK's CoffeeHouse post to continue the mild amusement.)
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 16, 2012 7:50 PM
February 15, 2012
"Pro-Life Statism"
Although it's already been linked in a comment I'm giving a full post to syndicated radio host Jason Lewis' 2nd hour yesterday [audio.] It was a searchlight of objective probity into the status of the GOP nomination.
[Mitt Romney] "is no less conservative than Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Santorum. Newt 'cap and trade' Gingrich. Newt have a health care mandate, he proposed that in May of 2009, a health care mandate. Newt Mr. environmentalism. I mean Newt Gingrich, if you take a look at his voting record, is every bit as fiscally liberal as Mitt Romney. And Rick Santorum who apparently we are told is surging in the polls now, well, this isn't even close. Rick Santorum is running to be Pastor-in-Chief. He's running on the social issues, and the people who have swarmed to Mr. Santorum are not swarming because of his fiscal record, they are swarming because of religion. Let's be blunt about this. Here's a guy who supported Arlen Specter, and Arlen Specter turned out to be the sixtieth vote on Obamacare. He could have sided with the conservative Pat Toomey but he supported Arlen Specter.Here's a guy, when it comes to Supreme Court nominations, voted for Sonia Sotomayor, the radical judge now sitting atop the court. Here's a guy who voted against the National Right to Work Act; voted against repeal of Davis Bacon, the union prevailing wages law on taxpayer-funded projects; voted for Alexis Hermann as Secretary of Labor; voted for mandatory federal child-care funding; voted for Job Corps funding; voted twice in support of unionizing FedEx; voted for minimum wage increases six times on small businesses; voted for background checks on people who pawn a gun; voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device; voted for a federal ban on possession of assault weapons, of course by those under 18; voted for funding of the Legal Services Corporation; voted twice for a congressional pay raise; voted for every single earmark you can imagine; has stated his opposition to a flat tax - he thinks that because you make more money you should pay more; voted for tobacco taxes to fund health care subsidies; voted for internet taxes, I mean I could go on and on and on here. Do your research on Rick Santorum, he's not a fiscal conservative.
(...)
If social issues are your thing and you think that's all that matters that's fine, it's a free country vote for Santorum, but don't give me this hooey that Rick Santorum is more fiscally conservative than Mitt Romney. It's simply not true.
(...)
If you take a look at Santorum's record or at Newt Gingrich's record, that's what it is. It's pro-life statism, it's pro-life liberalism."
He isn't endorsing Romney mind you, but does say liberty will be vastly better with Romney than either Rick or Newt. His real game-changing candidate is ... Paul.
"The President's budget is a full-scale assault, a full-throated assault on the American dream, Capitalism. You've got a guy like Ron Paul who's saying I'm going to elimnate the Department of Commerce, I'm going to eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I'm going to eliminate the Department of Energy, I'm going to eliminate the Department of Education, I'm going to cut one trillion from the budget in my first year. That's Congressman Paul. The budget the President released yesterday not only keeps all those departments but increases spending for the rest of them."Posted by JohnGalt at 3:06 PM | Comments (2)But jk thinks:To date, he has been more economically conservative than Governor Romney.
Not sure if I am the paragon of fairness or simply an argumentative bastard, but --
Senator Santorum has done an admirable job speaking on economic and freedom issues. Lefty journalists feed him a string of gotcha questions and his supporters often seek clarification that he remains in their camp. But left to his own devices, I have been impressed with his discipline and his focus on real freedom from government.
The Obamacare-contraception-abortifacent contretemps reminds us of the benefits of fusionism. I want gub'mint hands of my economics and So-Cons want gub'mint hands off their religion. We have an overlap wide enough to land a Boeing Dreamliner® on.
I never got on the Santorum bandwagon and am seeing more to scare me off. But I am not certain that the full-court press against Senator Sweatervest is warranted.
Posted by: jk at February 15, 2012 5:30 PMBut johngalt thinks:Heard Jason Chaffetz (TPD-UT) shillin' for Romney tonight. His is a voice that I trust. He talked about all the MA bills the Guv vetoed. I'm not sure what you're basing your "more economically conservative" judgement on.
In defense of Mr. Lewis I'll point out he is comparing only their records, not their rhetoric. I famously ignored the record of one Mr. Gingrich and it seems many are doing the same with Santorum. The lure is tempting, given all the red meat those two are throwing to evangelicals and TPers. Maybe they're genuine, as I allowed myself to believe, or maybe they're pandering. Either way it's a winning strategy that, curiously, Romney has not adopted.
Posted by: johngalt at February 15, 2012 10:33 PM
The Coveted Megadeath Endorsement
BUZZFEED: "Dave Mustaine, frontman of the '80s heavy metal band Megadeath, has evaluated the Republican field and made his considered endorsement."
Posted by John Kranz at 1:16 PM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:Wow. Didn't see that one comin'. Ron Paul is good enough for Kelly Clarkson but metal-head rocker guy here, he wants who Jason Lewis yesterday [about 5 minutes in] named, candidate for "Pastor in Chief." Strange days.
Gotta agree though that Paul is often his own worst enemy. But, Ron Paul is electable!
(hb is now convinced that I am clinically schizophrenic.)
Posted by: johngalt at February 15, 2012 2:37 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Wow - that changes everything.
BTW, is that a shotgun shell belt on the underside of the microphone?
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 15, 2012 5:34 PMBut jk thinks:Yeah, I think we're all reevaluatin'; word is Slash will not be endorsing anybody this year...
Don't quite see the shotgun shell (but it would be a great feature in NRA magazines -- spot the shotgun shell hidden in this picture, kind of "First Freedom" meets "Highlights.") It's plugged in, in a clip, on a boom stand, and some 500 guitar picks are taped to stand for rapid replacement dutring Mustaine's more frenetic solos.
Posted by: jk at February 15, 2012 5:43 PM
February 14, 2012
Reagan says...
I made a cursory search to see if this had been posted on these pages since the first of the year. If it has never been so in the blog's history we should all consider ourselves ashamed for the oversight.
Ronald Reagan, interviewed by Manuel Klausner in Reason Magazine, July 1975:
REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
So what Reagan lovers should be asking is, it seems to me, which of the GOP presidential nominees are hostile to libertarian thought and which are the very embodiment of it?" Ron Paul for President. Do it for the Gipper.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:02 PM | Comments (0)
February 13, 2012
"American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil"
Hillsdale College's Paul Rahe has done it again. Being thrice granted Quote of the Day honors on our humble blog (here, here and most notably here) his posting of last Friday explains in grand detail and with far greater authority the warning I've been sounding for just a few short years of my relatively young life - that Christian altruism enables Marxist-Leninist policies in the west. I called it The Virtue of Selfishness. Rahe calls it American Catholicism's Pact With the Devil and says it goes back to FDR and the New Deal in the 1930's.
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States -- the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity -- and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism -- the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people's money and redistribute it.Amen.
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:35 PM | Comments (1)But jk thinks:My brother-in-law just signed up for Hillsdale's Constitution 101 10 week online course and suggested I check it out. A new one starts on Feb 20.
Posted by: jk at February 13, 2012 6:38 PM
GOP Nomination - To be Continued
I have previously highlighted the public statements of Sarah Palin as a sort of Pied Piper for the TEA Party movement [and I remain interested in JK's appraisal of her Stossel appearance.] Yesterday the theme continued. Sarah was on Fox News Sunday telling Chris Wallace that Romney "is a great candidate" but that she isn't hearing a TEA Party message from him.
"He still needs to be able to articulate what his solutions are to the challenges facing America -- but not just Mitt. All four of them," she said."What I want to see is that candidate and I believe that most voters in the GOP and independents, we will want to see that candidate whom we can trust will just inherently, instinctively turn right, always err on the side of conservativism, which means smaller, smarter government, more empowerment for the individual, for the private sector," Palin said.
While Palin has previously encouraged a vote for Gingrich she's backed away from that and, as this quote confirms, is waiting for the best small government, pro liberty message from any one of them. If the "Ron Paul is unelectable" meme would somehow die out I think she would even back him. And for his part, Paul said on Face the Nation yesterday:
"I think the problem is that all three of them have represented the same system, the same status quo ... None of them talk about real spending cuts. None of them talk about real changes in monetary policy. So they're not a whole lot different. So I think when it comes down to those three, it's probably going to be management style more than anything else," Paul added.And Palin encourages the GOP faithful to embrace the extended contest, not fear it.
Palin said each of the candidates has his strengths and they are able to hone them -- and deliver a more concise message -- if the race keeps going."Each of them I believe they are getting stronger, they're getting better and that's what competition provides and that's why I want to see the competition continue," she said. "They all have something to offer and that is why it is a good democratic process in our republic."
Love the phrasing there... "democratic process in our republic" i.e. the US government is not a democracy. I'll add my voice to what I sense is a growing chorus: "Ron Paul is electable."
Posted by JohnGalt at 11:20 AM | Comments (2)But jk thinks:No, I did not bring closure to that. The Governor's performance was good, but the interview was not the philosophical throw down I envisioned. It was short and polite. Every Good Boy Did Fine, but it did not move the needle either way.
I enjoyed her appearance on FOX News Sunday yesterday as well. I just do not yearn for a Palin candidacy like I do for Govs. Christie or Daniels.
I'll agree that she is undersold by many -- and not just her political foes. But I cannot escape that she is frequently oversold by some of her supporters. Perhaps that is not unusual.
Posted by: jk at February 13, 2012 12:35 PMBut johngalt thinks:A very fair assessment. I think my personal affection comes more from how she proves her enemies wrong at almost every opportunity. They've set such a low bar for her that I sit down to watch prepared to cringe, and when the things she says are original and insightful instead it leaves me blown away. I also acknowledge with objectivity her very widespread influence. I believe she is wise enough to parlay her influence where it already exists and to work on enlarging it, rather than become a candidate herself - at least for now.
You've said the movement needs a more intellectual leader, which is true, but it also needs an inspirational one. I think she fills those shoes right now.
Posted by: johngalt at February 13, 2012 2:38 PM
February 10, 2012
Two Minute Hate: Sen. Santorum Edition
Yesterday brought two events to wake me from my "Senator Santorum is okay...nothing to worry about...move along..." stupor. I must confess, I have given him too much benefit for a world of doubt. Blog sister dagny was right all along.
Event one: I don't want to speak out of turn, but a good friend of mine confided to be "done" with the GOP. I've heard this 100 times and said it seven or eight, but this was pretty serious. The confluence of an anti-gay-marriage initiative and Santorum's Tuesday Sweep was too much to bear. I'll leave out the back-and-forth but share the conclusion without permission. "I'll vote against Obama and puke in the parking lot."
We all get a little down; this is something worse. And what do I say "Mitt Romney! Mitt Romney! Mitt Romney!!!?"
Event two. I'm never sure what to make of Fox Business's Judge Andrew Napolitano. He puts on a good rant, but he never weaves it into anything pragmatic. Still, it's good to have truth tellers. [Side note: A guy put one of Napolitano's rants on FB and all his liberal friends said "That was on FOX? Boy I bet the censors were sick that day!" Umm, guys, he does that every day and I cannot think of another network that would put it on.]
Last night he had Reason's Matt Welch on for a brief segment to whack the Senator about his stated aversion to libertarianism. Santorum looked at the camera and said "I want to drive libertarianism out of the Republican Party." That stings a bit.
Then one remembers his debate performances. Rep. Ron Paul would make a statement. Speaker Gingrich would grind his teeth a little and wait for "Crazy Uncle Ron" to finish. Gov. Perry might roll his eyes. Gov. Romney probably did not play "Bizz-Buzz" in college, but he would have been good -- he combined a friendly smile with a blank stare, the essence of non-committal.
But Senator Santorum would pounce! High dudgeon and incredulity: "You really believe X?" While one can consider many of Paul's ideas out of the GOP mainstream, I suggest we at least join Senator Jim DeMint and give these ideas a basic respect to keep their believers in the party.
Perhaps life is good in a very bad year. Senator Sweatervest and Speaker Crazyman can split the non-Romney vote, each keeping the other out. We might well end up with Governor Romney (what, no disparaging sobriquet?) but maybe it is time for least evil. Ron Paul could continue to tell the truth and concomitantly place third or fourth.
And were Gov. Doginthecrateontheroof (who's your daddy?) to choose a Paul or Rubio for Veep, I might find some enthusiasm.
And, we've always been at war with Eurasia!
UPDATE: Kim Strassel suggests he needs a message beyond "Faith, Family, and Freedom."
Posted by John Kranz at 12:52 PM | Comments (7)But jk thinks:Yeah, but the Democrats are a) lying and b) won't do anything about it. Republicans are signing petitions and shouting applause lines.
Both immigration and gay rights present conservatives with opportunity for a reasonable legal foundation -- but one that can quickly devolve among rank-and-file to unseemly yeah I'm going to say it bigotry. I appreciate nuanced serious positions that differ with mine but also get quickly irked among the less nuanced populists.
Both "Two-minute hate" and "We've always been at war with Eurasia" are from Orwell's 1984. Work would stop for two minutes and Emmanuel Goldstein would be displayed on giant TV monitors so everybody could yell at the traitor. Only the actual enemy used to change with the politics of the leaders, who would never explain, but would always assert that we have always been at war with xxxx.
Posted by: jk at February 10, 2012 2:46 PM
But Terri thinks:JK, you have just put the final nail in the coffin that was my support for Santorum.
Consider the Kool-Aide drained. Go Romney. yay
Posted by: Terri at February 10, 2012 4:20 PMBut jk thinks:Mitt-mentum! Feel the excitement!
Posted by: jk at February 10, 2012 4:23 PMBut johngalt thinks:I'll part with you only on the characterization "bigotry." My dear neighbors who may express a profound opposition to the cultural modifiers you cited do so out of a sense of defending a heritage and a way of life that's pretty swell, and if guilty of anything it is a misdirected rage that should rightfully be aimed at a collectivist government that, despite its many and variable claimed goals, seeks nothing more than to destroy the good for no other reason than that it is good. They are absolutely positively, with a very few rare exceptions, not bigots.
I wonder what "Senator Sweatervest" would say if he learned just how close he came to one of the epicenters of libertarianism in the party when he shook hands with the denizens of the ThreeSource.com table at the LDD. Personally I think he suffers from the same misdirection. Give me half an hour with him.
Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2012 4:29 PMBut jk thinks:Calling the word parser. Can a non-bigot be guilty of bigotry? I say "Certainly, you greasy dago!"
Seriously, I don't think the great unwashed are bigots but I do think I've seen them do/say things that I would call bigotry. On immigration, ThreeSourcers have made intelligent distinctions of sovereignty and incorrect but serious evaluations of economics.
But on the street, at the Tea Parties, and at Thanksgiving dinner, I hear complaints about Spanish restroom signs at Target, "Dial one for English" at private companies, and an Aurora Pizza joint's accepting Pesos (George Selgin, call your office).
I remember Amendment Two many years ago in Colorado, where I found myself on the other side of my normal political allies. Of course, there were good people on both sides, but I remember some pretty unenlightened comments that went far beyond the legislative question. I've already spoken too much for another but I sense there might be some of that underlying.
Posted by: jk at February 10, 2012 5:20 PM
But johngalt thinks:That's correct, as the great American "melting pot" experiment, having been proven a resounding success, is forceably abandoned in the name of multiculturalism. We are told this is necessary to celebrate and honor other cultures when in fact, it is merely to denegrate and dismantle America's. Of the portion of the citizenry that recognizes this and wishes to reverse it, some react differently than others.
Yes, that plays into the hands of the destroyers and we must help our misguided neighbors understand: The pernicious threat to Americanism is not "others" but the redistribution of wealth and property.
Posted by: johngalt at February 11, 2012 10:18 AM
HOSS
Hat-tip: Blog friend hb via email. He just said "HOSS" too.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:08 PM | Comments (2)But Boulder Refugee thinks:You can say Hoss too, or Hoss 2, but I say Hoss (superscipt)2.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 10, 2012 4:08 PMBut jk thinks:Amen. It reminded me of a Governor Romney speech. There was a mictrophone, a dias, and he used words.
Posted by: jk at February 10, 2012 5:39 PM
February 8, 2012
Ann, we thought we knew ye
I hope I shall not be thought less of for posting this Ann Coulter takedown from American Spectator, so long as I don't suggest Newt Gingrich as the best Romney antidote (which, I'm learning, he is not.)
Yet Coulter, once the scourge of such malleable "moderates," has gone through some sort of transformation that has rendered her blind to Romney's cheap opportunism. And if the primary voters are foolish enough to follow her advice, they will rue the day they listened to her and the establishment Republicans with whom she has now made common cause. As Coulter herself pointed out last year when she spoke at CPAC, Barack Obama will be reelected in 2012 if the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney for President.Posted by JohnGalt at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)
Feel the Excitement!
Waiting in line to see Governor Mitt Romney! These kids'll never forget this!
Posted by John Kranz at 11:43 AM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:Our kids insisted they wanted to go with us to the Lincoln Day Dinner. Fortunately for them, we overruled.
Did anyone notice the update on the LDD post? There weren't any comments about "movers and shakers." ;) (shameless self-promotion)
Posted by: johngalt at February 8, 2012 11:55 AMBut jk thinks:I kid, but I remember sitting on our lawn to watch President Johnson drive by. The street was lined with people and I had flowers in my hand. Flowers attracted a large bumblebee that still visits my nightmares and I got stung.
F*&%^@' Democrats!
Posted by: jk at February 8, 2012 12:03 PMBut johngalt thinks:Funny story. Plus flowers ... Johnson ... Daisy Spot
Posted by: johngalt at February 8, 2012 1:11 PM
#COcaucus Selcted Tweets
denverpost The Denver Post
With 100% reporting, Santorum wins #COcaucus with 40.2%; Romney 34.9%; Gingrich 12.7%, Paul 11.7% http://dpo.st/y6DdWi
11 minutes ago Favorite Retweet ReplyKyleClark Kyle Clark
Well, it's official. The conservative grassroots told the CO GOP where to stick it. #cocaucusEliStokols Eli Stokols
Santorum sweep is as devastating a setback to Romney as any suffered by a candidate thus far. High expectations, totally unmet in #COcaucusHuffingtonPost Huffington Post
Paul: "We should have a right to keep the fruits of all our labors" #cocaucus #mncaucus #moprimaryBrandonRittiman Brandon Rittiman
Turnout in #COcaucus on track to be slightly less than the 70k who turned out in '08. Less than 9% of reg'd GOP voters.Alex_Shrugged Alex Johnson
@anneherbst RT @denverpost: WATCH: Romney gets glitter bombed at watch party in Denver (VIDEO): http://dpo.st/xsunHn #COcaucus #ColoradoNARALColorado NARAL Colorado
#Santorum contradicts #Colorado values! http://www.prochoicecolorado.org/news/press/201202071.shtml #CoPols #CoCaucus
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:38 AM | Comments (1)But nanobrewer thinks:So what's the total delegate count so far?
MR 94
RS 71
NG 29
RP 8
Huntsman! 2A long way to go to 1144... shewt, bag on the CO caucus, I want to vote in the Marianas! Any way you look at it (Mitt's, Rick's or Newt's), we're going to need the Ryan's, Barbour's, and the Christie's to lead the "idea parade."
Posted by: nanobrewer at February 9, 2012 11:33 PM
February 7, 2012
She's Just not that into you, Mister President
Not sure her taste has improved that much, but:
Posted by John Kranz at 4:15 PM | Comments (0)
Ask Senator Buck about that.
I must address the best argument of the Speaker Gingrich team, including the Speaker himself, who just delivered it on a robocall.
[SIDE TRACK: Is it not the greatest thing ever to be in a state still in play? My phone rings each hour with a survey, recording, operative, precinct member or something. I've done live telephone town halls with both Governor Christie (HOSS- NJ) and Speaker Gingrich. It rocks to be wooed.]
The Speaker notes he will challenge President Obama to x Lincoln-Douglas style debates, each lasting y hours. My blog brother yearns for a pugilistic campaign.
Obama will say "no" x times and the campaign will devolve to super PAC nonsense about the Speaker's background both real and imagined. Ain't gonna be no Lincoln-Douglas debates. They will sit in front of some PBS septuagenarian and have two minutes to address some CW question. Then they will go home.
Speaker Gingrich was lackluster in the last debate and claimed it was because Governor Romney was "fundamentally and [other adverb] dishonest." Good thing the President is the Paragon of Probity® then.
Sadly the campaign will be insubstantive (cf, Colorado Senate 2010) and Gingrich's advantage will not be usable.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:08 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:I've been hanging my hopes not on debate(s) but on all the other opportunities Newt would have to offer a contrasting vision. Sadly, Barack's opportunities (and obfuscation) will certainly be greater. Along JK's line of attack, which I find persuasive, I also find this to be nearly conclusive.
Add the respected opinion of Jon Caldera who said this morning that Rick Santorum is a good man who just doesn't have the nationwide organization that will be necessary to win. "Ain't gonna happen" were I think his exact words.
Romney-Paul anyone? I'm leaning ever stronger toward the Texas congressman. Fitting, given my preference for western Republicanism to the eastern variety.
Posted by: johngalt at February 7, 2012 2:33 PM
Colorado Caucus Study Notes
For those who haven't yet made up their mind who to vote for in the Colorado Caucus Presidental Preference Poll this evening, here are interviews with three of the four candidates from Monday's 'Caplis and Silverman Show' on Denver's KHOW radio.
Or maybe you've made up your mind and just aren't tired of this stuff yet. I thought the best of the three interview performances was Santorum's. If you only listen to one of them, make it his. If only I could picture him being taken seriously in a head-to-head with President Obama. His boyish good looks seem a bit of a handicap to me. Tell me I'm wrong.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:06 AM | Comments (10)But Boulder Refugee thinks:Forget ideas and substance - Santorem has neither the organization nor the resources to take on Obama head-to-head; it would be the junior varsity playing in the Super Bowl.
The Refugee maintains that Santorem is running for VP. There could be worse in that regard, but he does bring enough electoral swing to be viable. Rubio could deliver Florida for the Republicans, but Santorem could not deliver Pennsylvania at any level on the ticket.
There is still that small matter of electoral math.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 7, 2012 12:53 PMBut jk thinks:My "blog pragmatist" nameplate goes to you. Can I still hit you up for a ride? You could pick it up tonight.
I agree that Senator Santorum is second-tier, but I don't see him out of the running. A couple big finishes and he could grab the non-Romney vote from a self-destructing...other guy. If nominated, he gets the GOP's resources and the evangelical ground troops that anyone is foolish to dismiss.
Not my guy but he has a knack for exceeding expectations while the others consistently come up way short. I have wondered, a few times, why I am not in his camp.
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2012 1:07 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:Probably because he's a Big Government Social Conservative who got pasted in his last election.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 7, 2012 4:18 PMBut dagny thinks:After Santorum's speech with (mostly) the right ideas on Saturday night, I got one foot halfway into his camp until his brochure showed up on my doorstep last night. The pretty color brochure LEADS with his social conservative bona fides...defense of marriage and partial birth abortion bans and such. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of partial birth abortions. I just think that such horrifying and difficult decisions should be made by, women, families and doctors and NOT by governments.
Then there is this manufacturing tax thing. I am the accounting manager for a small manufacturing company. Did you know that Colorado already has a sales tax exemption for machinery and tools purchased for manufacturing in Colorado? The bureacracy and paperwrok involved in this one little exemption is enormous! It is a royal pain to document and collect. Much taxpayer money could be saved by eliminating the special exemption and firing all the associated beauracrats. On the federal level it would be even a disaster.
Sorry Mr. Santorum, you seem like a nice guy and all, but despite the nice speeches, I don't think you really get the idea of individual liberty. Rep. Paul for president!
Posted by: dagny at February 7, 2012 5:40 PMBut jk thinks:Yes!
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2012 5:44 PMBut dagny thinks:Whoops Typo, I meant, "even more of a disaster."
Posted by: dagny at February 7, 2012 5:47 PM
February 6, 2012
Reliable Answers
After months of searching for clues and answers in the Presidential Election contest I've finally found the authoritative website with the answer to all of our questions.
"Will Mitt Romney be elected America's next president?" Most likely"Will Barack Obama be reelected as president?" Don't count on it
I feel better now.Posted by JohnGalt at 4:08 PM | Comments (2)But Boulder Refugee thinks:Brings new meaning to the term "behind the 8-ball."
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 6, 2012 4:14 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:That's the good news. The bad news is that the RNC used Rock-Paper-Scissors to pick its candidates, except for Ron Paul, who merely needed to make his saving throw against insanity with twenty-sided dice.
You want games? We got games.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 6, 2012 4:38 PM
Two Minute Hate: Sen.Rick Santorum Edition
Christina Romer punctures the argument that manufacturers need special tax treatment. (Y'know, I work for a manufacturer and should probably check my love of liberty at the office door -- Go Rick! Yeah!)
A successful argument for a government manufacturing policy has to go beyond the feeling that it's better to produce "real things" than services. American consumers value health care and haircuts as much as washing machines and hair dryers. And our earnings from exporting architectural plans for a building in Shanghai are as real as those from exporting cars to Canada.
Is it just me (it can't be the shoes) but is it disturbing when a GOP Presidential candidate needs a lesson on the benefits of the free market from a U Cal-Berkeley professor and former Obama Administration official?Hat-tip: Prof Mankiw
Posted by John Kranz at 1:48 PM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:Romer has a good point. In the spirit of a recent Jon Caldera tweet - "Why not make all of Colorado an "enterprise zone?" - we should be asking, Why not give non-punitive tax treatment to all American businesses?
Yes, Rick is wrong on principle to advocate special treatment for certain businesses but, he is right to advocate rescuing American business from the ravages of the federal government.
Posted by: johngalt at February 6, 2012 2:29 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:It's like Jack Kemp and his "Enterprise Zones" all over again, except this time, we're favoring particular lines of business instead of particular geographic sinkholes.
Speaking of geographic sinkholes, did you all have the same reaction to Clint Eastwood's "Halftime In Detroit" commercial during the game? I'm trying to decide if there was some other Detroit besides the one in Michigan that he was referring to, or if he was saying that a massive transfusion of bailout money to the UAW and the Volt was his idea of Americans Coming Together To Revitalize A Community.
Somewhere in the blue Pacific Ocean, there's a shark, saying "What was that? Was that Dirty Harry that just jumped over me?"
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 6, 2012 3:51 PM
February 5, 2012
Weld (CO) County Lincoln Day - Caucus Minus 72 hours
I feared that last night's ThreeSources Blogger Bash might be falling apart due to the substantial snowstorm we endured from Thursday through Saturday. But what snow taketh, snow giveth back. Blog brothers JK and BR traded places as BR's weekend plan was outdoors - in the mountains.
The night began with some contretemps and dirty looks as our assigned table had been swiped by a Mr. Bud Johnson and 7 other senior citizens. An honest mistake I suppose - I might also have confused the "table tent" sign reading "THREESOURCES.COM" for the one reading "Bud Johnson." They must have chewed and swallowed our sign so we made a replacement.
So after considerable hunting around we were awarded Bud's assigned table way to the side of the room. (I could see the speaker at the podium from behind the loudspeaker on the stage so it wasn't that bad.) I asked the nice young man who helped us find Bud's table to please let Mr. Johnson know we had found his table. I said that since they were our elders we would not ask them to move.
We had the last laugh though, I think, since ours was one of the tables Rick Santorum visited while pressing the flesh. We were the last table in our row but it was, after all, the front row. Rick was quite generous with his time, making leisurely visits to each table. He shook hands with several of us but he seemed to know better than to engage in conversation, and nobody I saw tried to. We all thanked him for coming.
Once we were settled we enjoyed a nice dinner, rolicking conversation and speeches from Rick Santorum and Cory Gardner. I'll discuss those in a separate post at some point but for now I'll refer you to Terri's excellent writeup on Santorum with another great photo. I didn't think he was as flat as she did but he could have done better. He was the best speaker of the night though and I thought he made a good case for the "doomsday" message he's been derided for in some quarters.
It was an excellent night. I was very happy to meet Terri and Nanobrewer in person and find out how much more we have in common than just political views.
Speaking of common views, before we entered the hall I decided to go visit with some demonstrators we saw on the sidewalk (and heard from across the street.) I chatted with three or four of them and would have liked to talk much longer. They were friendly and well spoken, although some of their signs were stereotypical of the #Occupy mentality's darker (egalitarian collectivist) side.
I was offered an "overturn Citizens United" petition to sign. Given my propensity of late, and considering the well-meaning young man (Josh, if I remember correctly) only had four signatures before me, I signed it. We talked about whether corporations should have the rights of people and I suggested that, like people, some corporations are good and some are bad. "When you talk about Wall Street I think corporations like Fidility Investments are good while Goldman Sachs is bad. The distinction is cronyism." They were like, "Yeah, that's right." To which I said, "See, that's the same point of view we have in the TEA Party." This was met with some skepticism. I'm sure If I'd stayed five minutes longer we'd have been in an argument about something. I didn't see the "ROBIN HOOD WAS ONE OF US" message on the 99% sign until I'd left - If I had we'd certainly have talked about that. But they encouraged me even more to attempt to bridge the gap, somehow, somewhere. I plan to spend some time on their website: occupygreeley.org. If I can get through or around the Marxism to connect with real people I think we can make progress together on common ideas. And I gave them our web address, twice, so maybe one or more of them will reach out to us as well.
Peace on, brothers!
UPDATE: Perhaps because I had so much fun talking to the demonstrators out front, dagny gave an interview to a local newspaper. (Not just a bunch of *bloggers* mind you.) The UNC campus newspaper The Mirror quotes her in the fourth paragraph:
"I'm glad we came," said Jodi Rinard, a member of the WCRP. "It's a great chance to discuss ideas. It's a great chance to discuss politics."Well done dear! She told me she'd talked to them but the story wasn't in the online edition when I looked this morning. It's a pretty straight account of the themes Rick Santorum discussed. It soft pedals the importance Rick put upon repealing Obamacare saying only, "Once the people become dependent on the government for their health, there is nothing the government won't be able to control," Santorum said. Santorum contrasted the Romney and Gingrich records of "supporting an individual mandate at some point in their careers" with his "authorship of the law implementing Health Savings Accounts (HSA) 20 years ago. Rick also quoted Margaret Thatcher as saying Britain's NHS was the biggest obstacle to free-market government reform.
UPDATE: [2/20/12] Video of Rick Santorum's speech can be seen here.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:30 PM | Comments (3)But Boulder Refugee thinks:A fine night indeed! Many thanks to JG and Dagny for organizing and driving the effort. It was great to meet NB and Terri. Mrs. Refugee has texted about everyone whom she knows with the picture of Rick Santorem and her. (However, she still plans to caucus for Newt.)
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 5, 2012 10:24 PMBut Terri thinks:I will second the "fine night" feeling.
Thank you all for the invite and ride. I spent the day in research and am now solidly leaning Santorum.
He doesn't strike me as a leader of men, but he does have the basics down pat.I admire you Mr. Galt for reaching out. Perhaps one day a youtube video of you doing TaiChi in the midst of an occupation will go viral. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkW0bt-9kO8....it just makes me chuckle)
A joy to meet you all!
Posted by: Terri at February 5, 2012 11:38 PMBut jk thinks:Looks grand! Thanks for the report and pictures. Maybe something in late spring...
Posted by: jk at February 6, 2012 11:34 AM
February 4, 2012
Tempt not ye the Deities...
The lovely bride and I will be safe at home this evening. Our two tickets to the Weld County GOP dinner and appearance by Senator Santorum are up for grabs (as are I think two others). Be our guest if you can make it to Greeley tonight. jk [at] threesources [dot] com.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:42 AM | Comments (5)But nanobrewer thinks:Well, perhaps my 4-seater may be of service after all, since we may not need the minivan. I will still be going and @ the mustering point. However, as JK is the only one I've met.... I'll send back an eMail to make sure we have a way of ID'ing each other.
Posted by: nanobrewer at February 4, 2012 12:41 PMBut jk thinks:Shouldn't be hard: Johngalt is 7'3", bald, has an eye patch and walks with a limp. Dagny is 4'7" and always wears a long camo trenchcoat. Never met Terri -- that could be tough...
If you have any friends you'd like to bring, I'd love to see the tickets put to best use. (Happy to support WELDGOP, of course, whatever transpires).
Posted by: jk at February 4, 2012 12:51 PMBut Terri thinks:I've been on the roads and they are not bad and getting better. I'll be there at the Starbucks at 5 with my little blue Subaru. I will be happy to drive if needed, though I would recommend not wearing too much black, lest you be covered in white dog hair.
Posted by: Terri at February 4, 2012 1:39 PM
But johngalt thinks:Pleased to confirm that all four open seats have been filled. One even by a blog brother - Boulder Refugee. The DNC-DAWG induced snowstorm may slow us down, but it can't stop us!
News at eleven. (Or whenever.)
Posted by: johngalt at February 4, 2012 3:02 PMBut johngalt thinks:Freshly shaved. Anybody seen my good eye patch?
Posted by: johngalt at February 4, 2012 4:44 PM
February 3, 2012
Who Will Carry the Reagan Mantle of Optimism?
Perhaps a bit of editorializing on the AP's part. But he provides material:
"Go back and read what the sirens did once you arrived on that island," Santorum warned students at Colorado Christian University this week, invoking mythology. "They devour you. They destroy you. They consume you."Posted by John Kranz at 4:15 PM | Comments (0)
Did I Mention that we are totally hosed?
I got on a live town-hall call with Gov. Christie (HOSS ALERT!) last night. That was cool and hearing his soothing joisey voice praising Gov. Romney was starting to help.
We did not get to my question "Governor, I'm a voter who could be pulled into the Governor's camp, but I am disturbed by the underlying philosophy, highlighted by the Wall Street Journal editorial this [Thursday] morning. Are indexed cap-gains taxes commensurate with free market capitalism?" But the final question -- from a woman in Aspen no less -- was similar and at least as tough.
I hung up thinking that, after the four other steps, I will make it to acceptance of Gov. Romney as the GOP nominee. Then I watched Kudlow & Co.
Joe Scarborough (R - MSNBC) of all people was a guest. And did the best destruction of Mitt I have ever heard. Start at 12:55 and go through "he probably thinks Hayek is the field goal kicker for the New England Patriots."
I turned to the lovely bride and said "we. are. so. totally. hosed."
Today, the WSJ brings worse news:
Serves us right. Yesterday we tried to defend, or at least explain, Mitt Romney's remark that he didn't worry about the poor because they had the government to help them. Then Mr. Romney tells the world he favors a rising minimum wage indexed for inflation that really would hurt the poor.Mr. Romney reaffirmed his minimum-wage views to reporters as he tried to extricate himself from the controversy over his "poor" remarks. (See "What Mitt Really Meant," Feb. 2.) It was a classic political gotcha moment, and Mr. Romney's response was more troubling than his earlier marks.
Totally.UPDATE: Piling on -- James Pethokoukis: Mitt Romney, meet Jack Kemp.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:26 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Fear not. Ann Coulter called and said everything will be all right. We just have to get used to Obamacare. And why not, since "Romneycare [is] a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles..."
(Her chicken and egg analysis fails to mention mandatory "treatment on demand" however.)
Posted by: johngalt at February 3, 2012 2:17 PM
February 2, 2012
A nice guy would not post this picture
No political or philisophical merit to this at all. Just a mean whack at the sincere people who feel that the Speaker would be the best choice to lead our nation away from the brink of Socialism. And -- if the first comment were not so good, I would have demurred:
Posted by John Kranz at 4:37 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Nazis!
Seriously though, "Big Brother?" If anything that cropped picture of what looks like a campaign bus carries a likeness more in keeping with the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to that thrice-married man behind the TEA Party Rhetoric!"
Posted by: johngalt at February 2, 2012 5:45 PM
WWJD? Soak the Rich
President Obama addressed his third National Prayer Breakfast this morning. Given the setting a highly theological theme is expected, and the President did not disappoint:
"It's absolutely true that meeting these challenges requires sound decision-making, requires smart policies. We know that part of living in a pluralistic society means that our personal religious beliefs alone can't dictate our response to every challenge we face.But in my moments of prayer, I'm reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problems, in keeping us going when we suffer setbacks, and opening our minds and our hearts to the needs of others."
Uh-oh. Here it comes. Open our minds, and our hearts, and ... taxpayers' wallets?
"But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.When I talk about giving every American a fair shot at opportunity, it's because I believe that when a young person can afford a college education, or someone who's been unemployed suddenly has a chance to retrain for a job and regain that sense of dignity and pride, and contributing to the community as well as supporting their families -- that helps us all prosper.
It means maybe that research lab on the cusp of a lifesaving discovery, or the company looking for skilled workers is going to do a little bit better, and we'll all do better as a consequence. It makes economic sense. But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together. I'm not an island. I'm not alone in my success. I succeed because others succeed with me."
Don't say the President implores us to personally address "the needs of others" for what he really wants is an electoral mandate to redistribute wealth from some individuals to "others" and to do so himself. And also don't say I didn't warn anyone who was listening.
Preaching to the choir here I s'pose, but when I heard the President of the United States say "that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother's keeper" I just couldn't let it pass without notice.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:37 PM | Comments (8)But jk thinks:You beat me to this and did it better.
It is a challenge to square the tenants of Christianity with the vicissitudes of the free market [Insert plug for Michael Novak's "Spirit of Democratic Capitalism" here). I would love to hear the GOP candidates react to this -- but am pretty sure we won't.
Posted by: jk at February 2, 2012 3:41 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:Brethren and Cistern: I generally tend to politely butt out of conversations on this subject here. However...
I've discussed Wallis and his ilk (McLaren, Bell, and several named Campolo) elsewhere; I'm hesitant to do so here, other than to point out that most within the church can tell you that the lot of them left the reservation long ago. Post-modernism and the Emerging Church are not so much faith, as they are collectivism and worldliness masquerading behind religious words. What faith Obama gives voice to is very much within that stream.
Squaring the tenets of Christianity with the free market aren't difficult - and aren't difficult to do consistently. I've done a sermon on Acts 5:4 that most readers here would applaud - and maybe add an Amen to. I'm right in the middle of free-market applications in Exodus, too. If you're interested.
Consider this quote: "I also consider that genuine, biblical Christianity is not an altruistic, collective religion, but one in which the individual is of infinite value, and the collective’s claim on the individual is limited, voluntary, and only valid where it is rational."
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 2, 2012 5:46 PMBut jk thinks:I would have you speak up more. I am intrigued.
I was going to retract the word "difficult" -- but want to keep it, just in a very literal sense. Not to say that it cannot be done but that the easier (lazy?) position is to accept "brother's keeper."
I've hawked that Novak book a hundred times on these pages. A good friend of this blog turned me onto it many years ago and it is a gem which I think about and apply constantly. Novak -- and you, brother Keith -- do the difficult work of a deeper reading and understanding.
Posted by: jk at February 2, 2012 5:58 PMBut johngalt thinks:I too absolutely welcome the full scope of your commentary KA. In fact, I've been informally trying to draw you out on such themes for some time now. Thanks for breaking silence.
You speak of "genuine, biblical Christianity." I wonder how many of our brothers and sisters, of every and no faith, even know such a thing exists, much less its differences with pop-Christianity. My contention has been that Christian leaders have long used altruism to the benefit of the church. The collectivists, knowing a good thing when they see it, were bound to co-opt it for their secular purposes.
I was surprised to learn of the true story of Robin Hood given the way it was twisted and distorted as a tool for egalitarians. I submit that honest, healthy Christian charity has suffered the same fate, becoming altruism and justifying the leader of the free world saying proudly and publicly, "I am my brother's keeper."
Posted by: johngalt at February 2, 2012 7:55 PMBut Terri thinks:I'm confused. Didn't our President first say "We know that part of living in a pluralistic society means that our personal religious beliefs alone can't dictate our response to every challenge we face."
Surely that means each of us gets to decide the amounts to give while talking it over with our own spiritual advisers or directly with God(s)....right? Right?!
Posted by: Terri at February 3, 2012 7:28 AMBut johngalt thinks:To your first paragraph, yes, that's what he said. But the only word in the sentence he really cares about is "dictate." This is his standard technique - first disarm the most likely counterpoint to what he is about to say and then say what you really mean. In this case: Unless you're a poor excuse for a Christian, you can't object when I take from you and give to "others."
To your second paragraph let me paraphrase brother hb: "You're kidding, right?" :)
Posted by: johngalt at February 3, 2012 2:05 PM
0:43 Hate: Speaker Gingrich Edition
James Pethokoukis is a little concerned:
My goal is to find steps for every American to have a job, every American to work, every American to be able to buy a house.
We could set up these GSEs see, and they could buy bundled mortgages with access to the US Treasury. Every American buys a house! What could possibly go wrong?Posted by John Kranz at 12:44 PM | Comments (3)But Keith Arnold thinks:"A chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage." Seems I've heard that before.
Added to that: and that garage part of a single-family residence, owned courtesy of the Community Redevelopment Act, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac...
What could go wrong?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 2, 2012 1:19 PMBut johngalt thinks:The way James tells it, yeah, failure on stilts. But perhaps the Speaker has read JK's inaugural elevator talk. Perhaps everybody should.
Posted by: johngalt at February 2, 2012 1:21 PMBut jk thinks:I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.
Jimi P's tweet made it sound awful. Reading it in context, I have to admit it is part of a prosperity theme. AND YET -- "did he learn nothing?" is appropos. After Gingrich's entanglement with GSE's and the Tea Party mood toward gub'mint promotion of home ownership, I do not think a poorer example could have been chosen.
Posted by: jk at February 2, 2012 1:31 PM
Two Minute Hate: Gov. Romney Edition
I'll admit it; I think Speaker Gingrich would make a terrible President. I think Gov. Romney would be a perfectly mediocre POTUS, but it does not matter because he is demonstrably the worst candidate since, well, his "brainwashed" Dad.
The wingnuts at the WSJ Ed Page take him to the woodshed for his "I don't give a rat's ass about those little street urchins! Are there no workhouses?" remark. Inartful to start with, they point out that there were excellent educational opportunities he missed for his walkback. But, Paul, Dan, and Stephen -- is there perhaps a larger mistake that we overlook?
Mr. Romney's larger mistake is to think and speak in "class" terms. He touts his concern for the "middle class" all the time, as if he's trying to show that a rich guy can identify with average Americans. But this is a game that Democrats play better, and it leads Mr. Romney into cul-de-sacs like saying the poor are fine because they benefit from government, while the middle class don't. Mr. Obama will turn this into an argument for hooking the middle class on more government.Mr. Romney's failures to communicate are common among businessmen and other normal people who have the right instincts but haven't spent their lives thinking about politics. He also recently ran into trouble when he said he liked firing people, when he was really talking about the discipline of market competition.
Still, his business now is politics, and as the Republican front-runner he has an obligation to explain how conservative principles and policies can address America's current problems. We'll be happy to translate for him in these columns, but it would be less politically painful if Mr. Romney sat down for a week-long tutorial with, say, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush and others who can help him avoid such obvious liberal traps.
Ron Paul 2012.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:52 AM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Newt Gingrich a terrible president? Perhaps. But not when compared to the current office holder. And the shine of his star brightens further when compared to a second term for 44. Ron Paul might be a less terrible president - if he could become president. When he starts polling above wehre Ross Perot finished, give me a call. In the meantime - GINGRICH/PAUL 2012. (Which Paul? Pickem.)
Posted by: johngalt at February 2, 2012 11:54 AM
February 1, 2012
On the Trail 2012
@amaeryllis leaks classified info:
Romney family Secret Service Codenames: Mitt - Beige; Ann - Ecru; Tagg - Cream; Matt - Khaki; Josh - Buff; Craig - Taupe; Ben - Other One
Hat-tip: Jim GeraghtyPosted by John Kranz at 11:03 AM | Comments (4)But Keith Arnold thinks:If they did this with the Obama family, there would be Hell to pay in the public media.
That being said, my prurient curiosity is hankering to know what the First Family's codenames are.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 1, 2012 11:16 AMBut Keith Arnold thinks:Nevermind... I hate linking to HuffingPaint, but a Google search led me to this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-family-secret-servi_n_142767.html
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 1, 2012 11:17 AMBut jk thinks:Very cool. But aren't they supposed to be secret? Somebody might read Huffington Post.
Posted by: jk at February 1, 2012 11:53 AMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Sure, people might read it, but they'd never believe it.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 1, 2012 12:08 PM
January 31, 2012
Another Appeal to Authority
Perhaps these are becoming counter-productive, but I see your Obama's Uncle and raise you Alan Freaking Reynolds! Including extra bonus David Stockman whacks. Oh man, it's like Easter and Christmas and my birthday all at once!
Newt Gingrich's alleged role in the development of supply-side economics sometimes looks like a deliberate distraction from deeper questions about why he claims to be more "conservative" than other candidates. Gingrich is the only candidate who repeatedly advocated federal legislation making health insurance compulsory. He has enthusiastically supported federal subsidies for ethanol and other green energy boondoggles. And he dismissed a thoughtful plan from Paul Ryan to slow the growth of entitlements as "right wing social engineering." Other candidates have their own faults. Romney seems hawkish for my taste, too prone to blaming our problems on China, and too harsh on immigration. But those are very common views among conservatives, arguably making Newt more moderate than Mitt in these respects.For Newt Gingrich to toss out strikingly grandiose and obviously unworkable ideas about scrapping many taxes and slashing others is for him to reveal that he's far from moderate. But being immoderate is not the same as being conservative. And voicing flippant disregard for budget problems of the magnitude we face is not the same as being any sort of economist, supply-side or otherwise.
Posted by John Kranz at 8:43 PM | Comments (5)But jk thinks:Cannot lie, the Speaker's speech was very very good tonight.
Posted by: jk at January 31, 2012 10:34 PMBut johngalt thinks:I had to wait 24 hours before commenting to see if I still felt the same way or if it was just "irrational exuberance." I emailed my family yesterday:
Did you hear Newt's speech? What did you think?I thought it was great and signaled the real start of the presidential campaign: Newt or Romneybama, because if Newt (or Paul) doesn't win the nomination then nothing much will change. It will only be a question of how quickly they"manage the decline."
The replies were universally approbational and included this link to a video recording of the speech.
Today I sent Newt a hundred bucks. I hope dagny will forgive me.
Posted by: johngalt at February 2, 2012 12:38 AMBut jk thinks:He's got Trump's money now -- you shoulda kept Mister Franklin in your pocket! As I bled as much plus memorabilia orders into the Hunstman trough, I should probably keep quiet (saddened that I never got the T-Shirts).
But my friend, my brother, my compatriot: one good speech does not a candidacy make.
Posted by: jk at February 2, 2012 10:30 AMBut jk thinks:Ooooops - got caught believing Internet rumors again. It's Governor Romney that gets Trump's hair.
Posted by: jk at February 2, 2012 12:06 PMBut dagny thinks:I forgive you for sending money to Newt. I don't forgive you for not telling me first. See what politics can do to people. Imagine what it must be like for James Carville and Mary Matalin.
Posted by: dagny at February 2, 2012 5:22 PM
The gig is up
The historical accounts of the 2012 Presidential election are already being written. From Steve McCann's 'The Republican Establishment's Strategic Blunder' in the American Thinker:
The one major accomplishment of Barack Obama has been to bring a sudden and abrupt end the people's ability to tolerate this tacitly understood game between the two major Parties.(...)
All the other challengers were easily eliminated or made irrelevant, as they did not have the money or experience of knowing how the game is played, but Newt refused to just slink away. Never has the Republican Establishment trained its guns on any one candidate in such an unbridled and unrestrained way.
Perhaps Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul are not the right candidates to face Barack Obama, but that decision should be up to the voters. While it maybe the role of the conservative pundit class to proffer their opinions of the various candidates, it is not the role of the overall Establishment to so marginalize candidates that there appears to be only one viable alternative.
The Establishment could not have made a more strategic blunder. They will, in all likelihood, succeed in securing the nomination for Mitt Romney, but the damage they have inflicted upon themselves is approaching irreversible. The public now sees the length to which the Establishment will go to make certain their hand-picked candidate is chosen regardless of the dire circumstances facing the nation.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:28 PM | Comments (5)But Boulder Refugee thinks:I dunno. This really smacks of conspiracy theory. My assessment of conspiracies is that the theorists give way to much credit for intelligence to the conspirators.
It reminds me of when Gore and RFK Jr. blamed Bush for Katrina. Sure - a guy they claim to be to stupid to read a book somehow has God-like control over the weather.
Similarly here, the "GOP establishment" is too incompetant to organize a campaign, but somehow as the skills to do a Jedi mind-trick on the electorate.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 1, 2012 11:58 AMBut johngalt thinks:I'm confused. What's the "conspiracy theory?" That negative campaign ads work or that "an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: control of the government purse-strings" dominates national party politics?
Posted by: johngalt at February 1, 2012 2:52 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:JG, you're a friend, so I'm happy to un-confuse you. :-)
First of all, the definition of "The Establishment": "an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: control of the government purse-strings." Who in the polical debate does that NOT describe?!? We at Three Sources would love to control the government purse strings, if for no other reason than to tie a knot in them. Indeed, it is the disagreement over government gathering and use of funds that animates most of us.
Second, the idea that dozens or hundreds of prominant politicians - who can rarely agree on lunch - got together and derived a consensus and a grand strategy for electing a particular candidate seems highly implausible. The fact that a number of prominant politicians support a particular candidate does not mean that they got together and decided to do so, though no doubt many of the talk regularly.
Finally, "...it appears that those who are nominally identified as the "Republican Establishment" are doing all they can to alienate the vast majority of the current base of the Party." Seriously?? The party appartchik is sitting around dreaming up ways to piss off the "vast majority" of its base? Again, implausible. Moreover, how can they alienate the "vast majority" of the base and simultaneous convince them to vote for their chosen candidate?
This a sour-grapes theory to explain why Newt is losing to Romney. The truth is that while Romney may be deeply flawed, Newt is deeply, deeply flawed. Finally, just because a bunch of party insiders don't believe that Newt is electable doesn't mean it's not true.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 1, 2012 4:26 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:What he said. BR, that is...
Posted by: nanobrewer at February 1, 2012 11:43 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:"Republican Establishment trained its guns"
in non-partisan, unelectioneering, bomb-catching plainspeak, people established (aka, whose opinions are sometimes sought) within the republican party exercised their right to free speech and called a Newt... well, whatever they thought he was.The idea of Ann Coulter colluding with anyone behind a closed door is silly... until ... it becomes oddly disturbing >:-0
I caught a bit of the ads and speech from the FL campaign. I didn't find the selected Romney ad objectionable (and you'd think they'd picked a nasty one). A bit harsh perhaps, but way less harsh than Newt calling anyone else a Washington insider: that takes gall and a forked tongue well-used to the taste of bile.
Gall don't necessarily impress independent voters. I already can't stand listening to His Whineyness anymore.
P.S.: the prohibition on posting comments still afflicts NB; but only with FireFox.
Posted by: nanobrewer at February 1, 2012 11:56 PM
The Trouble With Newt
Not a promising, conciliatory beginning, izzit? Portends poorly for the tenor of the whole piece...
We start, as James Pethokoukis did, with Art Laffer's (HOSS alert!) shining guest editorial on the Speaker's bold 15% flat tax plan.
Imagine what would happen to international capital flows if the U.S. went from the second highest business tax country in the world to one of the lowest. Low taxes along with all of America's other great attributes would precipitate a flood of new investment in this country as well as a quick repatriation of American funds held abroad. We would create more jobs than you could shake a stick at. And those jobs would be productive jobs, not make-work jobs like so many of Mr. Obama's stimulus jobs.
Sounds pretty good, huh? Well it is, and Jimi P likes it as well. Unfortunately...
If only Gingrich were as bold and specific when it came to cutting spending. Even Laffer admits in the op-ed that the Gingrich plan--despite faster economic growth--would be a revenue loser to the government. Now, that's not such a big deal if you also plan to slash the size of government. But Gingrich doesn't say what he would cut, aside from, dare I say it, grandiose projections like this one in his "21st Century Contract for America": [Hint: Six-sigma, baby! Waste, fraud and abuse!]
Sorry to be bellicose, but that is what a bass player I knew called "the crux of the biscuit." Government is going to be leaner and more efficient. It is going to do things you like and not things your lefty Facebook friends like.But I want less government. I want government to do less. And I continue to believe in an existential threat if we continue down this road. And all the current GOP candidates except one will continue down this road in some fashion. Ergo, with some trepidation, I will be caucusing for Rep. Ron Paul. And I hope he wins the nomination and the general election.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:46 PM | Comments (4)But johngalt thinks:I think if he wins the nomination Ron Paul could win the general election. And I'm sure he would try even harder to cut government than Newt would, but I'm not sure he would be more successful. There's much to be said for a man's leadership ability, philosophical purity notwithstanding.
But the real reason Newt is promising the world in every local campaign and refraining from the "I'm gonna destroy things" rhetoric we all want to hear is that, quite simply, it's the way to win elections. Want proof? Where are Ron Paul's poll numbers?
The campaign will be long and multi-phased. The present phase is establishment v. laissez-faire, one versus two, Romney vs. Gingrich. Supporting Paul at this phase is to abdicate control to the establishment. Not that I like it - that's just the way the game is rigged to play out.
Posted by: johngalt at January 31, 2012 2:55 PMBut jk thinks:But Governor Romney and the Speaker are both establishment GOP figures, no matter how many times Speaker G claims he isn't.
I am reminded of Phil Gramm's adage: "How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four -- calling a tail a leg does not makei it one."
Posted by: jk at January 31, 2012 3:07 PMBut johngalt thinks:Check your definition of "establishment." Experienced former leader in the party? Gingrich. Manchurian candidate of those currently pulling strings in the halls of power? Romney. Indeed, it is this insider experience that I believe gives Newt a much greater chance of successfully changing government than the now-and-always on the outside, Ron Paul.
Also consider this from Dr. Milton Wolf, cousin of President Obama:
Mr. Gingrich may be an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, as the former Alaska governor has said, but in truth, if you connect the dots between the ideals of the Reagan Revolution, Mr. Gingrich’s Republican Revolution and the Tea Party movement, you get a straight line. The GOP establishment is right to fear Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party, just as they once feared Ronald Reagan.Posted by: johngalt at January 31, 2012 3:21 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:Ha - that tail-versus-leg story goes back farther, to a different Republican entirely:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/lincoln-quote-sourced-calfs-tail-not-dogs-tail/
Back on topic, JG is right - Ron Paul could win the nomination, and the general. The Giants could beat the Patriots - that's why they make the teams actually play the game and not just make it a foregone conclusion based on odds. If they face each other enough times, even the Raiders can beat the Patriots. How many times out of a hundred that might happen is conjectural. Is Ron Paul to the election what the Raiders are to the Super Bowl? Perhaps November will tell us.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 31, 2012 3:23 PM
January 29, 2012
The latest from Sarah
Via Facebook.
But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.Click continue reading to see my comment to the FB thread.
My Comment:
There are 5 men in this country from whom we may now choose to be its next President. None are perfect and each has flaws for which some of us will "disqualify" him. I have disqualified ALL of them at one point or another. Ultimately, I believe, the greatest threat to America comes from Crony Capitalism - cozy personal and financial relationships between establishment politicians and CINO businessmen (Capitalists in Name Only.) Our greatest hope for ending bailouts is an electable Republican - Newt Gingrich. I trust Sarah and Michael and Nancy Reagan. They are great Americans. Romney is a nice guy with the wrong friends and backers: Republicans who give the brand a bad name. I don't oppose Romney so much as I oppose THEM. Watch this (especially after 21:30 mark): http://vimeo.com/35369616 Who am I? I am the TEA Party.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:34 PM | Comments (3)But jk thinks:Jim Geraghty' "Morning Jolt" struck me as unusual. He was telling Republicans to listen to those who championed other candidates and not think that their guy is perfect. Funny, I've seen some disagreements, but our discussions have been more of a "My guy doesn't suck quite as bad as yours!" In that spirit...
I am not buying the Speaker's claim to disestablishmentarianism. (And, yes, I have wanted to use that word in a sentence for a long time). The Speaker is a wily politician and has looked for ways to capture the affection and passion of disaffected Tea Party voters. He therefore, pitches himself against "The GOP Establishment."
Did I mention that he was Speaker of the House?
You fault Governor Romney for his backers. Boo hiss, hate us some John McCain and Bob Dole! I don't think either the level of antipathy heaped on our previous nominees or the guilt by association of their endorsement is fair.
Yes, Governor Palin's almost-an-endorsement endorsement is a blue chip, as is The Herman Cain's more fulsome one. In the spirit of the moment, Cain even used two adverbs. But I am not holding Romney responsible for his backers -- I am actually quite keen on Governors Christie and Halley.
On FOX News Sunday, the Speaker was his disappointing self -- lashing out at Gov Romney as "Wall Street's Man!" and referencing "foreign" accounts. He backed off a chance to walk back the bitterness to say that Gov. Romney has the character to be President.
You've done a great job selling, brother, but I ain't buying. I lean toward Rep Ron Paul but might caucus for Romney. And who knows, I am hearing Senator Santorum speak this Saturday! (Hope his daughter is well.)
Posted by: jk at January 30, 2012 2:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:If I might offer a clarification: By "backers" I don't mean the ones out front, putting their names on endorsements. I mean the financiers and, yes, "Wall Street Bankers" who backed those past candidates. And while we can like much about them, consider this from the "Red Meat" article I just linked.
This orderly process of selection does not succeed because the Republican establishment is a kind of omnipotent secret organization that meets every Tuesday in the bowels of the Chamber of Commerce to plot the fate of the GOP.Rather, it is a loose network of Republican thinkers, politicians, lobbyists, staffers and journalists based in Washington who share common experiences — like being educated in the same ivory towers as liberals and having to answer to them at cocktail parties.
This is the best description I've ever seen of the Republican Establishment.
Whether they are liberal apologists, crony capitalists or agents of such, or merely just clueless - it is their judgement and leadership that has helped get America into this mess. And Mitt Romney is their candidate.
Posted by: johngalt at January 30, 2012 3:38 PMBut johngalt thinks:FWIW, Jason Lewis agrees with you, saying "there's no ideological tug of war between Romney and Gingrich."
Posted by: johngalt at January 30, 2012 6:44 PM
January 27, 2012
Romney's "Establishment" Smoking Gun
While Bob Dole was endorsing Romney yesterday, former Reagan administration official Elliot Abrams loudly denounced Newt Gingrich's Reagan cred. Everyone remembers, right?
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing. Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.”"Context man, give me context! American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord, himself a former aide to Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan, today writes of a former Gingrich foreign policy aide, Chris Scheve, and his dilligent work to keep the record correct.
That's right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich's long ago March 21, 1986 "Special Order" speech on the floor of the House, and aware "that most of his [Abrams'] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order" -- Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.So now I've read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.
I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.
And here's the money quote:
• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan's policies towards the Soviets are "inadequate and will ultimately fail." This is shameful. Why? Here's what Newt said -- in full and in context:"The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail."So he criticized Reagan's administration, not Reagan himself. Add to this the frequent reminders that "the establishment never trusted Reagan" and you start to see the bigger picture.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:07 PM | Comments (0)
January 26, 2012
Bob Dole Endorses Newt Gingrich
Well, not directly. He meant to endorse Mitt Romney. In a statment, the former Senator from Kansas said:
I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich, but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.Gingrich served as speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. Already in 1997 a number of House members wanted to throw him out as speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when the writing was on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.
Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with Bill Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.
In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads, and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand — that was a symbol of some sort for him — and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it.
In my opinion if we want to avoid an Obama landslide in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president we could have confidence in.
When Mitt Romney is endorsed by Senators Dole and McCain, arguably two of the weakest Republican nominees since Adlai Stevenson, it can only help the former Speaker.
UPDATE: Mea maxima culpa. The Refugee meant to say Thomas Dewey, not Adlai Stevenson. He regrets the error. (And should fact check himself from time to time.)Posted by Boulder Refugee at 4:59 PM | Comments (5)But johngalt thinks:A perusal of the Drudge Report today reveals a full-court-press media carpet-bombing of Newt. A coincidence that all these stories come out at once? Sure.
Posted by: johngalt at January 26, 2012 5:36 PMBut jk thinks:Stevenson?
Posted by: jk at January 26, 2012 6:31 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:Lessee... Romney endorsements... George H.W. Bush, check... Bob Dole, check... John McCain, check...
The list, my friends, is now complete. Every living Republican who has LOST a general election for the Presidency now endorses Romney in his run for the Presidency.
What could go wrong?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 27, 2012 12:33 AMBut nanobrewer thinks:Keith, that's just a function of having most of the establishment lined up behind him (ex: 77 members of congress vs. 11 for Newt).
I am desperately waiting for his I paid for this microphone! moment. Still, he'd be a better standard bearer for the GOP as it tries to take back Congress... and I don't think Newt will shut his trap (heh, make a great VP), 'cause someone has to hammer BHO on his record.
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 27, 2012 2:13 AMBut johngalt thinks:HA! In Romney's case he probably really DID pay for that microphone! Come back nb, come back! Don't walk toward the establishment light! Take the red pill! It's not too late!
Posted by: johngalt at January 27, 2012 3:33 PM
Gravitas
Those of you who count Newt Gingrich's portliness as one of his many electoral handicaps, and I admit such a bias, may rest assured at least on this one count. In a lengthy and entertaining piece by RCP's Carl M. Cannon entitled Newt vs. Mitt: Can a Fat Man Beat a Thin Man? the author summarizes the social science:
Once again, the sexist double-standard manifested itself. Female "candidates" who carried excess weight were routinely devalued more than similarly girthed male candidates. But that wasn’t all. There was fascinating data about portly men: Overweight men -- but not truly obese men -- actually were judged more positively than thin ones. "Larger body size may be an asset for male candidates," Miller and Lundgren stated in a subsequent paper, postulating that this finding was not inconsistent with the gender bias they detected. "There is significant pressure for women in western society to be thin," they wrote, "but for men there is pressure to have muscle mass."
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:38 PM | Comments (1)But Boulder Refugee thinks:The Refugee will not be quite so pejorative. He would gladly take Chris Christie, cheeseburgers and all.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 26, 2012 5:17 PM
Thousand Words
Hat-tip: Run,Mitch,Run FaceBook page
Posted by John Kranz at 2:00 PM | Comments (0)
Corporations are not people!
After watching a large part of this David Stockman interview with Bill Moyers I'm about ready to adopt the dirty hippies #Occupy meme. When they villified "Wall Street" and "Greedy Corporations" I always had a mental image of Fidelity Investments and WalMart. But if I replace that with Goldman Sachs and General Electric I think we would agree on more than we differ.
This also magnifies my distrust of the GOP establishment and, by association, the Romney candidacy.
David Stockman on Crony Capitalism from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:15 AM | Comments (12)But jk thinks:Made it through. Clearly I'm going to have to change brother jg's password. It's one thing to hack somebody's account for personal gain, but this character assassination borders on libel.
Okay, he doesn't like Jeff Immelt -- thus 50% as reliable as a broken clock.
What what what did you like? A constitutional amendment to keep corporate money out of politics -- a $100 limit on contributions? Government dictating the size, structure, and allowed transactions of banks (my largest disagreement with Gov Huntsman)? Or did you just dig the repudiation of Reagan's economic vision?
If I may quote In Living Color's "Men on Film" segement: "hated it!"
Posted by: jk at January 26, 2012 6:04 PMBut johngalt thinks:If memory serves, I came in at about 21:30 when I switched on PBS last night. Anything before that I'll defer to a future debate.
I liked the expose of GE's bailout and how it should have been done through a dilution of shareholder value and not by a FED bailout.
I liked the assertion, "Free markets are not free. They've been bought and paid for by large financial institutions."
I liked the identification of the "entitled class" of "Wall Street financiers and corporate CEOs" who "believe the government is there to do whatever is necessary ... whatever it takes to keep the game going and their stock price moving upward."
And most of all, I appreciated Stockman's correction that "it is important to put the word crony capitalism on there, because free-market capitalism is a different thing. True free-market capitalists never go to Washington with their hand out. True free-market capitalists running a bank do not expect that whenever they make a mistake or whenever they get themselves too leveraged, or they end up with too many risky assets that don't work out, they don't expect to be able to go to the Federal Reserve and get some cheap or free money and go on as before. They expect consequences, maybe even failure of their firm. Certainly loss of their bonuses, maybe loss of their jobs. So we don't have free-market capitalism left in this country anymore, we have everyone believing that if they can hire the right lobbyists, raise enough political action committee money, spend enough time prowling the halls of the Senate and the House and the office buildings arguing for the benefit of their narrow parochial interests then that is the way things will work out. That's crony capitalism and it's very dangerous. It seems to be becoming more embedded in our system."
What's not to like with any of this? We can argue about causes and solutions, but can we agree on this particular problem?
Posted by: johngalt at January 26, 2012 7:40 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The Refugee listened to all 34 scintillating minutes and can't quite see what sent JK 'round the bend. Yes, Moyers is an insufferable nincompoop, but we knew that going in. The irony, of course, is that the far left and the fiscal right have finally found common ground in deploring crony capitalism.
The most objectionable part of Stockman's comments was his assertion that we need to change the First Amendment to deny corporations the right to lobby and give political contributions. (Why corporations should be muzzled but not unions or enviros remains a mystery.) Nevertheless, his comments against crony capitalism and in support of pure capitalism seemed to make a lot of sense.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 26, 2012 9:55 PMBut jk thinks:Well, at least our ratings are up. I got an email from a good friend of the blog who is enjoying this argument very much.
You know, brothers, Governor Howard Dean doesn't like bailouts and crony capitalism either. I'm sure I can find a clip of his discussing it with Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Rachel Maddow. I'll post it and we'll all agree how very swell it is.
I do not trust either of these men. Both have done extreme damage to this great nation and our concept of liberty and personal achievement. Just because we all agree Jeff Immelt is a dickhead, I am not going to embrace them.
When Stockman longs for the Republican Party of his youth, he is longing for Eisenhower and Ford. Moyers, of course, never came to grips with the idea of a Democrat Party without LBJ.
"Free markets aren't really free" does sound like ThreeSources and I'm sure he'd like to sell us each a copy of his book. But when it comes from a guy who wants to dictate banks' size and business practice, propose extreme campaign finance rules, and has an, ahem, history of government expansion -- I do not accept that he is now calling for lasseiz faire.
Posted by: jk at January 27, 2012 10:47 AM
But johngalt thinks:I must say my first reaction to this recording was one of excitement over the fact that it could lead to a bridge between left and right so wide and so strong as to absolutely overpower the entrenched crony establishment with a popular laissez-faire revolution. After a second viewing I remain hopeful, and as long as my password continues to function I will strive to advance the topic. (Yes, I know yer just joking about yanking it.)
Let me ask that we seek a point of agreement before we debate whether Stockman is the GOP antichrist or Phil Gramm precipitated TARP. I'm sure we're all on board with "crony capitalism is very dangerous" so how about, this:
When the net worth of a collection of six financial services conglomerations and their six boards of directors approaches the annual GDP of the entire United States private sector, and the members of those boards of directors have unprecedented influence throughout the depth and breadth of the federal government, our principled free-speech rules may no longer be sufficient for preventing this "entitled class" from manipulating the government for their own narrow interests to the detriment of individual liberty and property, particularly in a mixed economic system with fiat currency.In my youth, "Ma Bell" was deemed "too big" and was broken up. Today, "Wall Street" is deemed "too big to fail" and is instead propped up - by devaluing the net worth of every dollar-denominated individual. Cui bono?
Posted by: johngalt at January 27, 2012 12:44 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:While The Bad Guys and Three Sourcers can agree that crony capitalism is bad, our reasons for believing so are very different. The Bad Guys view capitalism, in toto, as undesireable. Thus, anything that props it up in any form is a bad thing. Three Sourcers, on the other hand, view crony capitalism as a misuse of taxpayer funds, misallocation of resources and questionable ethics. Because The Bad Guys believe that all things good emanate from the government, when crony capitalism falls capitalism will fall with it. Three Sourcers believe the opposite, and that a lack of crony capitalism will lead to better allocation of resources and therefore economic expansion. Thus, we are willing to accept this deal with The Bad Guys (all other things being equal).
We don't have to embrace them, we just have to outmaneuver them.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 27, 2012 12:46 PM
January 25, 2012
Jobs vs. Environment
Thousands of loggers lost their jobs in the American Northwest because of dubious claims about wiping out the last of the spotted owls. This is just one example of environmental extremists' non-linear cost benefit analysis doing irreparable harm to the livelihoods of American workers.
The latest glaring example of this is TransCanada Corporation's Keystone XL Pipeline project. Despite the safety record showing pipelines to be the "safest, most efficient and economical way" to move the natural resource called crude oil, environmental activists have chosen spill hazards as the primary reason to oppose private construction of the new pipeline. But America is already criss-crossed by 55,000 miles of oil pipelines, many of which are small, old and in disrepair. And the spill rate [pg. 9] for those lines is 0.00109 incidents (spill of 50 bbl or more) per mile per year. That calculates to 60 spills every year. The estimated spill rate for the modern new Keystone XL [pg. 10] is 0.186 spills per year, anywhere over its entire 1371 mile length. (.000136 incidents per mile per year)
So the question every American voter should ask himself is, would I quit my job and ask 19,999 of my neighbors to quit theirs in order to avoid increasing the pipeline spill incident rate by 0.3 percent? (And have you even noticed any of the sixty-odd spills that already happen each year?)
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:57 PM | Comments (1)But J thinks:"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon
Three Sources should consider re-branding to "Three Sources of Cognitive Dissonance" ;-) Rationalize, ignore and deny anything that does not fit within your core beliefs. Spotted owls, fracking, deforestation, pollution, environmental degradation and job loss included. Cheers! ;-)
Posted by: J at August 8, 2012 5:22 PM
Thus Spake Sarah Palin
It seemed like a big deal last Wednesday when Sarah Palin said if she were a South Carolina voter she would vote for Newt to keep the nomination contest going a while longer. In retrospect, big deal is a giant understatement. Weekly Standard:
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Newt Gingrich now enjoys the support of 52 percent of Tea Party voters, and his huge advantage among such voters has vaulted him into the national lead in the GOP presidential race. The poll was taken yesterday, two days after Gingrich's win in the South Carolina primary, and it shows the former speaker leading Mitt Romney by an overall margin of 7 percentage points -- 35 to 28 percent. That result marks a 10-point swing between the two candidates from six days earlier, when Romney led Gingrich by 3 points in Rasmussen's polling (30 to 27 percent), and a 20-point swing from 19 days earlier, when Romney led Gingrich by 13 points (29 to 16 percent).(...)
No doubt buoyed in part by the recent near-endorsement of Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin -- as well as that of Allen West (R., Fla.) -- Gingrich's level of support among Tea Party voters has risen from 24 percent shortly after Iowa (at which point he was tied with Romney among such voters), to 39 percent last Tuesday, to 52 percent in current polling.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:27 AM | Comments (5)But jk thinks:I'll award the full ten points for the title.
But I think (and hope) that you overestimate Governor Griz's influence. The Speaker helped himself with very strong debate performances and abandoning his attacks on Capitalism. Governor R did himself no favors with the unforced error on his tax returns.
A good friend worries that his lefty friends are right, er correct, in suggesting the Republicans really have been taken over by the crazies. Exhibit A was Gov. Palin's oversized influence.
Y'all will be glad to hear I protested, and I understand there is more demand for unabashed free voices than supply. But we desperately need a more intellectual voice.
Like Governor Mitch Daniels -- whom I swear is the embodiment of our nation's greatest President: "Silent Cal" Coolidge!
Posted by: jk at January 25, 2012 10:47 AM
But johngalt thinks:Good feedback and I mostly agree. (I said "mostly.")
First I'll caution against discounting Ms. Palin's intellect. It plays into a lefty meme that anyone with a regional accent and a faith tradition (and heaven help them if they like motorsports of any kind) is an uninformed dope.
Second, I believe the electorate hungers more for someone with the energy and determination to fight and win an aggressive campaign. "Intellectualism" per se is greatly overrated. Enthusiasm is a major factor holding Romney back and, I'll bait you again, Mitch Daniels registers even lower on that count. I agree with you that Newt largely made his own success but I can't ignore the perception that TEA Party voters, after test driving almost every model on the lot, were just waiting for a sign to coalesce around one of them.
(Let them try calling me a rube after using 'coalesce' in a sentence. It's French ... ain't it?)
Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2012 11:37 AMBut jk thinks:Dude! You're quoting Nietzsche on a right wing blog -- you be an intellectyual giant!
Posted by: jk at January 25, 2012 12:05 PMBut jk thinks:Agree to a point of the Gov: she's much smartier than her lefty critics admit. But is she as smart as her righty fans believe? I suspect not.
Posted by: jk at January 25, 2012 12:20 PMBut johngalt thinks:I believe Sarah Palin is as smart as:
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Tim Geithner
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels
You know, "politicians."And:
Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2012 2:56 PM
David Gregory
Katie Couric
Christiane Ammanpour
Brian Williams
Juan Williams
You know, "left-wing populism editorialists."
January 24, 2012
SOTUPlatitudes
That's the working name for my new drinking game and boy, am I hammered.
Thanks to the boys at Real Clear Politics here are the transcripts:
Daniels: State of Union Is Grave
No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others.As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro- growth economic policy, there'll never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have.
As a loyal opposition, who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and solvency is our ally, and our friend. We will speak the language of unity. Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait.
The speech itself was excellent, and the delivery by Indiana's Governor Daniels had the added benefit of making Mitt Romney sound, by comparison, like a dynamo.
Posted by JohnGalt at 11:42 PM | Comments (0)
Otequay of the Ayday
A fun quote from a just as fun column:
All the organization and money in the world can’t force folks to vote for you if they don’t want to, and now that Newt’s inoculated himself against further Super PAC attack ads and renegade ex-wives, it’s unlikely that Romney can carpet-bomb him as effectively as he did in Iowa. Newt’s now like one of those nuked Japanese film creatures that not only was not destroyed but is back, bigger, badder and more cheesed off than ever. -- NRO Michael WalshRead on to find analogies to the Battle of Gettysburg (primary election) and the boxer vs. the puncher (general election.)
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:08 PM | Comments (4)But jk thinks:Excellent. If I may tag on, as you link to The Corner, I share a description on its Ten Year Anniversary from Jonah:
The basic idea was for us to have arguments. Friendly arguments. Not just about politics and philosophy but about TV shows, sports, and the best kind of cocktail nut (cashews, obviously). The Corner was about disproving the claim of "epistemic closure" on the right before anybody ever thought to use the phrase. A couple times the arguments got testy. But for the most part we stayed pretty close to the ideal of showing those who cared to pay attention that conservatives could disagree about all sorts of things and that we had interests outside of partisan politics. Personally, I’d like to see it get back to some of the arguments of yore.
Just sayin'... Posted by: jk at January 24, 2012 3:57 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:"... like one of those nuked Japanese film creatures that was only not destroyes but is back, bigger, badder, and more cheesed off than ever"? Newt?
Cue the Cult. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gFlSGXt_k
Each Not-Romney who had a surge did so because, for the duration their candle burned, a bunch of people believed that he would fight against Washington for them. If Newt can convince people that he is to Obama what the Kaiju Gojira was to downtown Tokyo, I'm willing to listen.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 24, 2012 7:53 PMBut johngalt thinks:Of course, you're right. I had nearly forgotten. From last May, Newtzilla. CRANK IT UP!
Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2012 8:02 PMBut johngalt thinks:Whoops. "This video has been removed by the user."
Maybe Team Newt finally has the resources to scrub the web for him, although I thought it was promotional for him. I also noticed that the newtgingrich.com problem has been taken care of.
Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2012 8:11 PM
But What About His Opponent?
The establishment GOP punditry has been dutifully besmirching Newt Gingrich as "radical" and "erratic." Too much so, they say, to be elected president much less hold the office. But what about the other guy? IBD's editorial page appreciates the way that Newt goes about reminding the media, and the voters, who that guy in the Oval Office really is.
Alinsky's radicalism despises capitalism, entrepreneurship, individualism and, most of all, American exceptionalism. It is the genesis of Obama's demonization of the successful and his passion for the redistribution but not the creation of wealth. It's at the heart of his ongoing apology tour where he tells the world we are sorry for acting like we are mankind's last best hope for mankind, a belief Newt Gingrich shares with President Ronald Reagan.Obama's is the belief system that Newt Gingrich told NBC's David Gregory, "is fundamentally different from probably 80% of this country." That would be a comfortable electoral majority, would it not? Does Mitt Romney even know how to pronounce "Alinsky?"
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:27 PM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:Exhibit 1: The latest Romney tweet-
Mitt Romney @MittRomney This President's agenda made these troubled times last longer. He made it harder for the economy to recover http://obamaisntworking.comMemorable, eh? I can smell the formaldehyde from here.
Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2012 4:15 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The former governor can certainly turn a phrase.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 24, 2012 10:11 PMBut johngalt thinks:It reads like he took a normal sentence and ran it through a software algorithm designed to lower the grade level of the speech. Maybe he's trying to "connect with the folks."
Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2012 11:40 PM
Makes ThreeSources Look Cheerful!
<understatement>Bret Stephens is a little down in the dumps</understatement>
In The GOP Deserves to Lose, he makes our commentariat look energized and enthusiastic. You'll want to read the whole thing, but the ThreeSources Style Guide dictates that I excerpt. Where to start? Where to stop?
As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
Getting a taste?
Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn't because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November--or, rather, when he does--the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.
"Cheer up, Brian!"Posted by John Kranz at 10:47 AM | Comments (2)But Boulder Refugee thinks:Sadly, he seems to be spot on.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 24, 2012 7:17 PMBut johngalt thinks:My take was that those guys probably just didn't want their mistresses outed. I wasn't gonna say nuthin', then br chimed in.
Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2012 8:05 PM
Quote of the Day
A lot of viewers were expecting Gladiator Newt to burst upon the stage, unsheath his sword, behead a moderator or two, hurl the decapitated-anchor noggin into the audience and bellow, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?" But this was a comparably subdued Newt. -- Jim Geraghty [subscribe]Posted by John Kranz at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)
January 23, 2012
Conservatism Won't Sit in the Back of the Bus
The WSJ Ed page analysis of The Gingrich Challenge is 20/20. If Romney can't beat Gingrich he probably can't beat Obama, and if Gingrich doesn't discipline himself, stay on message, and broaden his appeal then he won't succeed either.
The Republican nominee will have to make a sustained and specific case that Mr. Obama's policies made the recovery weaker than it should have been (stimulus, health care), squandered resources on political boondoggles (Solyndra), and how and why GOP policies will do better. Mr. Romney's 59 economic proposals are fine but forgettable little ideas. He needs a big idea.Gingrich has been talking about these big ideas. However...
Mr. Gingrich will also eventually need a more inclusive message than he is now offering. He made a stab at it in his South Carolina victory remarks by mentioning the strengths of his competitors. His bow to Mr. Paul's "sound money" platform was especially shrewd, but then he kept talking and talking in his familiar undisciplined fashion.(...)
He needs to practice the politics of addition with independents and nonconservatives.
The TEA Party is dead, they say? Not so quick. But remember it's the message, not the messenger, that we will reward.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:50 PM | Comments (1)But nanobrewer thinks:Listening to a few of Hugh Hewitt's callers tonight led me to the insight that Newt's biggest appeal is to those who want to see someone who can "Sock it to Him" (so to speak). The dramatic reversal from the polls to the result in SC must have quite a bit to do with his retort over Marianne's interview.
I understand this appeal to conservatives and ... well, hell... anyone with working synapses sick of the abominations that emanate from the chattering class in this Obamanation. Besides, a negative campaign is easier to map out.
Yo', I say, to said synapses: how does this get us the independents? I think it a bad idea to engage in sucker punch campaign with a media-backed, immoral, Chicago politician whose got a $B+ war chest and the executive branch ready and willing to lay mines, false trails and trip wires. So much for easy map-making.
I think we need a more positive message than Newt is able to deliver, and let Obama slink into the gutter.
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 23, 2012 11:41 PM
On Liberty (now he thinks he's JS Mill!)
What a great weekend for blogging and, pari passu, a rotten weekend for getting other stuff done.
The discussion of the GOP race was thoughtful and fun and spirited and serious -- everything I love. With several threads going, I risk another to address a direct statement: "So what you're saying is, Newt doesn't love liberty."
Yes. I am saying that at the bottom of the Speaker's [adjective], [adjective] heart is a Teddy-Rooseveltian desire to wield the levers of government to do great things. As Professor Reynolds would say, "What could possibly go wrong?"
I back this scurrilous charge with the Speaker's support for ethanol subsidies, and his lobbying-but-not-really-lobbying for Freddie Mac and previous support of the GSE model.
If we need a man to school Juan Williams and John King, by all means. If we need a consistent voice for liberty, then we should vote for...ummm...wait a minute...it'll come to me...
Posted by John Kranz at 11:02 AM | Comments (5)But johngalt thinks:There's a distinct possibility we need to lower the bar on ideology just as SC voters were willing to do on marital success. In his State of the Union speech tomorrow President Obama intends to explain how he will Return to America's Values [Like slavery and "Robber Barons" no doubt.]
"We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness," Obama said in the video, which was released by his reelection campaign. "Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few. On Tuesday night, I'm going to talk about how we'll get there."We all know that Obama's prescriptions will have the opposite effect than the universally popular goals he claims to champion. Newt can effectively counter this. Mitt has not yet demonstrated that skill. And even if he eventually does so, how effective will it be for one of the "wealthy few" to explain how he's going to end protections for the "wealthy few?"
I think I could find where br'er jk wrote "liberty is not on the menu" in recent weeks or months. To some extent I agree, but I'll also add that the menu is offering collectivism writ large. The GOP must make certain that American's don't decide to see what it tastes like. The "American Values" that President Obama speaks of are those of the Great Depression.
Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2012 12:10 PMBut johngalt thinks:I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank blog brothers nb and br for their hearty contributions to the blog's nomination struggle discussion. Those of us planning to caucus in Colorado on February 7 appreciate the active dialog. I'm still hopeful we'll all reach agreement by then. I fear that jk and dagny may stick with Shaun Doll as a protest/platform-shaping exercise but I won't give up on them!
Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2012 3:05 PMBut jk thinks:Mark Steyn tees off on "The Man Who Gave us Newt."
Why is the stump speech so awful? "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it's lethal to him in a way that it wouldn't be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature -- as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs. And, when Ron Paul's going on about "fiat money" and Newt's brimming with specifics on everything (he was great on the pipeline last night), Mitt's generalities are awfully condescending: The finely calibrated inoffensiveness is kind of offensive.
Didn't want to just do two-minute-hate, but I think Steyn -- who knows stagecraft -- is on to something. Governor Romney didn't have a bone for the Tea Partiers, didn't have a defense for Capitalism and didn't have answers for the most obvious opposition.Irritating, I want to be all pragmatic and fall into line, really I do. And I'll cede Brother nb's point that the gov is a good guy, with integrity and character and intellect.
But Senator McCain had his war record and a dozen speeches that brought me to tears. Leader Dole had a superb wit and a consistent message of "a 15% tax cut." I see nothing better in the Gov. After all, I'm a pretty good guy...
Posted by: jk at January 23, 2012 3:39 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:Mmm-hmm, and lots of good guys finish last. So, it sounds like you're suggesting Romney may be underestimating the intelligence of the independent voter...
After reading "Gingrich Challenge" article (and more comments here) I must say I didn't realize Romney's long game was as weak as his ground game was strong.
SC voters have forced a confrontation. Perhaps Romney will now step up his game and Newt tone his down a bit?
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 24, 2012 12:35 AMBut johngalt thinks:YES. That is exactly what Rush Limbaugh suggested yesterday. He called Gingrich a "vessel for conservative ideas." Primary voters are rewarding him for his message and discounting his personal history. Every other candidate is free to follow his lead. Who knows, maybe one of them will do a better job of carrying the flag.
Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2012 2:15 PM
January 22, 2012
Rick! The Pragmatists' Choice
Note the possessive plural; I have been out-pragmated, Big time.
I appreciate the good words about Governor Romney. They are indeed palliative. But take a little walk with me (anybody read Issacson's Stove Jobs book? Five stars!) If your number one goal is defeating the President, isn't your best choice Senator Santorum?
The guy drives me nuts and has anchored the bottom of my list since Rep. Bachmann left the race. But somebody suggested that this is a time to be positive.
- Articulates Free Market Principles. This has indeed been a nice surprise. He quietly and convincingly keeps making the case in interviews and debates. Now I think his manufacturers' tax break and his family engineering contravene those positions -- but there's been worse and he has a good story for each.
- Evangelical Electoral Power. Libertarians love to talk, evangelicals vote. And give money. And walk precincts. And call their friends. And go GOTV. And serve as election judges. They put George W. Bush in the White House two times. Why not put them to work?
- "Reagan Democrats." That's his spiel -- but is there not underlying truth? Middle class, Catholic kid. Grandson of a coal miner (never tire of hearing that one -- you?). Neither Gordon Gekko nor Long Dong Silver nor Crazy Uncle Wilfred. He loses Colorado which may be hopeless, but he puts Pennsylvania in play and pulls Ohio into the Red.
Don't know that I am riding on the Rick Bandwagon, but as we settle down to pragmatic choices of imperfect candidates, we should not leave anyone out.Posted by John Kranz at 11:22 AM | Comments (8)But Perry Eidelbus thinks:"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
"That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
Rick Santorum apparently never heard of the "culture" that founded this country. He never heard of Thomas Jefferson. "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
To hell with him and his ilk. The devil can't drag him down to damnation soon enough.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 22, 2012 5:18 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:@Perry;
I'm more careful about allow textual snippets to over-confine or define anyone. It is good to remind TS'ers that he is a SiC, he is all that.I'd also like to hear someone clarify his economic model (so far, I'm underwhelmed), but I don't think he'll be able to defend it the way the Romney-Baron could. What's his background? I really don't care anymore what his grandpa did over Romney's or Gingrich's.
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 23, 2012 1:15 AM
But jk thinks:Do youse guyz watch "The Journal Editorial Report" on weekends on FOXNews? It's a great reason for the continued existence of the network.
Dorothy Rabinowitz took jg's side, Paul Gigot reminded that California and New York are lost -- doesn't matter if he loses worse.
The GOP has had an official pro-life plank in the platform for some time. I can support that on a national level as I am a pro-choice squish but Federalism absolute. Even Lawn Crawl is anti-abortion.
Santorum has pushed -- surprisingly eloquently on some occasions -- for a flatter, fairer tax. Two rates for income, 15 for cap gains and dividends. All real good, until... He wants 0% taxes on manufacturers so he can <strike>pander to populists</strike> keep a strong manufacturing base and provide jobs for American workers.
He'd also jack up the child tax credits. A bit of right-wing social engineering, but we're going to need more youg'uns to pay off this massive debt, umm, that will be enlarged by these special exemptions for the , umm, never mind.
I'm of course yanking everybody's chain. I am not seriously considering Senator Sweatervest. But I could make as good an argument for him as for any of the others, and if "electability" rises to the top, a better one.
Posted by: jk at January 23, 2012 10:57 AM
But johngalt thinks:No, I'm not trying to have the last word on every thread - honestly.
The GOP has had a "pro-life" plank for as long as I can remember. And yet, nothing has changed. One can be forgiven for expecting a President Santorum to make this the purpose of his presidency. And one should certainly expect the Democrats to try convincing voters of this. For Rick Santorum I'll stand by my prediction of "maybe less even" general election success than Shaun Doll.
Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2012 11:54 AMBut jk thinks:On queue: Senator Santorum has a rousing pro-life piece on the WSJ Ed Page today, marking the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade.
Posted by: jk at January 23, 2012 1:20 PMBut Perry Eidelbus thinks:So put simply, Santorum will let you think you're "free" because your taxes are reduced, but he wants to control how you dispose of your property.
We don't need to overcomplicate things. I never paid attention to what his forefathers said or did -- I take him for what he's said and done. It is unforgivable to attack, or at the very least forget, the very individualism that built this country from wilderness.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 23, 2012 10:42 PM
January 21, 2012
"When the Horse Dies, Dismount"
It's primary election day in South Carolina so I write this not to lobby for a candidate, but to defend his character and that of millions of men who, like him, experienced divorce from a wife.
This issue is a minefield of conflicting opinions and values but I think all would agree that people who divorce, more often than not, disagree on the root cause. As Taranto summarizes, Marianne told Brian Ross (with prompting) "Oh, he was asking to have an open marriage and I refused." Taken with her claim that he first asked for a divorce Taranto sees an important distinction:
In either case, there is an enormous difference between offering such an arrangement as a "compromise" to a spouse who does not wish to divorce, which is what Mr. Gingrich appears to have done, and flat-out asking for an open marriage.This was my surmise even before reading of the details. "When she refused to divorce he probably said something like, 'What, do you just want to continue a marriage in name only?" He was determined not to be kept in servitude to a marriage that had died 12 years earlier. Taranto continues:
There is also evidence that the Gingriches' marriage had been troubled for years before the split. National Review's Robert Costa notes a 1999 Associated Press report on their separation, which revealed some background:
Documents related to the divorce filed Friday in Cobb County Superior Court include a separation agreement signed by the couple and notarized in December 1987. There is no indication it was ever filed.Browning said Marianne Gingrich called her husband on his birthday in June 1987 to tell him she was leaving him. Gingrich, he said, came back to Georgia to find his home emptied out.
Browning said the pair maintained separate residences for six years before reconciling in late 1993 or early 1994.There's no way to know who was at fault in the first separation, and while it is not in dispute that Mr. Gingrich committed adultery before the actual divorce, the 1987 story leads one to wonder if he was completely to blame for the ultimate breakup.
Newt and Marriane reportedly married in 1981 and just six years later, Marianne moved out taking everything but a television and a guest bed. In retrospect I'm sure Newt regrets not finalizing a legal split with his estranged wife in less than the 12 years it ultimately took, but only a bitter shrew would maintain that he owed any matrimonial duty to her during that time.
And what of the 6 years they were married? It's apparent to me it was a bad match from the beginning. If either is guilty of anything it is first and foremost poor judgment in marrying to begin with.
Now can we get back to the 100% of GDP national debt, economy-wrecking taxation and regulation, evisceration of our military and national security secrets and Euro-socialization of American society? By all accounts Newt, Mitt, Rick, Ron, Rick, Jon, Michele, Gary, Herman and Tim are all now happily married. Thank you very much.
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:44 AM | Comments (3)But nanobrewer thinks:I am happy to see SC voters not take the 'treat' offered by ABC, tho' as you all have figured out I disagree with their choice (perhaps I can view it as a bitch-slap to the MSM?).
Here's why: character. I don't fault Newt for divorce 1 or 2, but note that I grant credit to those who make sound choices that don't require annulment. I agree with Taranto that Marianne's allegations weren't sordid or defaming. What was defaming was Newt's response: calling her a liar and to shut up (brother JG will correct me if I cited the record poorly). Didn't he tearfully claim to have done her wrong and beg for forgiveness once upon a time?
#2: anybody remember when his entire campaign staff quit? How many successful presidents suffer mass resignations?
#3: lobbyist-cum consultant for Fan/Fred
#4: lack of endorsements from the people with whom he enacted the Contract with America... have any former congressmen or women endorsed him?@JK "The real battle now turns to the Senate. If we can send a few more Tea Party GOP Senators"
Yup, and a bumbling, shrill, (heh, I can add "two-timing") scold will not aid this. Newt is not the leader anymore. While I was interested and intrigued as to what sort of policy and platform changes the Huntsman and/or Paul delegates might have gotten from a Romney-elect, I shudder to think what Newt would ask for.... I really do.
JK: don't forget Rand Paul! He'd be one of my top picks for VP, if anyone asked....
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 21, 2012 10:22 PMBut jk thinks:Called that one Last October and would lose my mind with delight if it happened.
Not really betting on it mind you...
Posted by: jk at January 22, 2012 11:22 AMBut johngalt thinks:"May he who is without divorce cast the first stone."
The response I heard, from Newt's own lips, was "The story is false." I'd like to see the citation where he told her to "shut up" and said she is a "liar." That would be newsworthy, I'd think.
South Carolina voters had every opportunity to take the more upstanding non-Romney in Santorum instead of Newt. Rick was, in fact, almost banking it. They made Rick an also ran./a> I wonder why?
Gingrich's past sins – his ethics charges, $1.6 million in controversial payments from the bankrupted Freddie Mac, his affairs and marriages – bothered Catherine Inman, a 40-year-old technology coordinator at a software company in Columbia.That is why Inman first chose former Sen. Rick Santorum, who finished third in Saturday's primary, ahead of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
"And then, because I just don't think (Santorum) has a chance, I went to the one who I thought had the most intelligence about just America in general and what we are going through, and that's why I chose Newt. So I just kind of had to let that go," Inman said.
I really would rather support Romney. He seems a truly good guy. But did you see his SC concession speech? Jeesh.
Posted by: johngalt at January 22, 2012 7:03 PM
January 20, 2012
Quote of the Day
Before we get into it, let me just say, I disagree with Newt here. I can imagine a lot of things that would be more despicable. A lot more despicable.Just off the top of my head: John King could have held a gun to a panda cub's head and opened fire every time one of the debaters went over his time limit. Even more despicable, he could have pulled the trigger before the time limit, just to know what it feels like. CNN could have doctored videos of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum so that they appeared to be playing Stratego with each other. Oh, wait did I say "playing Stratego"? I meant to say "having wild gay sex, with a midget riding a pogo stick in the background and an expression that says 'Things are going to get a lot weirder than this.'" -- Jonah Goldberg [subscribe]
Posted by John Kranz at 1:06 PM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:But other than animal cruelty on live television or a Dan Rather video expose... Trotting out a Republican ex-wife's one-sided tale of betrayal 2 days before a crucial vote is at least a 9 on the despicable scale.
If Mitt really is more electable than Newt in the general election then why is the Obama media trying to sink Newt in the primary?
Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2012 3:45 PMBut jk thinks:Pretty despicable for ABC and Nightline. Once it is in the aether, I'm not sure it is off-limits for a debate. I just like Jonah's humor, though I realize it is not pointing your way today. Here's a couple paragraphs down:
Moreover, what John King did really wasn't that despicable. I think he had to ask the question. Maybe he didn't have to open the debate with it, but it had to be asked, Newt knew it had to be asked, and he was waiting for it like a lion at the coliseum on "Punish the Blind Beggars Night."
Posted by: jk at January 20, 2012 5:20 PM
January 19, 2012
He said, she said
Or did she? ABC News "Exclusive" shock headline: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says is not supported by said ex-wife's words. At least not in the article that carries the headline.
The reader can be forgiven if he concludes that the "lacks moral character to be president" opinion belongs to ABC News, and not to Marianne Gingrich who "In her most provocative comments" ... "said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife."
Yes, that's provocative. Don't see the words president, character, or moral. Read into straight news reports much ABC? I propose that ABC's claim in Marianne's own words would have been much more provocative than this.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:49 PM | Comments (0)
Then There Were Four.
Heartfelt condolences to brother Keith. I remember the hurt. AP:
CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry will abandon his presidential bid and endorse Newt Gingrich, two Republican officials said Thursday, a move coming just two days before the pivotal South Carolina primary as Republican front-runner Mitt Romney struggles to fend off a challenge from the former House speaker.Posted by John Kranz at 11:08 AM | Comments (5)But johngalt thinks:I'd prefer a nominee who has good hair, tall and trim, deadly shot with pistol, rifle or shotgun, relates to average Americans, has never divorced and can forcefully advocate for western values in stirring prose. [Paging Dr. Frankenstein.] Alas, I must settle for just the last of these traits.
Posted by: johngalt at January 19, 2012 3:03 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:C'est le guerre.
I'm discovering I've skipped denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, and gone straight to acceptance. Or is lingering over which of the remaining four I'll go with considered bargaining?
Perhaps my experience supporting Fred Thompson four years ago prepared me for this...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 19, 2012 3:13 PMBut jk thinks:Come home, Fred! All is forgiven -- we neeeed you!
Posted by: jk at January 19, 2012 3:24 PMBut jk thinks:Okay, jg, I'll run next time.
Posted by: jk at January 19, 2012 3:55 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:I'd settle for one who's a deadly shot with a metaphor, riposte, or simile; alas, Hitch is off this mortal coil.
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 19, 2012 11:50 PM
January 17, 2012
Otequay of the Ayday
If you don't want to spend the better part of the next year trying to drag this sad sack of Mitt across the finish line so he can disappoint us for the next four years, then stand up, speak out, and stop letting the mainstream media and a bunch of Beltway conservatives tell you that the race has to be over with just 1.8% of the delegates needed for a victory awarded. The Tea Party didn't rise up, fight Barack Obama, and help the GOP have its best year in half a century just to see the Republican Party ideologically slide all the way back to the pre-Reagan years as a reward. --John HawkinsPosted by JohnGalt at 3:37 PM | Comments (11)But jk thinks:I respectfully disagree. Not that Governor Griz's endorsement will carry weight, but that the Speaker represents the Tea Party.
Gingrich champions activist, technocratic government -- not "limited" in the Tea Party, Madisonian sense. That was okay in 1994, pitching Gingrich's good ideas versus President Clinton's bad ideas. But even the 104th had to provide guardrails.
I remember his advocating that the government buy a laptop for every child in public housing. This was in the late 90s. Not only were laptops $1500, but it would have enshrined a "government standard" laptop that we'd still have today. 512KB RAM and a 3.5" floppy drive.
The attack on Bain was not a bad day but a window to his worldview. In conclusion, I'd like to say "Freddie Mac."
o. it is so on.
Posted by: jk at January 18, 2012 1:13 PMBut johngalt thinks:I'm thinking there's a "butt-whup" sandwich in my lunch bag today. Tune in around 12:30. :)
Posted by: johngalt at January 18, 2012 1:45 PMBut johngalt thinks:Speaker Gingrich does not "represent" the TEA Party but his off-again, on-again penchant for challenging various entrenched paradigms - political correctness, Wall Street mercantilism, nanny state redistributionism - makes him TEA Party friendly. This GOP primary has been a slow slog through ideological soup where none of the candidates emerged with the precise mixture to rally all the GOP factions. [How could they?] But South Carolina's primary is a watershed and TEA Party VIP Sarah Palin knows it is time to pick the best non-Romney and start pushing. Despite ideological preferences you and I may have, Ron Paul is not that guy - Newt is.
Some, even much, of what Newt espouses is anathema to TEA Partiers. This is irrelevant. He is a loose cannon but at least he's not shooting blanks. When he gets his "work not welfare" and "we're in this together but we're not our brothers' keepers" guns ranged in on Obama he can do some real damage.
Yes he's erratic, undisciplined and sometimes undependable. But he inspires greatness from time to time and is the only candidate I've heard receive thunderous applause in debate after debate. He connects with people and his appeal spans generations and classes. He has a strong hispanic following and will do better with the black vote than Romney could ever dream.
Who we nominate will dictate what issues will be debated in the public square. Instead of defending Ron Paul's age, frailty, haphazard prose and way out-of-the-mainstream ideas, or Romney's high-powered corporate fix-and-flip or fleece-and-fold "private-sector experience" I'd prefer to have debates like this with the New York Times. We may lose, but I prefer to believe we will win - the debate and the election.
Posted by: johngalt at January 18, 2012 3:08 PMBut jk thinks:True points all and well said. I'll counter with foolishness while I ponder the substantive issues.
Remember in '96 how all the anti-Dole commercials paired the moderately popular Senate Leader with the supremely unpopular Speaker? All the commercials opposed the mysterious Siamese twin "Gingrich-Dole." I found it odd as the Speaker was not on the ballot. I wonder if he is the nominee, whether they might bring in Bob Dole to tarnish him. I wonder if Mitt should try it.
You may have me, brother. Thankfully a couple weeks on the Atkins diet has given me a stronger constitution and resilient digestive tract. I don't think I could have taken any of this in December.
Posted by: jk at January 18, 2012 3:28 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:@JG wrote:
When [Newt} gets his "work not welfare" and "we're in this together but we're not our brothers' keepers" guns ranged in on Obama he can do some real damage.Which he can do while supporting the nominee, yes? Palin does (well, she's even shrill comp. to him). Almost anyone can deliver this message, perhaps not as pithily, but neither with the caustic that's almost as much his brand as anything.
he's erratic, undisciplined and sometimes undependable. But he inspires greatness from time to time
In whom? Think about it, did he leave the GOP positioned for increased gains and a positive direction in the 90's, or did he mainly make a name for himself and lots of flotsam?
He's got thin skin, corruption in his background and can't stay on message. Ohh, but he does have stirring rhetoric at times ... is this sounding familiar?
is the only candidate I've heard receive thunderous applause
From GOP audiences and mostly when bomb-throwing.... we need the indies and a positive message delivered by someone who's an inspiring leader. Not to mention someone unflappable, with stellar morals and good instincts for what works in the real world. Character, my brothers and sisters, character....
He connects with people
TMI, brother. :-) Now if Palin could cause a rumble that would make Mitt stand up & out even more on conservative principles, I'd say the system is working our way, for once.
If Newt were nominee, I'd probably vote Libertarian. He would be awful and never get elected, I'm nearly certain of it.
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 20, 2012 12:22 AMBut johngalt thinks:Whenever I've been "certain" of something in politics, something has changed and upset my calculus. Sarah Palin's Gingrich endorsement was one of those events. Today I see Michael Reagan is endorsing Newt again.
We cannot afford a candidate backed by the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.It's time to choose.
Do we go forward with bold ideas or continue with failed policies?
So I ask my fellow Republicans and conservatives to join me in supporting Newt Gingrich for president.
Christie, Halley - eastern Republicans.
Palin, Reagan - western Republicans.
Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2012 6:20 PM
QOTD2
The debate is getting so boring, I wish Huntsman were around to throw in some Chinese. -- Jay NordlingerPosted by John Kranz at 2:56 PM | Comments (5)But johngalt thinks:If I may, dear brother, I think it is time you moved on to the bargaining stage.
Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2012 3:41 PMBut johngalt thinks:On second thought, make that "acceptance." :)
Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2012 3:46 PMBut jk thinks:Heh. Just be careful one does not slide all the way to the bats**t-crazy-caucus-for-Ron-Paul stage...
Outta choices people.
Posted by: jk at January 17, 2012 6:29 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:Had Huntsman called a debate moderator a "hwoon dahn" or told his competitors "Ta ma de! Nimen de bizui!" he could have picked up a small but dedicated voting block.
Dong ma?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 17, 2012 7:23 PMBut jk thinks:Gorram right, brother, gorram right!
Posted by: jk at January 18, 2012 12:17 PM
You're not going to believe this, but: Ron!
When in the course of a weak field, a blogger
flip-flopschooses to reëvaluate a former position, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the causes which impel him.Rep. Ron Paul hit one question out of the park for me last night. Bret Baier asked about military budget cuts and bases in the Palmetto State. (This was early on, before most people fell asleep.) Paul said we might need more bases for his military. We could close bases in Germany and South Korea and open them in South Carolina. He bifurcated spending for "defense" and what he’d call "Empire." I must reluctantly meet him halfway.
So, I'm a Ron Paul guy. I might grow my hair out, maybe join a truther club -- no, seriously, Presidents don't get all their wishes or accomplish all their goals (thank NED!) The correct foreign presence is likely somewhere between the status quo and Rep. Paul's ideal. Nobody else will ever yank a single soldier out of South Korea and I am not convinced that we can afford our current global presence.
So, I hope President Paul does not abandon Israel (still my largest concern) and give Al-Qaeda an "olly-olly-oxen-freeee." But our country's greater, existential threat is four more years of progressive socialism.
We have to fix home and hope the world does not crater during the process. Else, there will be no significant American presence in the world economy or military theater. We have to have our cancer surgery -- even if it means losing the house.
Ron Paul 2012.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:56 AM | Comments (7)But jk thinks:That actually had a pretty good score...
Bringing me to point #7b: it is pretty incredibly totally unlikely that Rep. Paul will be the nominee. Yet if my support garners him additional delegates, he will have a stronger hand shaping the platform and a brighter stage to deliver a message of Constitutional government. I would not do that if I would regret his winning. So, I pitched for the win.
If he did win, he'd certainly get creamed by President Obama. Israel is still safe. But we would have had our "Goldwater election" to build on.
Posted by: jk at January 17, 2012 12:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:Hmmm. No, I'd rather win this cycle.
Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2012 2:56 PMBut jk thinks:I'd rather lose with Rep. Paul. When President Obama does something preternaturally bad (hypothetical, roll with me) our complaints are tempered by: a) President Bush probably did the same thing if less spectacularly, and b) President McCain would probably have done the same thing, perhaps more spectacularly.
Freedom has left the room. Liberty is off the menu. I suppose this is the same as my Huntsman support -- you beautiful, wonderful people have not yet accepted how bad our nominee is going to be.
Posted by: jk at January 17, 2012 3:04 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:So, somehow four more years of Obama is better than "the existential threat of four more years of socialism?!?" Aren't they the same thing? You can't avoid the threat of Obama by assuring the re-election of Obama. Dude...!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 17, 2012 6:56 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The biggest immediate threat to Liberty is a second Obama term, not Republican ideological purity.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 17, 2012 7:03 PMBut jk thinks:The threat of "four more years of socialism" is worse than the threat from terrorism. Ergo, Rep. Paul's unconventional-to-GOP ideas regarding prosecution of the Global War or Terror are concerning, but at least his economic ideas leave a nation to save.
Romney is, without doubt, marginally better than the President. He would sign good legislation from a GOP 113th and Obama would veto it. I do not discard that margin lightly.
And yet, a victory will be required in a battle of ideas -- not just at the polls. Governor Romney cannot and will not be in that arena.
In addition, his supporters may be overstating his electability. My nominally-Republican-moderate sister visited this weekend. "I hate Mitt Romney!" says she. A majority of Republicans oppose him, I'm not positive the moderates and soft Democrats are going to swoop in. The Kerry comparison starts to look at least as valid as the McCain.
Say we swallow hard, throw away all our principles, and lose. How do you advance ideas after that? You nominate Ron Paul and you get months of good ideas. If he loses, you say he was a little bit kooky -- but he was right a la Goldwater.
Posted by: jk at January 17, 2012 7:25 PM
"Wishcasting"
Don Luskin is quite good at it. He pens an instant classic of the genre on the WSJ Ed Page today:
Newt Gingrich's claim about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital--that its business model was "figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company"--is an egregious lie. Yet Mr. Gingrich is not stupid. He and the other Republican primary contenders who have echoed his attack have calculated that the only way to beat President Barack Obama, who uses the words "millionaires and billionaires" as insults, is to join him. It's unanimous, then--capitalism is immoral.At last, Mitt Romney finds himself with an issue that can define him, an issue about which the 2012 election can be a referendum. This is Mr. Romney's moment to distinguish himself by proudly making a moral case for free-market capitalism.
I fear this is "Mister Romney's moment" in the manner that last Saturday night was "Tim Tebow's moment" and the New Hampshire primary was "Mister Huntsman's moment."Should Governor Romney prove me wrong, I'd be the happiest blogger in the whole USA, but I suspect Luskin's Jedi mind tricks will fail -- and the guy who wants to institute the first ever progressive cap gains tax will be our nominee.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:43 AM | Comments (0)
January 16, 2012
Jon! -- The final Installment
I cannot disagree with a word of Byron York's post-mortem, yet I remain unapologetic.
MYRTLE BEACH, SC -- A number of Jon Huntsman's core positions were deeply conservative. His pro-growth economic plan was nearly everything the Wall Street Journal editorial page could have wanted. He was strongly pro-life. Strongly Second Amendment. Yet conservative Republicans stayed away from his candidacy in droves, and the few people who were attracted to the Huntsman campaign were moderate Republicans, independents, Democrats -- and the media.
Why? Huntsman's problem was that, whatever his position on some key issues, he sent out political and cultural signals that screamed NPR, and not Fox News, that screamed liberal, and not conservative. Even though conservatives agreed with Huntsman on many things, they instinctively sensed he wasn't their guy. It wasn't hard for them to figure out.
I'll be quiet for awhile, I am still adjusting. I had hoped his candidacy would last long enough for the T-Shirts to arrive. C'est la guerre.UPDATE: @jamestaranto Huntsman touts "refusal to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful...prosperous...and competitive." So negative.
Fair cop, guv. That was my least favorite aspect of his campaign. He didn't get the "sunny Reagan" memo.Posted by John Kranz at 11:16 AM | Comments (7)But jk thinks:The Huntsman Hate from the Conservative Twitterverse is pretty disappointing. You don't have to support him, but each tries to out-clever the others to put down somebody whose positions he never bothered to learn.
Third grade crap. I think I'll stay off the blogs today.
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 2:25 PM
But jk thinks:I don't know that I get it. Mister Liberal instituted a flat tax, cut spending, and instituted pro-market health care reform. Then he ran for prez on the Ryan Plan for entitlements and a tax proposal that the WSJ Ed page, Club for Growth, and James Pethokoukis all loved.
No, he never cut a gay person's heart still beating out in the public square, but the "moderate" and "liberal" tags elude me. (I guess compared to the rock-ribbed philosophically pure guys who constitute the rest of the 2012 field...)
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 2:37 PM
But johngalt thinks:Oh, and the "liberal" tag I hung on him comes from the words I heard come out of his very mouth.
If you detect bitterness in my tone it is with Huntsman, who positioned himself as a "conservative with a record to prove it" and then sounded like the anti-Reagan with all of his kumbaya rhetoric. Want to promote American Exceptionalism? Focus on everything we have and are doing right, not all of the mistakes.
Water over the dam now, eh brother?
Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2012 3:06 PMBut jk thinks:Mayhaps. Tweets outside ThreeSources are making me cranky. The only free-trader whose name does not rhyme with "pawn call" leaves the race and its open season.
In addition to good old hostility, I guess I remain curious what all these people saw that I did not. I never considered myself the champion of the moderates before. I guess Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich are the real deal and I've been drinking GOP Lite®. Really?
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 3:21 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:JK, it's a process.
My objection to Huntsman was that his main messages, or at least those that I heard, were slamming other Republicans. If that's the best he's got, then I'll tune him out - as I have Newt and Pawn Call.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 16, 2012 3:54 PMBut jk thinks:Fair.
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 4:18 PM
January 15, 2012
Facebook Post of the Day
The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal includes a 2000-word, 2/3-page interview with presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who finished 5th in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary with 9 percent of the vote. The interview is entirely about economic issues. To do a long interview with Santorum and never ask him about his opposition to contraception, his years of homophobic comments and policies, his attacks on "this whole idea of personal autonomy," "this idea that people should be left alone," and the pursuit of happiness is like spending an hour with Barack Obama and asking him only about his "plan to streamline government." -- David BoazPosted by John Kranz at 1:05 PM | Comments (0)
Jon!
South Carolina's largest newspaper endorses Gov. Huntsman.
Both men get tagged "moderate," but for different reasons. Mr. Romney is a technocrat, a business leader who focuses on getting the job done. As governor, that meant governing in a way that suited Massachusetts. Today the job is winning the presidency, and if that means "evolving" in his views as the primary electorate swings further right, and running away from his signature accomplishment as governor, so be it.Mr. Huntsman is a true conservative, with a record and platform of bold economic reform straight out of the free-market bible, but he's a realist, whose goal is likewise to get things done. Under his leadership, Utah led the nation in job creation, and the Pew Center on the States ranked it the best-managed state in the nation.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:01 PM | Comments (7)But Boulder Refugee thinks:And, by the way, how would you like to be on that editorial board? Print your endorsement hours before the guy announces that he's pulling from the race.
What's the best cleanser for getting egg off of your face?
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 15, 2012 11:31 PMBut jk thinks:Yeah, I saw. I guess Romney is now the only guy left. Sad day for me and South Carolina's largest newspaper.
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 8:45 AMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:"Mitt Romney: Everybody's Second Choice"
How's that for a tagline? He just might ride it to the nomination.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 16, 2012 9:40 AMBut jk thinks:As the great Republican strategist Yogi Berra said, "It's like dèjá vu all over again." McCain was everybody's second choice.
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 10:29 AMBut johngalt thinks:Fret not. Romney is a far better second choice than was McCain. In fact, Romney was Colorado's first choice over McCain. (And many other states' as well.)
Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2012 12:21 PMBut jk thinks:You're mad. I mean, with all due respect, you're mad.
Senator McCain was a paragon for national security: a patriot and a warrior President for a bellicose age. A clear voice for a Sharanskyite freedom agenda and a strong national defense.
His domestic economic agenda was unsurprisingly weak, and his effectiveness as a candidate was surprisingly weak.
But McCain, for all his failings had the big idea. Governor Romney -- well I'll let Jim Geraghty say it: "Can You Feel the Romney Euphoria? It Tastes Like Tap Water! "
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 2:18 PM
January 12, 2012
How is JK Different from Mick Jagger?
I can get
no. Satisfaction!A Gingrich fundraiser just called up and got an earful. I was my polite self, but said; "I wish you good luck as a person, but not in your effort to raise money for a Republican who attacks Capitalism."
Where is Rick Perry when you need him? I am having a great day! Woooo!
Posted by John Kranz at 4:50 PM | Comments (0)
Jon Stewart on the NH Primariy
Funny, and the Huntsman barbs are saddeningly true.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:26 PM | Comments (1)But nanobrewer thinks:Stewart has a guest host skewer a would-be journolist (look that one up, too) who was calling for "civility" yet, unsurprisingly, not practicing what she preached. It's quite clever, and demonstrative on how to do 21st century humor and irony.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-12-2012/civil-disservice(hat tip to Taranto)
This stuff is just awesome; how the 4th estate is now the brunt of the next-generation's infotainment specialists (the last GOP debate provided some examples of GOPers getting on board... perhaps a separate post)
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 14, 2012 10:19 AM
Newt Gingrich meets Michael Moore
Fortune Magazine editor Dan Primack reviews the new "Winning Our Future" PAC smearomercial about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. He says, "The 'Bain Bomb' is full of wet fuses."
We've been keeping regular track of claims made about Mitt Romney's business history over at our Mitt Meter, but today's video "documentary" from the Gingrich-affiliated Winning Our Future PAC requires its own post. The ominous music, deep-voiced narrator and tails of worker woe were all to be expected. But I also thought that the video would get most of its basic facts correct (and then cover them in innuendo). I was wrong.Gotta admire Newt's tenacity and dedication to political victory but objectivity, fairness and free market fundamentals obviously escape him.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:10 PM | Comments (3)But jk thinks:Stephen Moore (who called himself a "libertarian" and came out for legalized marijuana on Kudlow last night) sez:
The buzz is getting stronger that GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich will pull back on his planned $3 million ad campaign that accuses rival Mitt Romney of "looting" companies and ruining workers' lives when he headed Bain Capital.
One can only hope. Posted by: jk at January 12, 2012 3:25 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:"... came out for legalized marijuana..."
"'The buzz is getting stronger...'"
You just can't write that kind of straight line. Precisely how buzzed?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 12, 2012 7:43 PMBut jk thinks:
If Stephen Moore is suggesting legalization for reasons of his own personal use, I might join with the ThreeSources Drug War crowd and oppose.It was actually an interesting segment, where Robert Reich suggests Ron Paul followers are dirty hippies and not Austrian Economists.
Posted by: jk at January 12, 2012 8:02 PM
Better than Gingrich's and Perry's attacks!
Dogs Against Romney. A Facebook frined is, of course, a proud member.
Should I tell her about Dogs for Bush?
Posted by John Kranz at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2012
Our Friend, the Vulture
The South Carolina gambit of the non-Romneys is to call the front runner a "jobs killer" and a "vulture capitalist." I admit it has a lyrical ring, but is it criticism or praise?
12. By consuming the carcasses of diseased animals, vultures prevent the spread of life-threatening diseases such as rabies and anthrax among animals and humans. Check out how declining vulture populations are linked to the spread of rabies in humans.Unsuccessful or "diseased" businesses are a threat to overall economic health by preventing their labor and capital from going to productive enterprises. And he took them over by buying them, at a market clearing price. What's so awful about any of this? Only that the business failed in the first place, which completely predated any involvement by Bain or Romney.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:58 PM | Comments (3)But jk thinks:This has the feel of Governor Palin defending her Paul Revere comments. If the Perry campaign is clever enough to make this literal walkback, you can color me impressed. But you guys are (my new @baseballcrank word) "wishcasting."
Gov. Perry was not giving a biology presentation. He was using the pejorative, metaphorical "vulture:" the creature who flies lazy circles around you waiting for you to die.
He is also distributing the "I like to fire people!" ringtone. But, surely, as a compliment to the business acumen and strict devotion to economic liberty of his rival.
You guys may be sellin', but I ain't buyin'...
Posted by: jk at January 11, 2012 3:38 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:Being the official Perry guy here, my take is that Perry intended the "vulture" comment as criticism rather than praise, and he is wrong for having done it. My candidate screwed up on this point. And I am disappointed in him for it.
I've monopolized the bandwidth this morning on the subject (and thank you all for indulging me on that!) - and therefore I won't bore you with a repetition. Suffice to say that I now harbor a desire to own a professional curling team, and I will name them the Schumpeter Vultures. Perry's gaffe is not sufficient to cause me to switch allegiance from him to Romney, but I would be a fan of the Vultures.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 11, 2012 4:07 PMBut johngalt thinks:Yes yes, of course he meant it as criticism.
Hey you, back in the back, stop distracting the other students or you're going to the Principal's office!
Now class, repeat after me:
"Selfishness is a virtue."
"Vultures eat dead stuff so you don't have to worry about it."7. Vultures are equipped with a digestive system that contains special acids that will dissolve anthrax, botulism, and cholera bacteria.(Yes, I know that Facebook automatically filters out this kind of rational thinking, just like it filters out anything else remotely related to science. - But this ain't Facebook!)
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2012 4:47 PM
Keeping your Integrity
Or: We are so totally screwed!
Gov. Huntsman's 17% portends poorly for his chances. He needed a Santorumesque close second finish, and I don't think the Palmetto State polity favors him. I'll "go down with the ship" I suppose, but see myself settling for Gov. Romney as all the non-Mormon candidates go completely insane. A strategic caucus for Romney vis-á-vis Sen. Santorum or a quixotic one for Huntsman looks like the decision.
But I don't have to like it.
Dan McLaughlin (I'm guessing that's my buddy, @baseballcrank) sees danger in dropping our integrity to support Governor Romney -- just because he is not President Obama, just cause he has an 'R.'
The other point I would make about integrity is that it goes close to the core of why a Romney nomination worries me so much: because we would all have to make so many compromises to defend him that at the end of the day we may not even recognize ourselves. Romney has, in a career in public office of just four years (plus about 8 years' worth of campaigning), changed his position on just about every major issue you can think of, and his signature accomplishment in office was to be wrong on the largest policy issue of this campaign. Yes, Obama is bad, and Romney can be defended on the grounds that he can't possibly be worse. Yes, Romney is personally a good man, a success in business, faith and family. But aside from his business biography, his primary campaign has been built entirely on arguments and strategies -- about touting his own electability and dividing, coopting or delegitimizing other Republicans -- none of which will be of any use in the general election. What, then, will we as politically active Republicans say about him?
Bueller?
Posted by John Kranz at 9:13 AM | Comments (8)But johngalt thinks:Well, perhaps not just like McCain. He has said he will criticize Obama's record.
But you're right - I searched YouTube for "romney defends liberty" and the best I found was Romney Defends Small Government. It's a famous clip, where a woman in a townhall meeting repeatedly interrupts him. But he did come close when he said he "likes being able to fire people." That's subtley different from liking to fire people, by the way. I was happy to see this controversy flare up, for it could lead to a public discourse over actual issues, instead of photographs with money falling out of clothing.
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2012 2:50 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The Refugee will join his blog brothers and sisters in lamenting this election's crop of candidates. Nevertheless, he is growing weary of the pundits and others whining about a situation over which they have no control and there is no remedy. It's a bit like complaining about the weather - grab an umbrella and deal with it.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 11, 2012 2:52 PMBut jk thinks:As George Bernard Shaw said "He who is sick of pundits is sick of life!" I think that was Shaw...
Does the Refugee disagree that a change in campaign finance laws and nomination process would help future Christies and Danielses as they ponder the race?
Posted by: jk at January 11, 2012 3:27 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:He will agree that the current campaign finance laws are an abomination. Whether or not they are inhibitors to mm. Christie and Daniels is speculation above his pay grade.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 11, 2012 3:53 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The Refugee has nothing against pundits. Being a real-life computer storage pundit, he is sensitive to punditry that pontificates about problems for which there is no solution without offering a work-around. He thinks this veers into the cardinal sin of punditry, "didactic bullshit."
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 11, 2012 3:59 PMBut jk thinks:We really do need a "like" button on comments...
Posted by: jk at January 11, 2012 4:01 PM
Quote of the Day
In other words, if the election is going to turn into a contest over the future of the free enterprise system, the pro-free enterprise side of it sure doesn't want to wind up losing because of a flawed messenger, because the consequences of losing such a fight could be really devastating. The message of New Hampshire is that the people of that state, who know Mr. Romney well, find him a better messenger than any of the other candidates who were running. These are the same primary voters who chose Senator McCain on the last go-round. -- Ira StollPosted by John Kranz at 9:01 AM | Comments (0)
Don't Shoot the Message
On Iowa caucus night Sarah Palin commented that the GOP marginalizes Ron Paul and his supporters at its peril for they understand that "a lot of Americans are war weary and we are broke." Coming from an ardent supporter of Israel this is a rather bold, and welcome, statement.
An old friend went into greater depth on the Paul candidacy on his website yesterday. I've been missing the rational insights of Minneapolis' Jason Lewis since Denver's KHOW radio foolishly replaced him in their lineup with *yawn* Sean Hannity. But I've since reconnected courtesy of iheart radio (iheart.com) 1130 AM in Minnesota. I'll excerpt only his close but the concise explanation he gives of Paul's three major issues that have "tapped into an emerging national sentiment that not only transcends party politics but speaks to a new generation of Americans fed up with the status quo and desperate for real change" is well worth your read.
Whether Ron Paul is the right messenger remains to be seen; as the GOP field winnows, polls show that he’s unlikely to be the second choice of Republican voters looking for a new candidate. But the message isn’t going away, and the two major parties ignore it at their own peril. As the Arab Spring demonstrated, cultural and political change usually begins with a select few, but those who are pushing the envelope today are often considered mainstream tomorrow.A flawed messenger certainly, but America would clearly benefit from a less paternalistic relationship with the rest of the planet. Not disengagement as he sometimes seems to advocate, but closing a few hundred overseas military bases and a nearly complete end to foreign aid would be a good start. Strategic alliances must continue but the foreign national defense welfare business is long past due for the Bain Capital treatment.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:38 AM | Comments (0)
January 10, 2012
Why Doesn't Huntsman Run as a Democrat?
I sent Professor Reynolds a nasty email a few minutes ago, complaining that Gov. Huntsman was always the butt of a joke on Instapundit. He links to a Bryan Preston piece with video of four very young Huntsman supporters who are well spoken and intelligent. Shooting from the hip, one exuberant lad applauds his moderation (which his friends define as not pandering to social conservatives) and says his Democrat friends wonder why he doesn't run as a Democrat.
Game, set match for Preston -- and sadly Reynolds who links with the same headline.
I suggest Larry Kudlow provides the answer, buried in a story about Gov. Romney:
So far as I know this is the first time that Governor Romney has endorsed the modified flat tax embodied in Bowles-Simpson. Jon Huntsman, who I think won the Sunday-morning debate in New Hampshire, has endorsed this from day one, with three rates of 8%, 14%, and 23%, plus a corporate tax rate of 25% (which Mr. Romney shares). The Wall Street Journal labeled this plan "exceptional." Governor Huntsman would blow out nearly all the deductions and exemptions in the code to properly broaden the base and generate additional revenues along with the revenue-generating growth impact of new incentives.
This is the guy who is "too moderate" for the Tea Party? I have too few hairs to waste pulling them out, but...
Posted by John Kranz at 6:16 PM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:I really like the story your quote was buried in. Thank you.
As for the other silver-haired Mormon ex-governor in the race, what this TEA Partier keeps hearing from him is "trust gap, trust gap." Why doesn't he talk about his tax plan? It's a pity Mr. Kudlow can't be his surrogate in the debates.
All things considered, a candidate's organization and messaging is at least as important as his policies.
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2012 7:36 PMBut jk thinks:Larry's piece was very good, yet I must pass along a germane hat-tip: @baseballcrank tweeted a link wrapped in:
@baseballcrank Dan McLaughlinPosted by: jk at January 10, 2012 8:01 PM
Larry Kudlow engages in the popular sport of wishcasting the next new Romney position http://bit.ly/yAUAcu
A Tale of Three Governors
The numbers are in. AEI's Christopher J. Connover compares state heatlthcare and medicare spending during the tenures of "My Three Governors."
I'll cede that Utah and Texas likely had more helpful legislatures than "the commonwealth," but Gov. Huntsman comes out very well.
The available evidence suggests that Huntsman has a slightly better record than Perry in "bending the cost curve" both for health spending in general and Medicaid spending in particular, along with a decidedly superior record in that regard compared to Governor Romney. Also, Romney has overseen a rising burden of health spending during his time in office, whereas both Perry and Huntsman have seen this burden fall relative to the rest of the nation. The caveat is that Romneycare may possibly have begun to reverse the trend of relatively rising health spending for health facilities in Massachusetts. But we cannot be absolutely certain of this, given that the recession arrived just as Romneycare was being implemented. As with so many indicators of performance and characters, voters will simply have to make up their minds using imperfect information.Posted by John Kranz at 4:45 PM | Comments (1)But Keith Arnold thinks:And imperfect candidates...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 10, 2012 5:09 PM
Dealbreaker!
As goes the speaker, so goes Governor Perry:
FORT MILL, S.C. (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry is likening front-runner Mitt Romney's former private equity firm to "vultures" that ruin workers' lives.Perry is sharpening his attack in hopes of drawing a clearer contrast on jobs with Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who touts his business credentials. The issue has special salience in South Carolina, where unemployment is high.
Addressing a retiree community in South Carolina, Perry criticized Romney's Bain Capital firm for two business deals that caused job losses in the state. He said private equity firms are "just vultures" that feed off sick companies no matter the human toll.
Wellsir, that re-evaluation was quick. Aren't these people tuned in at all? Kudlow did a whole show and all but bit a Gingrich surrogate last night, Michelle Malkin is furious, the WSJ Ed Page, ThreeSources. UPDATE: Rush, FOXNews... UPDATE II: James Pethokoukis adds himself, National Review, Jennifer Rubin and Akiy Roy, asking "Are there any right-of-center commentators or pundits who think the attacks on Mitt Romney’s Bain career bolster the case for free-market capitalism driven by 'creative destruction?' I haven’t found any yet." UIPDATE III: TarantoHey! Romney's a uniter -- not a divider!
Posted by John Kranz at 4:27 PM | Comments (7)But Boulder Refugee thinks:What say you, KA?
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 11, 2012 1:07 AMBut Keith Arnold thinks:I actually penned a response yesterday, and deleted it without posting. It was too harsh for ThreeSources. It would probably have been too harsh for Ace of Spades or the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. Now that I'm calmer, and in something of a better mood...
Point the first: "vultures" do not ruin anyone's life. As anyone who cherishes his roots from hardscrabble rural Texas must know, vultures make their profit from those whose lives have already been ruined by other outside factors, such as coyotes, dehydration, rattlesnakes, bullets, or in this case, underproductive workers and crappy management decisions. So Gov. Perry loses style points for that.
As literal vultures serve a much-needed place in the ecology of life, Bain Capital served a very similar purpose in the economy of business. Imagine how much better a shape several sectors of the economy might have been today if a Bain Capital had stepped into AIG, or General Motors - closing or selling off failing and unprofitable business units, fostering the viable ones, and reorganizing what is left as a smaller, but potentially successful, enterprise, not dependent on taxpayer bailouts.
Like JK, I'm still letting my guy slide, but not without a scolding. I choose to believe, based on Perry's actual record, that in the press of the campaign, he is saying not what he believes, but what he thinks will resonates with voters in an effort to put a knife into an opponent. Who would have guessed that this would become the one time that voters and the usually-complicit media get a core principle of free-market economics right? It can back to hurt him, and rightfully so.
The cynical view: we, along with anyone else with a voter registration and an IQ above room temperature, know that candidates on the campaign train make promises they have no intention of keeping, say things they don't actually believe, in an effort to sway voters. Clinton triangulated, Obama pretended to be a moderate. Perry here said something that was intended to get a lot of people turned off to Romney. I would never have expected MSNBC, CNN, and so many members of the public to suddenly become members in good standing of the Austrian School. So, dark cloud, silver lining. Break here...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 11, 2012 1:32 PMBut jk thinks:Oh what I'd give for two minutes in Brother Keith's recycle bin...
Posted by: jk at January 11, 2012 1:52 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:... So, notwithstanding what candidates are saying (or claiming they will do once we trust them with the office), I select candidates based mostly on what they have already done, how they have previously voted, what measures they have previously enacted. My support for Perry is based in large part on the success he has already had in Texas - very pro-business, pro-small-government, pro-small-taxes. I don't hold Romney's work at Bain against him - my issue is MassCare and the wreckage that has ensued, and how he favors big government and big programs to fix what he thinks is wrong with the country. Were he the nominee, I would probably give him grudging support against the incumbent. He and Gingrich both have persuaded me that they are technocrats, big-government guys who believe that if the elected experts in DC do enough and take charge of enough, they can improve the country.
I would have applauded Romney had he said "I like being able to fire people. And when I get to Washington, I plan on doing a lot of it - to people, programs, and agencies who are costing this country far too much, doing more harm than good, and giving the public little or nothing as a return on their money."
I would have applauded Perry had he said "I'd rather contribute to an environment where, if a company fails, productive workers have a likelihood of finding a new job with good pay, instead of having to depend on the government dole. Oh, by the way, I have. My state is pretty much carrying this country, and I have a plan to help do that for all America."
Think twice, speak once; hindsight, and all that.
None of these candidates are perfect, or anywhere close to perfect. It's really a matter of what they've already done, to prove what they're likely to do in the White House.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 11, 2012 2:03 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:JK: on the off chance that I ever get angry enough to run for high office myself, my recycle bin could be a dangerous place. I'd suspect that you'd find yourself fighting for elbow room against the same hacks that were felching through Sarah Palin's garbage cans on trash day.
Sometimes, a low-level format is your friend.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 11, 2012 2:09 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:KA, thank you for protecting our tender mercies. I get the vapours at the very thought...
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 11, 2012 4:45 PM
Brass Tacks
Rush Limbaugh, discussing Newt Gingrich being interviewed by FNC's Megyn Kelley about his criticism of Romney's history at Bain Capital:
GINGRICH: There has to be some sense of everybody's in the same boat -- and I think again, as I said, he's gonna have to explain why would Bain have taken $180 million out of a company and then have it go bankrupt, and to what extent did they have some obligation to the workers? Remember, there are a lot of people who I had a that $180 million, it wasn't just six rich guys at the top, and yet somehow they walked off from their fiduciary obligation to the people who had made the money for them.RUSH: (sigh) Folks, things happen. Sometimes they happen for a reason. Now, one of the things that you have to say that is happening here is (whether he intends it or not) we're finding out some things about Newt that we didn't know. We're finding out that he looks at "these rich guys," six rich guys and they have an obligation. He sounds like Elisabeth Warren.
"Fiduciary obligation?" I do not think it means what you think it means!
Newt = TEA Party, NON.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:32 PM | Comments (1)But Keith Arnold thinks:"At some point, you've made enough money."
The words that set my teeth on edge are: "...their fiduciary obligation to the people who had made the money for them..."
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 10, 2012 4:05 PM
No Controlling Legal Authority
One of the joys of following politics is the collection of great lines you pick up along the way. I love to say about a person "I Knew X. X was a friend of mine. And, son, you're no X." And yet some of my friends fail to catch the allusion to the VP Debate of 1988 -- hell, some of them don't even know who Lloyd Bensten was! I knew Lloyd Bensten. Lloyd Bensten was a friend of mine...
When're a pol on either throws up the obfuscation screen to explain the inexplicable, I turn to VP Al Gore's superb and astounding "no controlling legal authority." I'd have to Google the context (spending campaign dollars on hookers?...) but it is a true classic.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty [come home, Mister Excitement -- all is forgiven!!!] gets that one today. for his answer to "So how come you're supporting the 'ObamneyCare' guy? And how will his magical, mystical waivers work if it doesn't kick until 2017?"
"I don't know if the range of options for waivers is limited just to the waivers addressed in the Obamacare bill itself, or whether there's some existing authority that goes beyond that, that would allow either the president or the Secretary of Health and Human Services to grant waivers," he responded.
I feel better -- you?
Posted by John Kranz at 2:04 PM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:If memory serves, I believe Gore was making fundraising calls from his government office.
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2012 2:52 PMBut jk thinks:Ahhh, yes. It sounds almost quaint in the days of the President's $100,000 tour busses and "official" visits to key swing states.
Happy times, those...
Posted by: jk at January 10, 2012 3:08 PM
Larry!
Thank NED for Lawrence Kudlow. Most of his show was about the anti-capitalist sniping at Bain Capital. Gov. Huntsman was great in some spots and okay on some:
Posted by John Kranz at 1:27 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:I'm glad Jon is "a leader who's willing to put their [sic] country first." I'm not so glad he called Mitt Romney "absolutely unelectable." That sound you hear is Ronaldus Maximus rolling over. Gee thanks, Jon.
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2012 3:08 PM
Jon!
Awfully sporting of them to let Governor Huntsman put on that soft piano music in teh background when he answered the question. Nice touch:
Posted by John Kranz at 12:25 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:I recall the applause being a bit more polite than this as well. Overdub include more than just music?
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2012 2:57 PM
January 9, 2012
Mitt!
Huh? What? A kind word about Governor Romney?
Yup, a serious and substantive collection of kind words from Jay Nordlinger. For all the Governor's failings, Nordlinger is right that the treatment of Capitalism from his rivals has been unconscionable:
The last two presidential election cycles have revealed a stinking hypocrisy in conservatives: They profess their love of capitalism and entrepreneurship, but when offered a real capitalist and entrepreneur, they go, "Eek, a mouse!" And they tear him down in proud social-democrat fashion. In the off season, they sound like Friedrich Hayek. When the game is on, they sound like Huey Long, Bella Abzug, or Bob Shrum.
Last time around, Mike Huckabee said Romney "looks like the guy who laid you off." Conservatives reacted like this was the greatest mot since Voltaire or something. To me, Romney looked like someone who could create a business and hire the sadly unentrepreneurial like me.
I've been off the handle at Speaker Gingrich about this, and I guess the Gov. Perry campaign is having fun with the carefully edited audio clip of "I like to fire people." (For those who have not heard it, the context was how he could control a private contractor but not the government.)I do not recall a single instance of another candidate saying "Whoa, cowboy! I have many differences with the Governor of the Commonwealth, but we should all accept Schumpeterian creative destruction."
The whole piece is good.
UPDATE: Jimi P: Romney doesn't need to apologize for his Bain career.
UPDATE II: Et tu Jon? "What's clear is he likes firing people, I like creating jobs," Huntsman said in Concord.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:43 PM | Comments (8)But Keith Arnold thinks:jg: you bring up a killer point, that of candidates trying to claim the TEA Party mantle - and while I understand Romney's opponents using Bain for political reasons against him, any of those opponents who does so needs to face the fact that it is an anti-capitalist argument. And it begs the question: is there a real TEA Party candidate?
A big part of the problem is the definition of the TEA Party movement. The limited-goverment wing lays claim to the title, and so do the social-cons. Members of both sects see the TEA Party as their own, partly because there are plenty of voters who consider themselves, vaguely, in both groups.
But the origin of the TEA Party - "Taxed Enough Already," hence the acronym - is firmly owned by the economic limited-government wing, whether or not the social-cons have jumped onto that vehicle, and whether or not the movement has morphed into a social-con stream. The events I participated in seemed to be primarily about dealing with a government which spent too much and taxed to much.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 10, 2012 12:25 PMBut jk thinks:That has been my shock. After the rush of Tea Party enthusiasm and the sweeping electoral success in 2010, there is no real Tea Party candidate.
I'll cede that your man, Gov. Perry, is probably closest even though he piled on Bain Capital. He might be in for a reevaluation but a) he has performed poorly (this is harsh coming from a Huntsman guy!); b) his hard line on gay rights and social issues detract from chances to sell him as a liberty candidate; c) "noocyoolur" and "Eye-rack" are going to be a tough sell in 2012 -- it may not be fair, but it is what it is (cf. Jebediah Bush, R- FL).
Posted by: jk at January 10, 2012 12:46 PM
But johngalt thinks:"Whether or not the social-cons have jumped on that [TEA Party] vehicle?" Not this social-con. And I, for one, appreciate him distancing himself.
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2012 12:56 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The Refugee can certainly find fault with the anti-Capitalist attack line coming from Republicans. It serves some purpose in that it become an intra-squad scrimmage in which Newt/Jon/Ron/Rick play the part of the opposing team. Romney will be hit with all of the Bain stuff by the Democrats. Vetting it now can help hone the counter-message and make it old news. The risk is that coming from both sides, it becomes a narrative that sticks.
One can hope that the silver lining comes through. Nevertheless, shame on Newt/Jon/Ron/Rick for cynically reinforcing (if not outright creating) a Democrat message.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 10, 2012 12:59 PMBut jk thinks:When the Tea Party Died. Kevin McCullough is not feelin' the love and settling into the Mitt groove:
It is almost impossible to believe and violently sickening to accept that in light of the clear mandate of the Tea Party that the GOP stands on the cusp of returning to "establishmentism." (Imaginary word mine.) But it appears that for all the big talk, tens of thousands of local rallies, and the single largest non-inaugural event to ever occur on our nation's mall, the Tea Party has died.
Posted by: jk at January 10, 2012 1:24 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:McCullough could not be more misguided or wrong. The GOP does not manufacture candidates; individuals must step up and choose to run. The shame of this election is that we have so much talent that has chosen to sit out the game.
Moreover, the Tea Party is not an entity that can "do something." It's a movement based on certain ideas. If anyone is to blame for the dearth of Tea Party candidates, it is the individuals themselves who subscribe to these ideas and choose not to get involved. Blaming the GOP is completely out of line.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 10, 2012 3:05 PM
Jon!
Your quotidian Huntsman propaganda:
- WaPo: Jon Huntsman riding wave of popularity from N.H. debate performance
- Public Policy Polling: Movin' into second?
- Politico: A Pretty Good Weekend.
- UPDATE: Yahoo/Daily Beast: Huntsman's Timely Jump
Posted by John Kranz at 11:26 AM | Comments (0)
January 8, 2012
Your vision or mine?
The idea for this contrast of visions came to me yesterday, when I searched for a suitable cartoon to highjack and found an excellent cartoon in its own right from the Sarasota Chronicle by way of the (Montana) Missoulian. Being Broncos Playoff Sunday and having chores to do before the game I almost didn't post it, thinking it deserved a good writeup accompaniment. JK's Motor City Madness segue's well: New Orleans says, "Leave us alone" while Detroit still moans, "Take care of us."
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:50 PM | Comments (2)But nanobrewer thinks:Better (perhaps even more accurate) titles for the signs would have been:
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 10, 2012 9:19 AM
"We can do it" vs. "You have to do it for us"But johngalt thinks:"We can do it" vs. "Do it for us." I like it.
So much talk about TEA Party "extremism." A simple contrast here can be devastatingly effective.
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2012 1:45 AM
January 6, 2012
Blast From the Past
@JimPethokoukis calls it the "Toothpase and Orange Juice ticket," but dares to suggest Romney and Rand Paul.
I dared to send him my post of October 18 and he graciously replied "You never know!"
Trying to pull this one out of the fire, I'm getting where I'd dream of that ticket.
-- Then again, Mary Kaye's Husband is third with 16% in NH!
Posted by John Kranz at 6:20 PM | Comments (0)
I'd Prefer the Boston Globe Endorsement!
In a thinking world based on reason and free will, David Brooks's endorsement should kill a GOP candidacy. The guy who fits the NYTimes definition of a conservative suggests that Santorum's intrusions do not go far enough:
Santorum doesn't yet see that once you start thinking about how to foster an economic system that would nurture our virtues, you wind up with an agenda far more drastic and transformational.If you believe in the dignity of labor, it makes sense to support an infrastructure program that allows more people to practice the habits of industry. If you believe in personal responsibility, you have to force Americans to receive only as much government as they are willing to pay for. If you believe in the centrality of family, you have to have a government that both encourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable.
Worth a read just to bathe in its weirdness, Hat-tip @jamestaranto David Brooks wants "wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable." What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by John Kranz at 4:18 PM | Comments (0)
A Mistake Reagan Would not have Made
All hail Kim Strassel! She catches the fundamental flaw in the GOP top-tier candidates.
What both campaigns are in fact doing is following Democrats down the class-warfare rabbit hole. Spooked by the Democrats' inequality theme, the Romney and Santorum campaigns are taking the narrow view, catering to the blue-collar vote, playing the class game.In an election that needs to be about contrasts, this is point Obama. Game on for candidate Santorum, who gets to explain why his own policies for government to reward certain classes of citizens over others are any different than Mr. Obama's. Or let's see candidate Romney knock Mr. Obama's proposals to further tax America's job creators, those Mr. Romney thinks are doing "just fine." The bigger risk is that a Republican president actually pursues these distorting economic policies, sacrificing growth.
UPDATE: Brother br highlighted a Huntsman apostasy from HuffPo, and does not accept my complaint that it is not a direct quote:
Huntsman, by contrast, has argued for banks to be reduced in size, and for stricter limits to be placed on the type of financial activities they can undertake.
Taken as 100% face value: we currently regulate banks and we have proven that we will not allow the largest to fail. I remain the lasseiz fairest of them all, but in that world, keeping private institutions away from presenting systemic risk to global liquidity is not exactly nationalization.And taken at its 100% worse, it is far less a threat to liberty than the things I routinely hear -- and Strassel highlights -- from the Romney and Santorum campaigns.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:34 PM | Comments (2)But Boulder Refugee thinks:My apostate is not as heretical as your apostate! So there.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 6, 2012 3:12 PMBut jk thinks:Hahahaha. BURN THE HERETICS!
Posted by: jk at January 6, 2012 4:00 PM
Jon!
Isaac the goat, and The Boston Globe:
Hat-tip: Blog friend Terri
Posted by John Kranz at 1:52 PM | Comments (1)But jk thinks:The "ThreeSourcers for Huntsman" section has been trading emails since the story broke, and I will save your typing fingers: yes, the Globe is owned by the NYTimes and is a very liberal newspaper. Kudlow dissed the announcement when it was "Breaking News" at the end of his show, and Jim Geraghty thinks it is bad for the campaign.
I'll take what I get, but do fear it plays in to the "oh yeah, he's Howard Dean's candidate!" If I may paraphrase the other half of "ThreeSourcers for Huntsman:" he doesn't pander to the base.
Posted by: jk at January 6, 2012 2:30 PM
Rick!
I'll give him a pass on earmarks but still consider them a gateway drug to big spending and a tool to cajole extra votes for bad legislation.
The anti-libertarian and anti-Tea Party lnes, however, disturb.
Hat-tip: Tea Party Patriots on Facebook.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:49 AM | Comments (0)
January 5, 2012
Vote Ron Paul!
Not fer one of them furrener lookin' dudes:
Go Ron Paul! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Posted by John Kranz at 4:00 PM | Comments (6)But johngalt thinks:A non-sequitur to be sure. Did you read the comments?
"I'd just like to join all the other Paul supporters in saying that this xenophobic idiot does not speak for us."316 views - posted by "NHLiberty4Paul"
Posted by: johngalt at January 5, 2012 7:04 PMBut jk thinks:Fair points. Had a rouge Romney element crafted this, I'd have laughed (I laughed at this one).
You have to remember the respect I have for Bill Buckley. He is a real hero to me for chasing out the Birchers and racists and other crazies in the Conservative/GOP movement. The foundation for Goldwater and then Reagan would not have been possible without NR's spring cleaning. (Even Jonah Goldberg suggests that Chambers's Atlas Shrugged Review should not have been published -- let's push that aside.)
In the wake of the newsletters, we are reminded that Doctorrepresentative Paul has never undertaken such a task. He was quiet about occupiers perverting his message, and participated, condoned, or ignored recruitment from the paleos.
So, no, I am not prepared to give him a broad pass. Many people much smarter than me have pointed out that big-L libs need a Buckley to clean house (though it will be harder to spot the crazies...) If I ever saw him admonish prominent nutjobs, I'd give him a pass on the fledgling NHLiberty4Paul.
Posted by: jk at January 5, 2012 7:24 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:"In the wake of the newsletters, we are reminded that Doctorrepresentative Paul has never undertaken such a task. He was quiet about occupiers perverting his message, and participated, condoned, or ignored recruitment from the paleos."
If any candidate tried rooting out rogue elements, he'd have no time for actual campaigning. Part of the dirty nature of politics is to have infiltrators for another campaign make it look like a bunch of loons. On the other hand, we know RP's supporters are all far off the deep end: believers that government is too big, taxes too much, spends too much, starts too many wars, destroys our money, and takes our money instead of its stated purpose of protecting us.
In your previous post, you wrote, "He worries about 2 or 3% annual theft of the value to a saver's cash holdings." And do you believe that is ALL he worries about?
RP references class but does not make it about class warfare. He doesn't attack "the rich," but those with political power to enrich themselves at our expense.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 6, 2012 6:24 PMBut jk thinks:There are many many things I like about Rep. Paul. I do worry that he has too-willingly accepted some crazy followers. I point to the Occupy folks -- if they carry an "End the Fed!" sign, they're cool, even if they wear a Che Guevara shirt and "End Capitalism!" in the other hand.
The newsletters are old and poorly sourced, but I saw a current YouTube where a 9-11 truther asks him why he won't come out and he tells her something to the effect that it wouldn't be politically expedient. We are hurting bad for good ideas in 2012, but I also need to see some stability.
Posted by: jk at January 6, 2012 7:04 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:I would like to see that particular video. Many things can be taken out of context, and you don't know if he necessarily understood what a person was asking.
If we're hurting bad, why are so many supporting a modern Nazi like Santorum, or a collectivist like Romney?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 6, 2012 7:49 PMBut jk thinks:About 0:50 here.
Romney and Santorum are Exhibit A in "hurting bad." I meant that the field is so weak that I am giving everybody a shot.
Posted by: jk at January 6, 2012 8:17 PM
Answering Obama
The President of the United States wants to run America "on behalf of the American people" unilaterally, without the consent of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the governed.
On the other hand: [at the 3 minute mark]
"And we had the task, where we are very successful, is reintroducing some ideas Republicans needed for a long time, and that is the conviction that freedom is popular. But once again we have had a fantastic showing for this cause and challenging people, not the status quo that we have been putting up with for decades after decade, but challenging them and saying, you know, let's challenge 'em - let's go back to this real old-fashioned idea, this very dangerous idea - let's obey the Constitution!"I don't know about y'all but I'm beginning to be "scared straight."
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:12 PM | Comments (3)But Boulder Refugee thinks:It has become distressingly clear that our Constitutional system is strictly opt-in, even allowing for differences of interpretation. When any branch of government chooses to ignore or distort any given provision, it is relatively difficult for other branches to correct it, at least in the short-term. We are only as good as our elected officials and there is much room for mischief.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 5, 2012 3:42 PMBut jk thinks:This was a great speech. Paul used the "We're all Austrians now" line on Kudlow last night.
Posted by: jk at January 5, 2012 4:03 PMBut jk thinks:Some may be tired of this repetitive recommendation, but Gene Healy's "Cult of the Presidency" shows how and why the other branches bend to Article II.
Posted by: jk at January 5, 2012 4:12 PM
Found: Obama's "Stash"
And he could use it to purchase this year's election.
I couldn't believe my ears on this one. Partially because the prospect of Obama giving new lower rate mortgages to every Fannie and Freddie mortgage holder is so outrageous, and partially because I heard it from Rush Limbaugh before JK posted it. (And Rush is on 2-hour delay in Denver!)
And the beauty part for Obama? He wouldn't need approval from Congress to do it. Even though many Republicans would scream that the plan would reward irresponsible homeowners who took on too much leverage -- indeed, talk of a housing bailout is what launched the Tea Party movement -- they probably couldn't stop it.Looking through this lens, the President's statement on the contra-constitutional recess appointment of his new "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" head is rather ominous:
But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. (Applause.) I've got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I'm not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve. (Applause.) Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans. We're not going to let that happen. (Applause.)Posted by JohnGalt at 2:38 PM | Comments (4)But Boulder Refugee thinks:Queue Dire Straits: "Money for Nothin' and Chicks for Free..."
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 5, 2012 3:08 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:This is sounding more and more like it could be lifted straight from "Atlas Shrugged."
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 5, 2012 3:29 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Er... make that cue... the don't need to stand in line.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 5, 2012 5:56 PMBut jk thinks:I'm thinking this is Atlas Shrugs. California Boondoggle Gub'mint High Speed Rail!
Monorail! Monorail!...
Posted by: jk at January 5, 2012 5:57 PM
Quote of the Day
Yesterday, Barack Obama was in Shaker Heights, Ohio, to deliver his awful class-war speech again. On page 39 of Mr. Romney's 160-page economic plan, he attacks the president's "inflammatory" rhetoric against "so-called millionaires and billionaires." Mr. Romney adds: "He actually includes every household earning more than $250,000 in that category." But turn to the next page, and you read that Mr. Romney will eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest "for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000." -- Dan HenningerHouston? We have a problem.UPDATE: A great friend of this blog emails a link to Paul Hoffmeister in Forbes.com. This is a read-the-whole-thing piece.
The most important question to predict a presidential race is whether the GOP nominee is sufficiently pro-growth. Jude Wanniski, one of the godfathers of supply-side economics, noted that, since 1896, only supply-side Republicans have become President. Voters only elect Republicans that credibly support sound money and low taxes.This was true from McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft between 1896 and 1908, to Harding and Coolidge during the 1920's, to Reagan and George W. Bush during the last 30 years. Of course, some Republicans faked it during their campaign and won; for example, Eisenhower (1952), Nixon (1972), and George H. W. Bush (1988). And, predictably, "austerity" Republicans have never been elected president; for example, Hoover (1932), Goldwater (1964), George H.W. Bush (1992) and Dole (1996).
This simple but powerful historical pattern is testimony to our remarkable democratic system. American democracy has developed two political parties: a party of economic growth and a party of income redistribution. If a credible plan for growth is offered, the electorate will vote for it. If such a plan is not offered, then it will vote for income redistribution, hoping that the party of growth will get its act together someday.
UPDATE II: The author's name is "Hoffmeister" not Huffmeuster (corrected). I managed a typo and a misspelling in one word.Posted by John Kranz at 2:38 PM | Comments (0)
The Twitterverse Responds to Brother BR
Posted by John Kranz at 2:18 PM | Comments (0)
January 4, 2012
Huntsman the spoiler in Iowa?
Splitting the well-moisturized, salt&pepper, Mormon guy vote?
Right now, Huntsman has only received 700 votes, or about 1 percent of all votes cast. In a normal race, this would be nothing more than a blip. But this isn't a normal race.
With 96 percent of the vote in, Rick Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by a razor thin margin of 79 votes.
Entrance poll data suggested that Huntsman's support came exclusively from "moderate or liberal" voters, a subset which made up just 17 percent of the electorate, but which Romney carried over Santorum 35 percent to 8 percent.
If the final numbers are similar to these, Santorum might want to send Huntsman a belated Christmas present.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:00 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Well, if Huntsman's moderate appeal earns him a Christmas present from Santorum for the 3% he took from Romney, Rick rightly owes his first-born child to Ron Paul and his 40 percent. [2nd comment] Dang, that "invisible candidate" stuff is no foolin'.
Posted by: johngalt at January 4, 2012 6:37 PM
Iowa
A friend emails a great analogy:
Yes, Iowa has pulled that old realtors' trick. You take someone to two houses with similar characteristics and the same price, but one is clearly better than the other. It makes the decision easier. Iowa has taken us to those two houses and Romney's is much better.
Yes, I was up late last night "Go Mitt!!! C'mon Governor Romney!" I don't have a Huckabee-esque antipathy for Senator Santorum in spite of the sweater vests. But he is far down my list as he clearly wants to use government power to advance social agendas. Subsidizing reproduction is likely defensible and I appreciate his nuance on immigration.But I search like Diogenes (if I may steal Brother BR's metaphor) for a small-government candidate. Senator Santorum is another George W. Bush. While we have seen worse, that is not what I seek.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:57 AM | Comments (4)But johngalt thinks:And when Mitt looks in the mirror he doesn't exactly see GWB, but there's a resemblance.
Combined with Romney's recent endorsement by Senator McCain, methinks the time is right for GD to chime in with the most up-to-date case for the third candidate who won Iowa. You know, the invisible one. [Gosh, that comment over there seems eerily prophetic.]
Posted by: johngalt at January 4, 2012 12:51 PMBut jk thinks:The phone lines remain open. I am pretty disturbed by the newsletter stuff, on top of a monetary policy that frightens and a foreign policy that terrifies.
|
Posted by: jk at January 4, 2012 1:51 PM
|
V
But johngalt thinks:| I'm looking at those concerns through a
Posted by: johngalt at January 4, 2012 2:50 PM
| different lens. I'd like to give GD a new
| hearing on the merits of his man.
| |
| |
V VBut Perry Eidelbus thinks:Come on, you fell for the newsletter "December Surprise" horse dung? So much was taken out of context, which was clearly written by someone else. Listen to more RP speeches, and either he's had, or someone did ghostwrite them.
I've seen only one person, ONE, who ever produced genuine archives (scanned PDFs). Everything else is about someone posting a quote that was ripped off from another site. There's no scholarship, no research involved.
Here's an example. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." From Proverbs, right?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 6, 2012 6:35 PM
Jon!
I'll make my last pitch to Brother br: at least we would have some clever commercials were Governor Huntsman the nominee:
Hat-tip: another ThreeSourcer goin' down with the ship!
Posted by John Kranz at 10:48 AM | Comments (3)But Boulder Refugee thinks:Sure, but should we really be aiding and abetting the DNC? Isn't that what MoveOn.org was started for?
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 4, 2012 11:43 AMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:To put a finer point on it, I'm not looking for someone who can beat the other Republicans; I'm looking for someone who can beat Obama. If he'd turn such cleverness on the appropriate target, I'd be more likely to jump on board.
1% in Iowa and likely the same result in NH. Not seeing how this ends well for the seven girl's father.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 4, 2012 11:47 AMBut jk thinks:I'm looking for someone worthy of support. I'm looking for someone I won't be embarrassed to vote for. And I am finding it rather difficult.
He did not participate in Iowa; he is running ~10% in New Hampshire, not too far from where Senator Santorum was a week before the caucus.
He needs good fortune to be sure, but Granite Staters might be in a mood to reassess. Gov Romney, as Dick Viguerie reminds, had 75% of Iowans vote against him. He gained no support, as Bill Kristol reminds, in four years (lost a few handfuls of votes). Mister inevitable? Mister electable? Oh, yeah, Mister Good Enough.
Rep. Paul's missing expectations open a crack in the liberty segment. Some of his actual Republican supporters might enjoy a second look at Governor H. Most notably, the non-evangelical wing might be scared of Santorum's New Groove and seek an acceptable candidate.
Yes, he has to run to table. No, it is not likely. But exactly ZERO delegates have been committed so far. I'm not giving up on a guy I like.
Posted by: jk at January 4, 2012 12:39 PM
January 3, 2012
All Hail Taranto!
Missed his keen insight last week.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:58 PM | Comments (0)
Quote of the Day
As a person with some modest experience of life under east-AsianCommunism, I've had a lot of people asking me whether the tears being wept at the funeral of Kim Jong Il are genuine. Here's my answer: Those tears are more genuine than Newt's. -- John DerbyshirePosted by John Kranz at 3:58 PM | Comments (0)
Pre-Register for Colorado Caucus
The Colorado state caucus date is February 7, 2012 at 7:00 pm. You can pre-register and be emailed your caucus location (when it is determined) online. KOA Radio:
The Colorado Republican Party has set up a website for GOP voters to pre-register for the February 7th Caucus. State chairman Ryan Call believes Colorado will play an important role in deciding who becomes the Republican nominee. It will be the 6th state to weigh-in on the race.Because districts and precinct lines have been redrawn, Call if urging Republicans voters to pre-register at www.caucus.cologop.org . Once you sign up there, you can be emailed your caucus location.
Call believes the turnout on February 7th will be huge. He claims Republicans aren't just choosing a nominee, they're choosing the person who will be our next president.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:07 PM | Comments (4)But jk thinks:Way Cool, Thanks. Should be enough time for my Jon Huntsman T-shirts to get here.
Posted by: jk at January 3, 2012 3:55 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Thanks for the tip, JG. I called the Weld County Clerk and Recorder, who referred me the Weld County Republican Party. According to them, the precincts have still not been redrawn, so they have can't establish precinct caucus locations.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 3, 2012 4:49 PMBut johngalt thinks:Aye, br'er Refugee. And the chaos created by the latest Democrat gerrymander is one of the reasons cited for creating this "pre-registration" site. From my completed pre-registration form:
YOUR CAUCUS LOCATION HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED YET BY THE COUNTY PARTY. We will send you an email when your caucus location has been determined.Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2012 5:45 PMBut jk thinks:I got the same message, but was able to print the lovely bride's and my registration forms. No doubt that will save a lot of time next February.
Posted by: jk at January 3, 2012 5:53 PM
Why I'm Sancho Panza to "Jon Juan"
Is giving money to Gov. Huntsman a complete waste? Possibly, yes. If Mayor Giuliani was unable to pull off a New Hampshire - Florida nomination path in 2008, it is pretty hard to imagine the less well known and less polished Jon Huntsman doing it.
I see two other choices and like neither.
One. Join George Will in acceding to a second Obama term and focus all efforts on a GOP Senate. With Senator Nelson's (D - ObamaCare®) retirement, I don't think even the Republicans can muff this one. But, without the A team running, resign to losing the White House.
Two. Settle for a "front-runner." As blog pragmatist, I am supposed to be the first guy on this train. Surely either a President Romney or President Gingrich will be way better than the current occupant. But I can't.
I meant to blog about this but hoped it would go away:
Incensed by the negative ads that have spoiled his campaign, Newt Gingrich recently complained he'd been "Romneyboated," an allusion to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose ads helped derail Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004.
John O'Neill, the swift-boat captain who led the anti-Kerry movement, is none too pleased with the comparison. "To me, it reflects Gingrich's very cynical hypocrisy, which he shares with Kerry," O'Neill tells National Review Online. That hypocrisy "is the reason why he can appear with [Nancy] Pelosi in climate-change ads and why he can take money from Freddie Mac: If you're part of the political class, [you believe] you're free from any public scrutiny of what you've done." [Bracketed comments in original]
Words cannot describe how offensive that is. That he brings it up. That he identifies with Senator Kerry instead of his critics. That he cannot appreciate other Republicans pointing out what a crappy, lying faced, flip-flopping, unprincipled, hypocritical weasel he is. Perhaps I shouldn't say that. Perhaps I should have said crappy, lying faced, flip-flopping, unprincipled, hypocritical, fat weasel.Governor Romney is the architect of ObamaCare® His bold tax reform offers capital gains tax breaks for everybody -- everybody who makes less than $200K that is. "The rich" will "have to pay their fair share."
NB likes Senator Santorum. He is on the "Faith, Family, and Freedom" tour -- 33% of which is actually under government purview. He's not "picking winners and losers," he's offering 0% tax rates for manufacturers because their jobs are easy to move overseas. How about the Financial Sector? I think BofA should get 0% too. Can you imagine the lobbyist action on defining "a manufacturer?"
I'd start in on Doctorepresentative Ron Paul but this would turn into a rant. No, my last chance of having somebody I could support is to see Gov. Huntsman stay in.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:34 PM | Comments (10)But johngalt thinks:Heh. Dagny may disown me for not knowing, but I just looked up Sancho Panza. (I knew the story but usually remember only the broad themes.) Now knowing your 'Jon Juan' reference I find it necessary to explain mine: 'Jon' Huntsman and 'Juan' JK.
Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2012 5:48 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:JK is merely following the same path traveled by JG and The Refugee 14 months ago in first refusing to support Tom Tancredo and eventually pulling the lever for him. Well, actually, tapping the touch screen, but you get the idea...
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 3, 2012 5:58 PMBut jk thinks:I will happily darken the oval next to Gov. Romney next November (dang, you're a literal lot!) There is not issue on which I cannot support him.
What I dread is the debate. I am thinking of Candidate-Senators McCain and Obama "doing economics" (the slang meaning of the verb is apropos) in the second debate. We will not have a candidate who can articulate liberty because we will not have a candidate who believes in it.
Posted by: jk at January 3, 2012 6:06 PM
But dagny thinks:Unlike JG, I didn't take the time to look it up, but isn't Sancho Panza sidekick to Don Quixote and not Don Juan? Does that make it Jon Quixote? The Impossible Dream seems an apropos metaphor for Jon and Tim both.
Posted by: dagny at January 3, 2012 7:08 PMBut johngalt thinks:You would have to invoke the name "Tancredo" BR. And I was having such a good day up to now!
Let us all hope that any Republican presidential candidate fares better than did Turncoat Tom.
Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2012 7:08 PMBut jk thinks:
January 2, 2012
Quote of the Day
Whether the ads are fair or not, it's not as if Mitt Romney did anything that the Obama campaign wouldn't do in a general-election contest. Er, let me revise and extend that: If you can't handle what Romney's PACs are sending your way over the airwaves, how will you rebut attack ads coming from the Obama campaign AND the Democratic National Committee AND the unions AND the Soros-funded "independent" groups AND the eager recitation of the criticism from their mainstream-media allies? -- Jim Geraghty [subscribe]Posted by John Kranz at 11:05 AM | Comments (0)
December 31, 2011
I'll DIe on this Hill
View the new ad and give generously
John,You've given generously, and your $[I hate to flaunt my wealth...] will help us campaign on conservative issues, in a new, long-forgotten tone that respects both the process and the American people.
Our candidate would have it no other way. Because Jon Huntsman is different.
Decent, calm, wise. Knows the world. Never a flip nor a flop. No loud voices, no drama. Instead, a clear, well-defined path for America to reverse the sad course we're on.
Jon Huntsman is the Republican who can actually win back the White House in 2012. Gen H is working hard to make that happen. Your support is what we need!
Will you take the next step and help spread the word about Jon?
Sign up and become a volunteer today.Thanks again,
Jeff Wright
National Finance Chairman
Jon Huntsman for President
Posted by John Kranz at 11:48 AM | Comments (7)But jk thinks:I hear you but that proves how fundamentally broken this system is. Not a single vote has been cast, yet you declare it over for the candidate I like best.
He needs money to have a chance in NH. I do not relish settling for any of the others.
Posted by: jk at January 1, 2012 5:23 PMBut dagny thinks:Somehow this conversation has a familiar ring to it. Sounds like the one we had when I was suggesting sending money to Herman Cain. Only, now JK is on the other side. Hmm...
Posted by: dagny at January 2, 2012 12:17 PMBut johngalt thinks:There are others who could also be preferrable to any of the current front runners - Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Gary Johnson. But their appeal was narrow and they couldn't form a sizeable enough core of followers.
I bristle whenever someone says, "the system is fundamentally flawed" because they usually want goverment "reform" of the process. I think you agree that what is "flawed" is democracy itself. At its fullest, it is incompatible with liberty. The founders took care to isolate the citizenry from a democratic goverment through Constitutional limits on that goverment.
The GOP is accused of favoring "the next person in line" at each nominating opportunity. This is often portrayed as a cadre of Republican "insiders" pulling the levers of power to give an "establishment" candidate an unfair advantage. In actuality, candidates who have run before have been vetted more thoroughly and thus engender more confidence in their staying power. After test driving all the models on the lot, Iowa voters are gravitating toward the ones with higher mileage - Romney, Paul and Santorum. If Obama is re-elected, and if Huntsman can clarify his message a whole lot between now and then, he could be the favorite to run against Hillary in '16. I don't see enough voters taking a chance on him this late in the process.
Posted by: johngalt at January 2, 2012 1:16 PMBut jk thinks:@dagny I am less surprised to be caught in a flipflop than to have forgotten a conversation. I did send a little to TheHermanCain, though less than Huntsman.
@Jg One must remember that the party is a private corporation., we could throw darts to choose. Honoring Iowan supremacy gives social conservatives permanent control. Marathon primaries hosted by lefty journalists did not advance ideas of liberty. I am all for some changes.
Posted by: jk at January 2, 2012 1:38 PM
But johngalt thinks:Looking at Iowa this year one might say we ARE choosing by the throw of a dart. Three different caucuses over three subsequent weeks might produce different outcomes.
I thought Eric Odom of Liberty News Network (but via email) had a good take on the Iowa exercise:
It's not that Iowa perfectly represents the mindset of all 49 other states; Rather, it's that Iowa presents a challenge that exposes weaknesses and strengths, and provides us a good look at how each candidate performs when the horse race heats up.Posted by: johngalt at January 2, 2012 2:53 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:Both arguments have merit, and show our system is not yet broken IMO. I'd like to hear how Huntsman compares to other real conservatives, perhaps like Santorum or {insert preferred candidate here}.
I think any success gained by Huntsman will help influence the campaign (as I think Cain's 9-9-9 did), and possibly.... hopefully the eventual presidency of the people's choice. The money shan't be wasted unless H-man turns out to be a "public figure" that Noonan talks about.
Peggy Noonan had a great column on Friday; noting some interesting observations on Election 2012:
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 2, 2012 7:54 PM
"the sitting president's own party doesn't like him"
"the continuation of a half century-long trend. National trumps local, federal squashes state, the force of national culture washes out local culture. Primaries are fully national now."
"It's odd that people who care so much about politics rarely use one of politics' biggest tools, humor. Mr. Romney did (Gingrich in VA was like Lucille Ball @ chocolate factory) and scored. More please, from everyone."
"The worst trend in politics that fully emerged during phase one? People running for president not to be president but as a branding exercise, to sell books and get a cable contract and be a public figure"
December 30, 2011
JON!
They pick corn in Iowa, they pick Presidents in New Hampshire
Good line.
UPDATE: Hmm, the WaPo embed seems dead. Here's the post.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:35 AM | Comments (2)But Keith Arnold thinks:Apparently, they pick favorites in Virginia.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 30, 2011 2:50 PMBut jk thinks:Noses in Arkansas...
Posted by: jk at December 31, 2011 12:51 PM
December 29, 2011
Quote of the Day
Managerial progressives see only the end -- preventing free-riders from riding for free. And they ignore the collateral damage done by way of the means selected. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have no understanding of first principles. For both of these social engineers, citizens are subjects to be worked-over by the government for their own good. Both men are inclined to treat us as children subject to the authority of a paternalistic state under the direction of a benevolent and omniscient managerial class. -- Paul Rahe in an awesome, comprehensive takedown of the individual mandate.Hat-tip: InstapunditPosted by John Kranz at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)
Tweets of the Day
Lots more fun for viewers -- and likely the best shot for Mary Kaye's Husband!
Posted by John Kranz at 12:00 PM | Comments (10)But jk thinks:Au Contraire! You awaken my inner Gunn with that one. May I tweet it in your honor?
Posted by: jk at December 29, 2011 4:35 PMBut jk thinks:Too late! I have already stolen it!
Anybody going to get the allusion?
Posted by: jk at December 29, 2011 4:39 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:Well, Jonah DID say Gilbert & Sullivan, and Dagny DID bring up "the big, big D"... but I am flattered...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 29, 2011 6:37 PMBut johngalt thinks:You boys are waaay over my tech geek head with this one. I'll ask dagny to 'splain it to me this evening. :)
Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2011 7:41 PMBut dagny thinks:I'm fine with Gilbert and Sullivan but sorry, I don't get inner, "Gunn???"
Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 7:48 PMBut jk thinks:Well, that was for Terri & SC...
Charles Gunn (J. August Richards) is a character from Angel: a street fighter from a rough LA neighborhood who fights on the side of good and ultimately joins Angel's cadre. When they take over the law firm of Wolfram & Hart, he has a mystical operation which gives him a thorough understanding of law. As a side quirk, Gunn -- normally more in touch with hip-hop than show tunes -- acquires a similarly comprehensive knowledge of the entire Gilbert & Sullivan opus.
Posted by: jk at December 29, 2011 8:00 PM
Dr. Laffer's Gingrich Endorsement
The Kudlow Report from last night. Art is all in for the Speaker.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:08 AM | Comments (5)But johngalt thinks:I read this as being as much or more a personal favor to Art's longtime friend than a policy preference. No "Reagan-like" economic policies in Romney's 59-point plan?
Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2011 12:17 PMBut jk thinks:Really? I was surprised at the fulsomeness of the endorsement. He tepidly proclaimed his respect and "long time friendship" with Gov. Romney (peré and filé) but almost got me on board with his enthusiasm for Newt's "straight down the alley supply-siderism."
Have to do a "Coals-to-Newcastle" Kim Strassel link. Ms. Awesome ledes with:
[...] hoping to stem his slide in the Iowa polls and draw a strong policy contrast with Mitt Romney, is now focusing on economic growth as a campaign theme.
It is clearly a campaign tactic for a guy forced to look at Sen. Santorum's ass in the polls more than conviction.
Posted by: jk at December 29, 2011 12:30 PMBut johngalt thinks:Still feel the same way after watching the video. He fulsomely endorsed Newt's policy. "I would love to see Mitt have a flat tax."
Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2011 3:18 PMBut johngalt thinks:Here's the secret to this entire nomination puzzle - none of the candidates' economic plans matter one iota. None. Bills are written in the Legislative, not the Executive branch of goverment. As Ann Coulter explains again today, we need a candidate who will make Obama and his policies the topic of discussion, not himself. "2012 is not a year for a wild card."
Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2011 3:28 PMBut jk thinks:<John McLaughlin voice>WRONG!</John McLaughlin voice>
The candidate needs to understand and articulate a clear economic agenda against the President and his intellectual fellow-travelers in the media.
After explaining the superiority of freedom to the people and securing election based on those principles, he or she needs to demand those principles (not legislative language) and secure their passage against the same forces.
I thought the same about Senator McCain in 2k8 that Ms. Coulter feels about Governor Romney in 2k11. Then I watched him flail in the economic debate and flagellate in the TARP discussions. There is great danger in giving the nomination to a man who does not care about economic liberty at the "kernel level." Not saying you can't but don't kid yourself that it does not matter.
Posted by: jk at December 29, 2011 3:53 PM
December 28, 2011
JON!
One of these quadrennials, the Rudy plan is going to work!
4. Jon Huntsman needs no worse than a close loss in New Hampshire to keep his campaign going. But should he do that, or even pull off an outright win, maybe voters elsewhere will take another look at his conservative record as a pro-lifer who instituted a flat tax as Utah governor and supports the Paul Ryan approach to entitlement reform.Posted by John Kranz at 6:22 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:But what did he ever help Reagan do? :-P
Posted by: johngalt at December 28, 2011 6:32 PM
Newtgony
Not even a week after I declared Not Newt over his "pro"-life uber-pander, my favorite (living) economist has joined my favorite columnist in endorsing him.
"Like Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt's low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Plus, Newt's record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as Speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action."Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. But Sowell contradicts-
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.Fortunately for the indecisive, Iowa voters may make take the decision out of our hands. Perhaps taking my advice?
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:35 PM | Comments (1)But jk thinks:Glad your "favorite living economist" coincides with mine. Larry Kudlow is undeclared but you can tell from his voice that he is pleased with the Speaker.
And yet, Speaker G was lambasted last night on Kudlow's show both for not buying his domain name and also for failing to get on the ballot in his home state. As a tiebreaker, I suggest you consider his un-seriousness as a candidate.
Posted by: jk at December 28, 2011 4:38 PM
I Gripe about the RNC
But this is solid gold:
Posted by John Kranz at 11:27 AM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Heh. Watch for tire tread marks across Corzine's balding head soon.
Posted by: johngalt at December 28, 2011 2:20 PM
December 24, 2011
Not a Creature Was Stirring...
It's Christmas Eve and the magical hour is nigh, but in the internet age it's not too late to write a letter to Santa Claus.
(It's a great option for kids too.)
Fort Lupton, Colorado, United States
Dear Santa Claus,
My name is Eric. I am a boy and I am already 48 years old!! I live in the great city of Fort Lupton. Of course, that's in Colorado, United States but I'll bet you knew that! This year I've been so good that I should be the angel on top of the tree!
Santa Claus, some things I might like for Christmas this year are:
- smart phone;
- new pair of hockey skates; and,
- Rush Limbaugh endorsement for Mitt Romney.Santa Claus, I almost forgot to say... Please also give something nice to Timmy Tebow and the rest of the Broncos. A deep run into the playoffs would be nice!
Love, Eric
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:16 PM | Comments (0)
December 22, 2011
Not Newt
Yesterday I wrote of my indecision between Newt and Romney. Today, I've decided. Based upon this report, Newt has lost me.
Gingrich holds that a microscopic clump of largely undifferentiated cells inside a woman’s body deserves the same legal protections as a born infant living independently outside its mother’s body. His dogmatic position utterly defies the facts of pregnancy and the status of the zygote or fetus, as well as the basis and meaning of individual rights. Individuals need rights to live successfully with others; the concept cannot apply to a zygote or fetus wholly contained within another’s body. A woman is an independent person with the right to live her own life in accordance with her own judgment. A zygote or fetus is not. Abortion bans severely harm women and their partners by violating their rights.Do I believe Romney is "pro-choice?" No more than the Personhood crowd trusts him as anti-choice. But I do find him wise enough to bury the issue, not highlight it.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:44 PM | Comments (8)But Boulder Refugee thinks:You've just gotta hate these single-issue voters. (just kiddin').
"A woman is an independent person with the right to live her own life in accordance with her own judgment. A zygote or fetus is not."
Oh, by the way, newborns, toddlers and even some young adults are not capable of living life by his or her own judgement, either. Some mentally and physically disabled persons are also not able to function independently. Is Ari Armstrong suggesting that it's OK to terminate their existance as well? The argurment is a rather un-nuanced sound bite.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 22, 2011 4:40 PMBut jk thinks:From a purely political perspective, I think Armstrong is correct to suggest that the Speaker's "walkback" and subsequent pander to Hawkeye State voters is a little too doctrinaire.
"Fools rush in," said Johnny Mercer, "where angels fear to tread." I struggle with the interstice of viability but want to afford rights to adult women.
The "Point of conception" reasoning equates the blastocyst with a human being with a developed brain. I'm a squish but cannot go that far. Armstrong's point is that a plurality of the electorate can be scared off with that comparison as well.
Posted by: jk at December 22, 2011 5:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:A little context-dropping, BR? How does a medical procedure on one individual cause "termination of existence" of another?
Posted by: johngalt at December 22, 2011 5:25 PMBut johngalt thinks:I left this for the reader to infer but the reason I reject Newt is not for his position on this issue, but how ham-handedly he deals with it. Colorado suffered greatly when Senator Bennet stole a second term from Ken Buck. I refuse to be a part of that scenario in the presidential race.
Posted by: johngalt at December 22, 2011 5:59 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Not sure that there is any context dropping, JG. The article does not appear to have a more nuanced position. The Refugeed continues to maintain that a science-based definition of life (i.e., the opposite of the definition of death) must be adopted (no pun intended). However, he realizes that such is not the case.
The real issue here, however, is Newt's position. JK is likely correct that this is nothing more than Iowa Evangelical pandering, similar to his Iowa Ethanol pandering. When it comes to pandering, Newt takes a back seat to no one.
There may be many reasons to not vote for Newt, but abortion probably isn't one of them.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 22, 2011 7:35 PMBut johngalt thinks:Show of hands: Who thinks thinks Newt's opportunistic pandering won't, should he be nominated, come back to life as one of these?
Not much nuance there either, eh?
Posted by: johngalt at December 23, 2011 12:01 PM
We Could Sell Him "Dogs for Bush!"
RICHMOND, Va. -- Forget the back and forth attacks with Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich's campaign has decided to take another route on his bid to the Republican nomination: pets and music.
Mister Speaker! Might I suggest: Pets and Music.UPDATE: ThreeSourcer newbies: In a more innocent time, we ran dogsforbush.com, inviting users to submit pictures and stories to support President Bush's re-election. We attracted enough hate attention to make the exercise worthwhile.
I got tired of paying ten bucks a year to keep the domain name, but all the entries are available at www.threesources.com/dogs.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:00 PM | Comments (0)
December 21, 2011
I Would Call this Stupid
The Speaker ran for President, and nobody acquired NewtGingrich.com ? WaPo:
The pro-Democratic super PAC American Bridge has bought the domain and programmed it to redirect to various Web sites, a clever attack on the former House speaker. The link might take you to Freddie Mac's Web site, Tiffany’s, information about Greek cruises , or to the ad Gingrich cut with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in favor of addressing climate change. Sometimes the page goes to a Post article about his campaign's June implosion.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:23 PM | Comments (0)
Newt - Romney - Newt - Romney
For two days I rested comfortably with my hypothesis that Newt's unpredictability and questionable ideas are best avoided and we'll just go along with Ann Coulter and get behind Romney. "We don't need or maybe even want a conservative crusader in the White House" I mused. "A potted plant with an R after his or her name is what we should seek in order to produce Oval Office signatures on the bills of a TEA Party congress. Leave the ideologues in the smaller, more divested offices of national government."
Then, yesterday, Thomas Sowell wrote this:
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.Is losing with the firebrand less palatable than losing with the "sure-thing moderate Republican with great hair?" Here's to not having to decide before February 7, the Colorado Caucus date.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:52 PM | Comments (0)
Which Superhero?
Nine year old Ari seeks the truth.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:38 PM | Comments (0)
December 15, 2011
TEA Time for Romney?
He's been the GOP's consistent second-choice since the season began. Not principled enough, activists engaged in a serial struggle to support a challenger to defeat His Presumptiveness. Now they've all had their moment in the sun and the last non-Romney standing, Newt Gingrich, shares too many atributes with a certain Doctor Jekyll.
This morning I was invited to vote in a Townhall-dot-com online National GOP Primary. Huntsman and Santorum, polling below five percent, were not allowable choices. I was asked to pick my first and second choice from the remaining five: Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Romney. The exercise has enough of a sense of finality to it that I was unable to bring myself to pick Newt for either choice.
As the Corn Caucus looms, with primaries close behind, prominent TEA Party folk seem to be facing the same deathly-cold dilemma: Newt tells us what we want to hear, but do we believe it? And will America elect a man with so many negatives?
It's true that the liberal media attack Republicans unfairly. But that's a fact to be dealt with, not ignored by nominating a candidate who keeps giving the media so much to work with.JK brought us news of TEA Party "troublemaker" Christine O'Donnell's endorsement of Mitt.
A quick Internets search reveals that South Carolina's state treasurer Curtis Loftis is now officially a Romney man, as is New Hampshire's Tom Thomson.
Thomson, a tree farmer and son of former New Hampshire governor Mel Thomson, is an influential conservative activist in the Granite State. He is the honorary chairman of the Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire chapter and organizes annual tea party rallies at the New Hampshire State House on tax day.The endorsement is something of a coup for the Romney team, which hasn’t had much luck wooing tea partiers.
Romney may or may not be the most electable of our choices [Jon!] but he's the most electable of those with a chance to be nominated. I told dagny last night, "All we really need in a president is someone to sign the bills that come out of Congress" anticipating GOP control of both houses. Reaching for more, and falling short - that would be disastrous.
Okay then, how about Romney-Paul? (No, not that Paul.)
UPDATE: Another TEA Leaf - Tea Party fave Nikki Haley endorses Mitt Romney
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:44 PM | Comments (3)But jk thinks:And Gov. Christie's endorsement.
If we absolutely have to, I will certainly pick him over Speaker Gingrich. But look, is that a perfect candidate I see falling from the sky?
Posted by: jk at December 15, 2011 5:34 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:
@JG wrote when praising Newt: I think Americans of every stripe appreciate, admire, and will reward, candor.To which I say: sure they'll reward candor, but how?
Posted by: nanobrewer at December 15, 2011 11:53 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:Odd, the server dumped the rest of my missive...
I think people do respect candor and will offer a bit of reward: say paying for speeches and/or books. Still, I don't think a workable majority will elect a scold who will constantly bring up bad choices (in part, no doubt, to bury memories of his own).
I think the Speaker is a valuable member of the team and whose voice mostly adds value, but he is not electable and would be shredded to the point of self-immolation by the attack-dog pros lined up behind Sir Golfs a Lot.
Posted by: nanobrewer at December 16, 2011 12:00 AM
I Should Not Have Been So Harsh
I won't say my criticism on ThreeSources pulled the plug on Speaker Gingrich's candidacy, but I do hope that his unschumpeterian lash at Gov. Romney played a part:
James Pethokoukis wonders "Is the Gingrich bubble bursting already?"
Posted by John Kranz at 1:47 PM | Comments (0)
Quote of the Day
Another figure endorsing Romney is Christine O'Donnell, who declared, "He's been consistent since he changed his mind." Nathan Wurtzel observes, "Yogi Berra wishes he had thought of that one." -- Jim Geraghty [subscribe]Posted by John Kranz at 12:32 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Related: "After O'Donnell endorsement, Romney reverses himself on Salem witch trials. Was for, now against." -Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston
Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2011 2:38 PM
December 12, 2011
Huntsman - Gingrich Debate
Make you cry for the weakness of the other debates:
I think they are replaying it tonight on C-SPAN
UPDATE: Seriously, watch the C-SPAN replay if you can (7:42 Mountain) It is how Presidents should be chosen.
UPDATE II: Or on YouTube (though it does not seem ready yet...)
Posted by John Kranz at 4:43 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Huh? Huntsman (around 21:00): "They [China] have never been involved in anything like that before." Namely, securing a neighboring state, in this case Afghanistan, with a failed government. North Korea doesn't count?
Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2011 4:55 PM
Quote of the Day
Oh, come on, governor. This isn't like memorizing the periodic table.There are the good guys, Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas. And then there's the guy who determines everything, Kennedy. And then there are Dasher, Dancer, Comet, and Blitzen. -- Jim Geraghty, in Morning Jolt Item #2: Rick Perry's Over-Under on Supreme Court Justices: 8.5 [subscribe]UPDATE: All Hail Taranto!
Posted by John Kranz at 12:06 PM | Comments (4)But Keith Arnold thinks:I'm mentally substituting "Grumpy, Sleepy, Sneezy, and Dopey." Reindeer bring Christmas, which is a good thing.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 12, 2011 1:55 PMBut jk thinks:I counter offer: Grumpy, Sleepy, Dopey and Comet. Justice Ginsberg -- alone -- put a 24 hour stop on the auto bailout for its assault on the 5th Amendment rights of the GM and Chrysler bondholders. For that, she earns a permanent floor on my esteem.
Posted by: jk at December 12, 2011 3:09 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:Stopped clock. Blind squirrel.
But it's Christmas, so I'm feeling charitable. But it's a low floor.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 12, 2011 4:59 PMBut jk thinks:God Bless Us Everyone.
Posted by: jk at December 12, 2011 5:13 PM
NO! Newt, NO!!!
I saw a few tweets about this this morning and hoped he was misquoted or that it happened in a parallel universe, or that somebody accidentally got Speaker Gingrich confused with Sen. Bernie Saunders (I - VT). Look, I'm even too upset to make a (Communist - VT) or (I - Venezuela) joke. But no, I think this happened: "Newt Strikes Back"
Gingrich: "If Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, then I would be glad to then listen to him. And I will bet you $10, not $10,000, that he won't take the offer."
I'll confess I may nave been looking for a dealbreaker against Mister Speaker -- he makes me quite nervous.But I have found it. Gingrich has been in the public sector too long and has forgotten that the private sector creates wealth. On Kudlow, Gingrich said "Mitt Romney ought to thank me -- it is because of my supply side policies that he got rich." Kudlow loved this line and called for Romney to respond for several consecutive nights on his show.
I'll respond for the Governor, and I am not even on staff. Romney created wealth at Bain Capital with his work and intellect. If a Democratic pol asked a venture capitalist to give him credit for wealth creation, we'd be grabbing for pitchforks. I lost a little respect for Mister Speaker over this -- and actually quite a bit for Kudlow, who knows better.
Gingrich has reviewed some 94 million books on Amazon. I suggest he read a little Joseph Alois Schumpeter before criticizing a successful venture capitalist for directing capital to its best use.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:40 AM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:I like when he speaks the truth but that's not what happened here. He was clearly defensive about his Fannie Bux. I expect he'll walk this one back. (I hope.)
Posted by: johngalt at December 12, 2011 12:49 PMBut jk thinks:Yyyyyeeeeeeaaaaahhhhh Buuuuuuuutttt... I want a walkback with flowers and candy and this will never happen again.
We're all running from Governor Romney for fear that he has no real conviction. This speaks to me that Speaker G does not either, more correctly that his conviction is contrived, or in Newtspeak that his fundamental convictions are disturbingly and alarmingly contrived.
Posted by: jk at December 12, 2011 1:09 PMBut jk thinks:Maybe Newt will sign a No Bashing Creative Destruction Pledge
Posted by: jk at December 12, 2011 1:48 PM
December 11, 2011
"Newt Romney" Rumble - Round 1
For those who enjoy such things, tonight's GOP Presidential Debate on ABC may have been the best one yet. With his second place in Iowa polls, Ron Paul supporters are burning up the Twitterverse how their guy won. But he didn't. He said many good things but still believes America's interests end at the water's edge. Pity. Tonight's debate was the first round of the "Newt Romney" grudge match. ("Newt Romney" is Michele Bachmann's new term for the co-leaders with very similar and somewhat mercurial positions, versus her "true conservatism.")
Chris Cillizza did a very good job summarizing the night's developments, and this was the most important one I saw:
For all of those folks predicting (or hoping) that Gingrich would implode, tonight was not their night. Make no mistake: there are genuine concerns within the party about what Gingrich leading the national ticket might mean for downballot race next November. But Gingrich gave his detractors very little reason to think that his collapse is in the offing.But Chris didn't mention what I thought was the quote of the night by Newt Gingrich. [Nothing linkable on this yet as the media kids are focusing on Romney's offer to "bet you ten thousand dollars I never said that" with Rick Perry.] After a prolonged back-and-forth over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and specifically, Newt's prior comment that "the Palestinians are an invented people," Romney chastised Newt, and Newt responded.
Romney: I've also known B.B. Netanyahu for a long time, we worked together at Boston Consulting Group, and the last thing B.B. Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who's an historian, but somebody who is also running for President of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood. And if I'm President of the United States I will exercise sobriety, care, stability, and make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can effect a place with, with rockets going in, with people dying, I don't do anything that would harm that process. And therefore before I made a statement of that nature I'd get on the phone to my friend B.B. Netanyahu and say, 'Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do?' Let's work together because we're partners. I'm not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally."Gingrich: "I think sometimes it is helpful to have a President of the United States with the courage to tell the truth, just as it was Ronald Reagan who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire, and who overruled his entire State Department in order to say to Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. Reagan believed the power of truth restated the world and reframed the world. I'm a Reaganite. I am proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it is at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid."
Romney didn't help himself, I thought, by mispronouncing the Israeli Prime Minister's name "B. B. Not-an-YA-hoo" (rather than Net-an-YA-hoo.) Not once, but every time he said it.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:49 AM | Comments (5)But jk thinks:I was out partying until the wee hours last night. When I got back (at 9:30), I watched a bit of it on TiVo. The debate seemed good, and I was very impressed with the moderators, whom I expected to be awful.
I did see the brutal and elaborately planned "Newt Romney" attack. Yawn. It sucks to have to listen to Rep. Bachmann and Senator Santorum but not have Gov. Huntsman on stage.
But, if nobody cratered at the end, I became more comfortable with both Speaker Gingrich and Gov. Romney last night. Supporting one of them does not seem completely unthinkable.
Posted by: jk at December 11, 2011 11:14 AM
But johngalt thinks:On Fox News Sunday I just heard Juan Williams say, "Are Republicans really thinking of nominating Newt Gingrich?" The answer is clearly, "yes." Voters are frequently advised, "Don't fall for a cult of personality." That advice works in reverse too - don't reject the candidate with the best message because you don't like the way he _______.
Newt's new "tell it like it is" campaign is resonating with GOP voters who want a direct frontal attack against Obama and his policies. Some will say this will kill his chances in the general election. I disagree. I think Americans of every stripe appreciate, admire, and will reward, candor.
Posted by: johngalt at December 11, 2011 11:54 AMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is "Bibi" not "B.B." This is a nickname for "Binyamin," his given name.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 12, 2011 1:41 PMBut johngalt thinks:Correction noted and heartily appreciated. (I was so put off by Romney's mispronunciation of his "friend's" name I failed to look up the correct spelling of his nickname.)
Posted by: johngalt at December 12, 2011 2:28 PMBut jk thinks:Jay Nordlinger at NRO is with ya:
If Mitt's going to claim buddyship with Netanyahu, he's got to work on the pronunciation of the prime minister's name.Posted by: jk at December 12, 2011 5:40 PM
December 8, 2011
The Ryan Plan as Litmus Test
Like James Pethokoukis, I wish it were.
The Ryan Plan is now a "litmus test" for Republican presidential candidates? That would be great if true. Gingrich made a cataclysmic, unforced error earlier this year when he dissed Ryan's bold Medicare reform as "right-wing social engineering" and too big a change too quickly. It was a ridiculous statement when you consider that a) the shift to a premium-support system would not kick in until 2022, b) the plan would operate like the current prescription drug benefit plan, and c) the plan would only affect younger workers.
My strongest point about Gov. Huntsman is that he is the only candidate to embrace the Ryan Plan. And my strongest point against Mister Speaker is his disapprobation.Posted by John Kranz at 2:32 PM | Comments (0)
Headline of the Day
Romney on ObamaCare Relief: Waiver? I Don't Even Know Her! -- Reason.comPosted by John Kranz at 11:48 AM | Comments (0)
At least we agree we are in a ditch
Well brothers and sisters, I have just read the president's Osawatomie speech, almost in its entireity. Those of us who wondered how he thought he could win re-election can see the answer in this speech. It is a brilliantly deceptive blueprint for a bait-and-switch shell game on the American people.
I actually agreed with most of what he said in the opening, right up until "I am here to say they are wrong" which I would replace with "I am here to say that I am wrong." This comes right after the following passage:
But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement. [Agreed.]Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
Yes, Mister President, you are advocating a return to exactly the same practices that got us into this mess: Ever higher taxation, goverment spending more and more of our GDP, greater burdens on private businesses, further layers of coverage mandates for health insurers, interference with supply and demand in higher education which drives costs through the roof and causes shortages of trained blue-collar workers - in short, making life and business more expensive in America and driving jobs overseas. There really is a grave threat to the existence of the American middle class: You, and the repackaged, recycled, and retreaded egalitarian values you seek to
"reclaim"demand.An honest review of history shows us that such wealth-sharing demands - not, as you claim, free market capitalism - have failed to produce economic prosperity. Every, single, time. Free market capitalism has never been allowed more than enough rope with which to hang itself.
UPDATE: IBD Ed Page refutes the top five lies from Obama's Osawatomie speech.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:16 AM | Comments (4)But jk thinks:You are perhaps being kinder to the President than was the WaPo Fact Checker (three pinocchios). I blame this on rampant left-wing bias at ThreeSources.
Posted by: jk at December 8, 2011 12:00 PMBut jk thinks:The folks at IBD are somewhat less than impressed...
Posted by: jk at December 8, 2011 2:44 PMBut johngalt thinks:Ha! If I were awarding "Pinocchios" I'd have given him four. The highest ranking, it means the statement consists of "whoppers."
Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2011 3:00 PMBut jk thinks:I thought "Pants on Fire" exceeded the dreaded four-Ps. So hard to keep up with politics -- I guess that's a different site.
Posted by: jk at December 8, 2011 3:52 PM
December 7, 2011
Bull Moose Bull ****
Since hearing soundbites of President Obama's "I'm channeling Theodore Roosevelt" speech yesterday I've wanted to deconstruct one or more of his specious points in a blog post. Before I could do so, Wichita Wordsmith Bud Norman beat me to it. And unlike his evaluation of candidate Newt Gingrich, he has a definitive conclusion this time.
Obama’s favorite straw men were once again eviscerated with all the gusto of John Brown swinging a saber at some pro-slavers. He accused his Republican opposition of wanting to “return to the same practices that got us into this mess,” as if they were all clamoring for the government-enforced subprime lending and exorbitant deficit spending. He characterized the Republican philosophy as “We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules,” which strikes us as an unfairly simplified description, although we must admit it is still a more attractive option that relying on Obama to care for us and playing by his rules.Just one of many delightful paragraphs, and I'll leave the ending for you as a surprise.
Is it too early to nominate Bud's Central Standard Times for promotion to the blogroll? I'm not sure I could have given the subject such sublime treatment. Indeed, I'd be tempted merely to stoop to a lowly video example of Obama's America.
Posted by JohnGalt at 11:01 PM | Comments (0)
A Brief History of Newton
Not the classical physicist, the Speaker of the House. I linked two articles yesterday showing the strong plusses and strong minuses of the "more conservative than Romney" candidate leading the GOP primary polls at the moment. While searching for supporting material for my "worst event in my lifetime" entry I found a very well written post on a two month old blog out of Wichita that gives the most frank and objective view of Gingrich's political career as I've seen. But be forewarned - the conclusion of blogger "Bud Norman, American" is no firmer than was mine.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:51 PM | Comments (2)But jk thinks:Well written, indeed
Such obligatory caveats aside, it still strikes us as notable that Gingrich's long, strange journey through political history has arrived at this moment, however brief it might prove. The novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald famously remarked that "There are no second acts in American lives," but Gingrich has already had more acts than Wagner's Ring Cycle.
I will support the Speaker as nominee, but I will not vote for him in primary or caucus. He invoked our 26th President. I did not force him into it.I watched him on Kudlow last night and he is good -- but he is TR. He's gonna do Six Sigma. He has BIG ideas for government. He's going to make it efficient -- but not smaller.
Posted by: jk at December 7, 2011 4:03 PMBut johngalt thinks:Should I do this? I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna cross the beams.
This passage from The People Who Hate Tim Tebow makes me think Newt might be the worst choice to put up against Obama:
Throughout the 20th century, there were only two presidents who won reelection with a bad economy and high unemployment: FDR in 1936 and Reagan in 1984. In both cases, the incumbent presidents were able to argue that their preexisting plans for jump-starting the economy were better than the hypothetical plans of their opponents (Alf Landon and Walter Mondale, respectively). Both incumbents made a better case for what they intended to do, and both enjoyed decisive victories. In 2012, Barack Obama will face a similar situation. But what will happen if his ultimate opponent provides no plan for him to refute? What if his opponent merely says, "Have faith in me. Have faith that I will figure everything out and that I can fix the economy, because I have faith in the American people. Together, we have faith in each other."How do you refute the non-argument of meaningful faith?
You (usually) don't. You (usually) lose.
One thing that can't be said about Newt is that he doesn't offer a plan.
Posted by: johngalt at December 7, 2011 5:08 PM
Jon!
A blog friend sends some video links.
Also: this and this (~3:06 "Passed the plan Massachusetts and the country should have studied.")
UPDATE: Remember reading things on the Internet, before they invented videos? James Pethokoukis discusses his interview with Mary Kaye's husband.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:21 AM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Fourth place in NH with 9 points, but last in IA and SC. Nowhere to go but up, I s'pose.
Some signs of life on the Hannity show last night including an excellent answer on trade with China. But I'd like to see him show more toughness. For example, after Sean closed with the quip, "I hope you're ready for the incoming fire from Trump" I wanted to hear something like, "I'm not concerned with Trump, my focus is defeating President Obama."
Posted by: johngalt at December 7, 2011 11:44 AM
December 6, 2011
Which to believe? Both.
There's a reason why support for Newton Gingrich runs hot and cold.
The race for the Republican nomination appears to have come down to two intelligent, knowledgeable men in Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Neither of them has a history of down-the-line conservatism. Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop and heresy for heresy. He has supported cap-and-trade legislation, federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research, the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs and a federal requirement for everyone to buy health insurance. He has been neither more consistent nor more conservative than Romney.Perhaps most significantly, Gingrich has an extensive Hispanic outreach organization, which he has been building for years. Unlike anything in the Romney playbook, that network could give Gingrich a head start slicing into Obama’s base in key states in the Mountain West, where Hispanics are a fast-growing swing voting bloc. Polls show Hispanic voters, two-thirds of whom backed Obama in 2008, still favor the president — but GOP strategists believe that winning 40 percent of that vote could disrupt Obama’s electoral college strategy by putting Colorado, Arizona and Nevada in the Republican column.(...)
GOP strategists acknowledge that Gingrich could well self-destruct before winning the nomination. But if he survives, they say, he may be more formidable than some predict.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:16 PM | Comments (1)But Keith Arnold thinks:Between the two of them, Romney and Gingrich have more flip-flops that two whole battalions of Viet Cong. If it comes down to a choice between the two of them, I'll be choosing Gingrich - but I'm hoping it doesn't come down to a choice between the two of them.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 6, 2011 4:04 PM
December 5, 2011
Must See TV
Abby Huntsman sends "My Daddy's Media Schedule," and top of the list is:
Tonight, December 5
7:00pm ET - Gov. Huntsman with Larry Kudlow on "The Kudlow Report" (CNBC)Posted by John Kranz at 6:33 PM | Comments (0)
I knew it was coming
But I am still pleased:
Cheater at haiku
Instead of 5-7-5
It was 9-9-9
All Hail Taranto!Posted by John Kranz at 5:36 PM | Comments (0)
Frightening Nexus
Rep Ron Paul, the editors of National Review, and your humble blogservant, jk, agree.
In announcing that their candidate would not attend the Newsmax debate set to be moderated by Donald Trump in Iowa later this month, the Ron Paul campaign wrote, "The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office's history and dignity."Posted by John Kranz at 3:36 PM | Comments (0)
Huntsman Rising!
At least in my eyes:
Trump, via Twitter, countered that Huntsman "has zero chance of getting the nomination. Whoever said I wanted to meet him?"In other news, Huntsman and Gingrich will debate "Lincoln-Douglas style" in New Hampshire this month. "Michael Levoff, a spokesman for Huntsman's campaign, said the date, place and debate rules are still being worked out" but other reports cite December 12.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:38 PM | Comments (2)But jk thinks:If we're not very careful, I will fall into a rant.
Who the Hell crowned Trump?
I'm glad he made a lot of money, and even understand that a New York developer has to give much of it to Democrats. I was the height of unenthused about his candidacy and that carries over to Mister-single-digits's self appointed capacity as Kingmaker.
Larry Kudlow had him on and treated him with great deference on this debate moderation. El Donaldo went on with his insufferable populism. It seems none of the candidates are anti-trade enough for the real estate man.
I've got to stop. But I die a little each time somebody treats Mr. Trump as a serious force in GOP politics -- he is not.
Posted by: jk at December 5, 2011 3:32 PM
But johngalt thinks:But if he could somehow manage to get the debaters entered as contestants on "America's Got Talent"...
Posted by: johngalt at December 6, 2011 2:54 PM
Huntsman a Conservative?
Jeopardy® champion and frequent Kudlow guest James Pethokoukis says yes.
If elected president, Huntsman says he would like to slash tax rates to their lowest levels since before America entered World War I and eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends. Powerful supply-side medicine for an anemic economic recovery. Huntsman has embraced Representative Paul Ryan's transformational, market-oriented debt-reduction plan, calling it "the model I would work from." He's also pro-life, a dedicated free trader and--at least as evidenced by his sweeping bank reform plan--an ardent anti-crony capitalist.
To be fair, Jimi P comes out of the closet for Newt two tweets later. Butthe Huntsman piece is a powerful argument that should sit well with a lot of ThreeSourcers.UPDATE: Misread. Pethokoukis was MTing @ellencarmichael, not endorsing the Speaker himself.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:39 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:With due respect to Jimi, it will carry more weight when Rush Limbaugh says Jon is a conservative.
And by my read of the article, he says Jon's ideas are more conservative than is Jon.
Posted by: johngalt at December 5, 2011 3:21 PM
Making the Wrong Argument
The infamous "Rick Perry moment" in which he forgot the third of three federal agencies that he would abolish, while Ron Paul upped the ante to five agencies, fosters an image that Republicans want to take a meat cleaver to government. While that plays well in Three Sources, it does not engender thoughtful reform more likely to win over the masses.
Instead, The Refugee would suggest that candidates focus on the programs that they would privatize. Perhaps a poster child for this effort would be USDA's crop forecasting, profiled in today's WSJ for its highly inaccurate corn estimates. USDA sends out field personnel to stake out 15'x15' field plots and then measure the length of ears and extrapolate total crop size from there. Estimates are updated on a monthly basis. USDA corn estimates during the past two years have been more than 10% off, causing enormous price swings that damage both producers and buyers.
Seriously? 15x15 plots? Monthly reports? Surely entrepreneurs could find a way to use easily accessible satellite images, highly accurate rainfall guages and other calculations to generate more accurate estimates. It would seem that such a system could be updated on a daily basis for the effects of rain, flooding, drought, etc. Competing firms would give farmers and markets more data points from which to reach their own conclusions.The total cost to the economy might or might not be less (farmers and investors would likely have to buy a subscription to the data), but it would more accurately match cost with revenue and be borne by those who directly benefit.
There are likely a myriad of other programs that can be performed as well or better privately, such as the National Weather Service, National Earthquake Center and on and on. Could we not easily identify at least 30% of the government that can be done as well or better privately?
Targeting specific programs for privatization, rather than lopping off whole agencies, is much more likely to be politically palatable. Eliminating departments is a right-wing pipedream that lefty debate moderators use to frame Republicans as "extreme." Let's change the argument.
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 12:06 PM | Comments (3)But jk thinks:JK is gobsmacked by his blog brother's insight. I share your political view, and was tinkering with the idea of 50% reductions to try to trim them back to "essentials."
Your plan is about a million times better. I even have the T-Shirt.
Awesome on stilts.
Posted by: jk at December 5, 2011 1:18 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Heh! Great T-shirt.
The Refugee struggled with the term "privatize" because the Left has successfully stigmatized it. For the same reason "outsource" does not work, either. Market-based, market solution, re-sourcing - there's gotta be a better moniker.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 5, 2011 4:24 PMBut jk thinks:That shirt looked kinda familiar.
Posted by: jk at December 5, 2011 5:17 PM
December 4, 2011
Iowa Caucus - 4 Minutes Left in the 4th Quarter
Upon castigation by my brother for "gravitating toward" another "sure loser" I've reevaluated the differences between the records of the two Mormon ex-governors in the race. Not long ago br'er JK had me purt near convinced Huntsman is the best man to debate President Demand-the-Unearned for all the marbles. But that's sorta like letting Oregon go to the Rose Bowl for beating UCLA while Stanford watches helplessly due to an accident of arbitrary divisionalization. In our patented alternate universe, make Romney governor of Utah and saddle Huntsman with Massachusetts - then see which one shares nicknames with an anthropomorphic teevee dolphin.
I'm not jumping off his bandwagon yet, but if Jon really has the chops to "Tebow" the GOP field there are 4 weeks left, Herman Cain just punted the ball and it's first down on his own 2 yard line (while Newt also has the ball at his 25.) Time to start making plays and gaining ground, in big chunks.
Posted by JohnGalt at 5:21 PM | Comments (2)But jk thinks:Iowa is the opening drive if I may borrow a metaphor. The social conservatives are unlikely to pick Mr. Mary Kaye. He has put all his eggs in the granite state basket. If he is not close in NH, then I'll reevaluate.
Posted by: jk at December 4, 2011 8:20 PMBut johngalt thinks:Fair extension of the metaphor. We'll call the current game "regular season" and what starts with Iowa "playoffs."
Posted by: johngalt at December 4, 2011 9:16 PM
GOP Presidential Primary - December Preview
Last night's Huckabee Forum on FNC did a good job of summarizing the state of the nominating campaign as we begin December 2011, on "2012 Eve" if you will. While Florida AG Pam Biondi was the most pleasing to watch, Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli was by far the best questioner. In this video segment he discusses several of the candidates and declines to name his current favorite, instead saying "there's opportunity, even in the next month, for these candidates to flesh out their positions in ways that make them unique and special and make them somebody that conservatives in particular could get behind." That really validates my current mood that the question is not settled.
Posted by JohnGalt at 5:09 PM | Comments (1)But jk thinks:An "Environmental Solutions Agency" to replace the EPA (~4:40) -- yeah, I feel better.
I think the noocyuler bomb over the weekend was Senator Tom Coburn's staunch distancing of himself from the Speaker. Coburn was there in '94 and said Gingrich lacked leadership qualities.
D'ja see that? Didja? I would think a lot of the Speaker's supporters would both watch FoxNewSunday and give great weight to Sen. Coburn.
Posted by: jk at December 5, 2011 12:13 PM
December 1, 2011
Mittstant Replay
A great friend of this blog shares a bit of GOP ex-Governor Mormon Presidential Candidate Smackdown:
UPDATE: And, if you don't go away, I will taunt you another time!
Posted by John Kranz at 1:57 PM | Comments (8)But Boulder Refugee thinks:This ad angers The Refugee almost to the point of first person. If your only strategy is to beat down other Republicans and give grist to the Democrats, then get the hell out of the race. He was not particularly inclined to vote for Huntsman before, but this tears it.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 1, 2011 5:05 PMBut jk thinks:It did occur to me, br, that Reagan's 11th Commandment may have been contravened in this ad. But Gov H is back in the polls and swinging for the fences in Hew Hampshire, so an attack on the likely winner doesn't seem completely misplaced duzzit?
Posted by: jk at December 1, 2011 5:11 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:You attack using superior ideas and strength of conviction. MoveOn.org could have produced this ad. First Cain and now Newt are rising because they present ideas, not attack ads.
The ad featuring three daughters was not effective because was not about ideas, it was about, "Gee, our dad sure is swell." If that were the criteria, Michelle Bachmann's 23 foster kids would trump Huntsman's seven offspring. The Obama machine would destroy this guy because he has no clue how to package voter value.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 1, 2011 5:24 PMBut jk thinks:Clearly, br, is waiting for this video.
On a slightly more serious side, the second link is a more positive video.
Posted by: jk at December 1, 2011 5:54 PMBut HB thinks:I think the refugee needs to re-assess the race. It is important that the issues that are likely to come up during the general election are heard now rather than when we are stuck with a particular candidate. Romney is someone who will say anything to get elected. The people who think he is most electable are, I believe, overlooking that point.
Similarly, Newt needs to become spokesman for Southwest Airlines where baggage flies free.
The only candidate that has a chance to win the general election is Jon Huntsman. He has superior knowledge of foreign affairs, he has produced the best economic plan, and his views do not change. In fact, I would argue that Huntsman has all of the characteristics that people like in Mitt Romney without all the flip-flopping.
Posted by: HB at December 2, 2011 10:15 AMBut johngalt thinks:Awesome Newt line, HB!
I think we all need to reassess the race. There are so many moving parts that the big picture transforms weekly, if not daily at times. And I think we may find more agreement that Huntsman could have the best chance to win a general election rather than the only chance.
At this point I see Jon as a sort of "too-good-to-be-true" candidate who is completely tone-deaf to the GOP mood and has no sense for how to appeal to fellow Republicans. Further, he seems to have no desire to do so. His natural advantages in a general election will do him no good until and unless he fixes this other problem. I'm as erudite a TEA partier as there is and I wrote him off in the first debate, and kept shoveling dirt in the subsequent ones.
Posted by: johngalt at December 2, 2011 12:23 PM
Newt Apostasies
Jim Geraghty is getting some pretty nasty emails.
Yesterday, he posted a list of quotes from Speaker Gingrich that he felt would not excite the serious, tea party, conservative, republican base that seeks to keep that serial flip flopper Romney away from the nomination. They are somewhat devastating.
Today, he defends himself from the hate mail (some dared to call him "RINO!") in a superb Morning Jolt email. You're mad if you don't subscribe, but I cater to the afflicted by copying the entire Newt section as an extended entry (click "continue reading...")
If I may join the Speaker in using more adverbs to prop up my apparrunt intelligence: it's singularly devastating.
UPDATE: Verum Serum unearths product of his
lobbyingprofessorial history advisement for Freddie Mac: (HT: Insty)
The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace.
[...]
Well, it’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.=========================================================
You read the grand collection of easily forgotten Newt quotes on Campaign Spot yesterday, right? I went to Memeorandum last night to find it at the top of the page.Unsurprisingly, those who preferred somebody besides Newt loved it; Newt fans insisted that it was A) evidence that NR will endorse Romney, B) evidence that I've been bought off by Mitt Romney, C) a tirade (somehow quoting Newt constitutes a tirade), or D) RINO!
It's just so farshtunken tiresome.
Streiff at RedState suggests I'm a "gnome," scoffing, "I'm sure there is an army of gnomes out there, this very instant, researching every exotic statement Gingrich has uttered in his career. This will be a full employment plan not only for those gnomes but their children because every time Gingrich has had a thought he has told a newspaper somewhere about it."
Of course. I suppose all true conservatives shrug nonchalantly at the thought of a candidate and potential president who feels the need to publicly proclaim every thought that comes into his head.
I don't doubt that Gingrich is brilliant. But he's also extraordinarily undisciplined, quick to come up with ideas, quick to tout and celebrate them, and quick to discard them, a form of intellectual attention-deficit disorder that marks his post-congressional career.
For example, in 2003, he offered an explosive and provocative argument that President Bush's foreign policy was being undermined by his own diplomatic corps, and he passionately declared, "Only a top-to-bottom reform and culture shock will enable the State Department to effectively spread U.S. values and carry out President George W. Bush's foreign policy." This was (and still is!) bold stuff, his article caused a big stir, his contentions outraged then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and every diplomat, Gingrich got a lot of attention . . . and then nothing happened. No reforms were enacted. Gingrich moved on to his next big idea for American renewal, and for all the hubbub, we have the exact same culture at Foggy Bottom that we always had.
Most of Newt's big initiatives since leaving office have had this big-talk, little-action pattern: the task force on U.N. reform, the Hart-Rudman Commission (it talked a lot about terrorism in 1999, but nobody was listening), etc. I suppose you could argue that his Center for Health Transformation was an exception, as it helped create the prescription-drug benefit for Medicare, but then again, a lot of conservatives see that as another unfunded expansion of an entitlement program.
He proposed U.S. efforts to remove Yassir Arafat from power in April 2002. Bold idea, went nowhere (became moot in late 2004). Later that year, he attacked Walter Mondale (the Democrats' Senate candidate in Minnesota after Paul Wellstone was suddenly killed in a plane crash) by saying that Mondale wanted to privatize Social Security and raise the retirement age. He constantly blurts these things out, and because he's a former speaker, there are rarely any lasting consequences. As the Republican nominee or as the American president, there would be big consequences.
Hey, look, if you've written me off as a hopeless RINO, how about Mark Steyn? Jeff Poor at the Daily Caller caught Steyn sitting in for Rush earlier this week:
Filling in for Rush Limbaugh on his radio show Tuesday, Steyn referenced a Pundit & Pundette blog post that suggested Gingrich sounds smarter on the debate stage because he uses so many adverbs."You watch him in the debates," Steyn said. "It's all 'profoundly, dramatically deeply compelling. All the action is in the adverbs. One of my problems again with Newt is like he's bursting with ideas that sound all as if they are coming from a self-help manual. If you remember back in his heyday, he had something called 'The Triangle of American Progress.' And that evolved into the "Four Pillars of American Civilization,' which in turn expanded into the 'Five Pillars of the Twenty-First Century.'"
And the growth of those programs, from three-to-four-to-five points, doesn't lend a lot of credence to any hopes Gingrich would scale back government.
"And by the way, just the sort of grade inflation going on in his plans," Steyn added, "makes him sound as a wee bit of a dodgy prospect when comes to actually slashing back government."A couple of people wondered when we would see a similar list of Mitt Romney's deviations from conservative thinking. Well, there's this thing that Tim Pawlenty called "Obamneycare," and he used to emphasize that he was pro-choice, and he used to boast that he was an independent during Reagan-Bush and . . . what's that? You've heard all of that? Yeah, me too. In fact, we spent most of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 hashing this stuff out. The primary difference (no pun intended) between last cycle and this cycle is that the enactment of Obamacare has put the issue of the individual mandate front and center, and Romney's view is that we must fight all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure that the federal government never thinks it has the authority to make us buy health care, so that the states are free to make us buy health care instead.
Despite having deep worries about Gingrich's temperament in office, I'm not that anti-Newt. If he gets the nomination I'll be strapping on my helmet and doing my best to replace President Obama with President Gingrich. And I'll really be hoping for some kick-tush veep who will hopefully be able to keep Gingrich focused on enacting his best ideas. (Hint, hint.)
If you prefer Gingrich to Romney or any other candidate, fine. But don't tell me you're choosing Gingrich over Romney because the latter is an inconsistent, unreliable, fair-weather conservative, and the former isn't.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:16 AM | Comments (2)But Terri thinks:Thanks. That does leave Huntsman eh?
Posted by: Terri at December 1, 2011 3:55 PM
Ok then. I've been too down in the dumps thinking that Obama may actually win that i haven't looked too closely.
While it would be fun to see Newt debate Obama, i dont think he can win.But johngalt thinks:Oh, he can win. After all, isn't it becoming apparent that he's as slippery as Mitt? My question is whether or not we want him to win. The ol' "Democrat policies in Republican wrapper" thingey.
And yet, there will be "disqualifiers" in Huntsman's past as well.
I love sausage, but I hate makin' it.
Posted by: johngalt at December 1, 2011 5:02 PM
November 30, 2011
Jon!
Surging to double digits in the polls! Mary Kaye's husband might be having his moment.
Russ Douthat pens a piece on Governor Huntsman's political missteps, but the paragraphs before the "but" constitute a ringing endorsement:
It’s a plausible line, evoking William F. Buckley Jr.'s often-quoted admonition that right-of-center voters should support the most electable conservative in any given race. But is it accurate? Not if you judge candidates on their record, rather than by their affect [sic?]. By that standard, the most electable conservative remaining in the Republican race is probably Jon Huntsman.Huntsman is branded as the Republican field's lonely moderate, of course, which is one reason why he's current languishing at around 3 percent in the polls. But as Michael Brendan Dougherty noted in a summertime profile for the American Conservative, Huntsman's record as Utah's governor isn't "just to the right of other moderates, it is to the right of most conservatives."
The only candidate supporting the Ryan plan. Let that one sink in...UPDATE: Brother JG's awesome link.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:48 PM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:I had all but given up on Jon since the California Straw Poll. This piece describing him as a solid conservative with both political and business experience, but a crappy campaign strategy hits home with me. Yes, I dismissed him because of debate gaffes, so I never looked at his record. Looking at where Newt is after he looked like a complete goner, I think Mary Kaye might yet be our first lady. I'm already prepared to declare him the best Mormon ex-governor in the race. My advice: Move next door to Sarah Palin and do whatever it takes to get her endorsement. Or even, "Huntsman-Palin '12."
Posted by: johngalt at November 30, 2011 3:09 PMBut johngalt thinks:Seen this yet? Douthat mentioned it, and it's also linked from www.jon2012.com.
Posted by: johngalt at November 30, 2011 3:13 PM
November 26, 2011
The Palin Card
Lest we forget, has yet to be played in the 2012 nomination contest (derisively called "the ongoing Gong Show courtesy of the GOP dunceworks" by a commenter at JK's Huntsman Rising! link.) While the race has proven to be a combination of the Romney establishment candidacy and a game of musical chairs between the "anti-Romney's, an endorsement by the ex-governor from the AK time zone is a development that still promises a tectonic effect on the race. And RCP's Scott Conroy says, Gingrich May Have Inside Track on Palin's Endorsement.Gingrich May Have Inside Track on Palin's Endorsement
Palin and her advisers have in recent weeks discussed when her endorsement might have the greatest impact on the race, but the timing remains undetermined.But Palin would likely have the biggest influence if she were to back a candidate before the Iowa caucuses. Her still considerable clout with the evangelical and Tea Party-leaning wings of the party could have a particularly significant impact in Iowa and in the first-in-the-South primary in South Carolina.
Aides emphasized that while Gingrich currently appears to be the front-runner for Palin’s endorsement, her thinking could change.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:14 PM | Comments (0)
November 24, 2011
Romney, not-Romney
"Oh no, there goes I-o-wa;
Go go Newtzilla."Posted by JohnGalt at 1:51 AM | Comments (8)But nanobrewer thinks:TS'ers have noted that I haven't rigorously defended Romney. Not that I can't, but it takes time. Again I will refer to the electibility index: look at the numbers under the "independents" and you'll see what I'm referring to. Note that we'll need a polished, teflon coated candidate against the smug, smearer-in-chief.
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 25, 2011 4:27 PM
But johngalt thinks:Well brothers, does this help your opinion of the nuveaux TEA Party Darling Gingrich over the establishment squish Romney?
Gingrich, Romney Spar Over Immigration in GOP Debate
Gingrich advocates legal status, without citizenship, for "those who have shown more of a commitment to this country." Romney (and Bachmann) accuse him of backing "amnesty." And yet, in 2007 Romney told the Lowell (MA) Sun ...
"I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."That Romney is so flip-flop-flippy. He's such a slippery dude I think I'll start calling him Slick Willard.
Posted by: johngalt at November 26, 2011 10:46 AMBut jk thinks:I suspect my blog brother is going to disown me, but I am retreating to the Huntsman camp. You don't need to remind me of Governor Romney's imperfections, but do I need to remind you of the Speaker's?
Governor Jon was pretty awesome on FOXNews Sunday yesterday.
Posted by: jk at November 28, 2011 11:56 AMBut johngalt thinks:Agreed. I found myself wanting to revisit tweets and debate recordings to remind myself what was objectionable from a policy standpoint. I recall accusing him of being anti-American Exceptionalism. Perhaps I overreached. (Or perhaps he was pandering yesterday.)
One area where Jon absolutely slays Gingrich: First Lady.
Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2011 5:06 PMBut jk thinks:I wouldn't sweat that. Newt will have another one shortly, perhaps she'll be more to your linking.
Posted by: jk at November 28, 2011 5:28 PMBut jk thinks:I had not seen The Beehive State's former First Lady until you mentioned it. I felt rather like a schoolboy searching the Internet for pictures, but you are correct -- Mary Kaye is rather fetching.
Posted by: jk at November 28, 2011 5:47 PM
November 22, 2011
Quote of the Day
There's another Republican debate tonight on CNN. Candidates, start your chagrines! Let's get ready to stumble! -- Jim Geraghty (subscribe)Posted by John Kranz at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)
November 21, 2011
Serious Words
Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen are Clintonistas, to be sure, but their WSJ guest editorial seems a cri de coeur from a serious branch of the Democratic Party:
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality--and he must reach the same conclusion.He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor--one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
I suggest Secretary Clinton would win in a landslide, and would be a far better hope for this great nation than a 50/50 chance of a second Obama term.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:29 AM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:President Obama's "moral high-ground" is that capitalism is immoral. To him (and a huge fraction of his base) Hillary Clinton (and Caddell and Schoen) is/are moderate Republican(s). I would be stunned if the President followed this template.
If Clinton has any electoral advantage over Obama in this scenario it will come from her gender not any policy differences, real or perceived.
Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2011 2:22 PMBut jk thinks:I think Secretary Clinton would recapture disaffected lefties who are perturbed by the President's incompetence and capture some moderates who don't find his petty partisanship appealing.
Now that we Tea Partiers have abandoned President George W Bush's defense, the Clinton Years are "the good old days." Perhaps they were, but Democrats have chosen all the wrong reasons. For her purposes, however, it would be a powerful message.
Posted by: jk at November 21, 2011 2:37 PMBut jk thinks:But we agree that he will not likely take Caddell's "patriotic moral high ground." Kumbaya there!
Posted by: jk at November 21, 2011 2:40 PM
November 20, 2011
Quote of the Day
He's a responsible, well-spoken adult with a good record in office, a soothing style, bipartisan appeal and ample knowledge of the world beyond our shores. But Jon Huntsman, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, somehow imagines he can overcome those handicaps. -- Steve Chapman, Chicago TribHat-tip: a blog friend who's not giving up.Posted by John Kranz at 11:27 AM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:History smiles on Churchill, while Chamberlain is remembered as a tool.
Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2011 11:27 AMBut jk thinks:Did you see a Churchill? Clearly I have been watching the wrong debates.
Huntsman is the only free-trader and the only one with a nuanced position on immigration or gay rights. His economic plan attracted a lot of accolades from people I respect.
If I could truly ignore polls, I would probably be in the Jon! camp. But I cannot. He has not attracted and does not seem poised to attract a critical mass of GOP support.
Pity, although I can live without his nuance on global warming.
Posted by: jk at November 21, 2011 12:10 PMBut johngalt thinks:My trouble with him is he is nuanced on everything, including American Exceptionalism. I'm looking for principled leadership. Leadership that says, "The American way is the best way to world prosperity. Stop resenting us and join us." On that point there are several good choices and one not bad one as well. Instead, Huntsman says America is "wounded" or "troubled" or some such. Bah.
Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2011 12:46 PM
November 17, 2011
Jon!
I Embed. You Decide!
I find the dystopian intro less than optimistic.
UPDATE: The emailer responds:
Yes. I found myself hating it for the first 20 seconds or so, but then I liked how the remainder was simple, yet informative.Ultimately, I think that Huntsman is my guy. I'm going down with the ship.
No, I'm not telling you who -- I'm certainly not outing a Huntsman supporter on ThreeSources!FWIW, as the kiddies txt, I like his positions the best, but don't know if my swimming skills will allow me to join my friend.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)
November 11, 2011
She said
There's no "he said" to go with this one, as Newt Gingrich isn't talking about the private family matter, but his daughter is. In short, no, her father did not "hand her divorce papers on her death bed" as the liberal meme has it.
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
Mother and father are still alive and well and Jackie and her sister "are blessed to have a close relationship with them both."
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:29 PM | Comments (0)
Our Margaret
Blog friend Sugarchuck and I use that endearing sobriquet for the WSJ's Peggy Noonan, whom we have both followed through significant ups and downs. I don't think her writing chops ever dimmed, but her thinking chops did. She is so ensconced in the elite Westside Manhattan and Washington Axis, she became deracinated from reality.
But she pens a beaut today on the GOP debates. Brother JG will be happy to see she starts out taking his side in the "strongest steel forged by the hottest fire" theory. She notices one guy who is not going to face a grilling between Novembers:
One of the people in the debate was bombastic to the point of manic, and another was more pointedly aggressive than her usual poised and beautiful self. But enough about Jim Cramer and Maria Bartiromo. It was a revealing debate. It would be wonderful to see President Obama grilled as the Republicans were Wednesday night in Michigan. What exactly will you cut in the entitlement programs? How will you solve the foreclosure crisis? And we'd like you to answer in 30 seconds while we look at you with the sweet-natured gaze of a cop at a crime scene.
What style that woman has. Though she has generally kind words about each candidate, she ends with a sober and pragmatic warning. Republicans must keep moderates in mind. I don't accept that that means abandoning philosophy, but it is a reminder to see candidates as swing voters see them.
But this is a time to be sober. The voting begins in 7-1/2 weeks. We're picking a president now, right now, every day as we make our decisions.Did you see the Ohio numbers from Quinnipiac this week? Mr. Obama beating all comers. In an initiative, voters rebuked his health-care, but Gov. John Kasich's effort to gain some control over unions and public-sector spending was roundly defeated in a referendum. In Ohio, that bellwether state. This thing isn't over.
Republicans should sober up. They should be thinking not about what the Republican at the local GOP meeting is thinking, but what the independent across the street is thinking. He's catching the Cain story on TV and thinking: "This guy may have a problem. I want more evidence, but if it's true, then man, we don't need to go there again."
Kim Strassel, on the same page, points out signs of substantive Democratic weakness in Virginia's results. But weakness in the GOP field will make it hard to capitalize.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:38 AM | Comments (1)But nanobrewer thinks:@JK, Re: Ms. Noonan. What you said.
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 16, 2011 12:09 AM
Rich and emotive writing style, though getting a bit soft in the frontal cortex.
November 10, 2011
Quote of the Day
"Oh, shoot, no. This ain't a day for quitting nothing." -- Gov. Rick Perry on the 236th Birthday of the US Marine CorpsPosted by John Kranz at 5:52 PM | Comments (0)
Herman Cain, Welcome to Chicago
Via Investors Business Daily, Ann Coulter explains why so much of the smears against candidate Cain are coming from Chicago.
Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).It goes on from there.
This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary. They also are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.Posted by JohnGalt at 2:56 PM | Comments (1)But nanobrewer thinks:I think it's time.... to bring out allegations that Cain made inappropriate gestures, sayings vague references, innuendo and proximity with my daughter. While she was still in the womb!
Politico has apparently been pretty shameless through all this.
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 15, 2011 11:44 PM
A Serious Word on Gov. Perry
Looking at the leaders we elect, a bit of circumspection with the process seems in order. Or. "Tyler Cowen, call your office!"
Gov. Perry's "Oops" goes down in history with GHW Bush's looking at his watch, Admiral Stockdale's "Why am I here," and Ted Kennedy’s equally missing reason for seeking the office. It might be a fair cop of Kennedy, but really? I was going to suggest we all know somebody brilliant and capable who has on occasion, ummm....ahhh.....what was I saying...
Jay Nordlinger [UPDATE: Found a link] says it:
Perry's fumbling around was very, very human. I know it'll hurt him. But I don't think it ought to. What matters is what he is planning for the government, not which departments he can remember at a particular moment.
Once, Bill Buckley couldn’t remember the name of Evelyn Waugh. He said to me, "Who's my hero, the author of Brideshead?"
Do you see what I mean? I think Perry should be cut much slack, but people aren't like that, maybe especially in politics.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:30 AM | Comments (10)But jk thinks:Oh, I come to bury Perry, not praise him.
This video lives and would make a potent commercial for the people who have not seen it. Nah, put a fork in him, he's done.
But the hyperconsequentialism of the televised debates since 1960 has not really delivered us the best class of candidates or executives. Hazzit?
Posted by: jk at November 10, 2011 12:25 PMBut Keith Arnold thinks:I read about that snarky "five" thing by Paul. Heck, I've named five just in my first comment. I'd bet I could come up with two dozen in relatively short order. Does that mean my candidacy is over? You guys aren't abandoning me, are you?
I'm guessing that what would probably hurt me the most would be when I turn to Romney and say "you know, I'm not much of a debater myself; what do you say you and I just step out behind the building and settle this like men?"
Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 10, 2011 12:31 PMBut jk thinks:Chris Wallace asked Rep. Paul "why only five?" on FOX News Sunday. I forget the exact wording of his response, but it was just showing how reasonable and non-doctrinaire he was. Pretty good moment.
Whatever you think of him, I suggest Paul has earned the right to remind all of the others that he is more ready to cut than they.
Posted by: jk at November 10, 2011 12:39 PMBut johngalt thinks:If only the Pentagon were further down on his "cut" list...
Posted by: johngalt at November 10, 2011 2:30 PMBut Perry Eidelbus thinks:You know, there needs to be a ban on political candidates named Perry. Things like "I think Perry should be cut much slack" make me do a double-take when trying to catch up on missed posts and reading too fast.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 13, 2011 10:41 PMBut jk thinks:Heh. My friend (also first name) Clark was grabbing all the Clark for President schwag he could find when General Wesley ran...
Posted by: jk at November 14, 2011 10:40 AM
Please Oh Please Listen to Roger Simon.
I don't always agree with Simon, but he wrote my post for me today.
Nobody digs politics more than me. But these debates are torture -- I would have loved a little waterboarding last night to break the ennui. It's not that they're dull (they are) and it is only partially that it is a forum for Democratic leaning journalists to whack GOP ideas (it is). It is mostly that we don't ever learn anything new about the candidates. Take it away, Rog:
We already know (oh, how we know) that Newt Gingrich is the smartest student in the room, that Mitt Romney can look like a president, that Herman Cain was a business success, that Michel Bachmann adopted more kids than Cheaper by the Dozen, that Rick Santorum is a mean self-promoter, that poor Rick Perry is the worst debater since Sally-whatever-her-name-was in the third grade, that Jon Huntsman is a bore and that Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.
Bag the rest,suggests SimonSimon says, and have the double digit candidates sit down and talk.I will add one item. I hate to bag on the House of Kudlow, but that was the worst of the debates and they had the most interesting topic. Rick Santelli got to ask one question late. Larry got to come on after and interview prominent Democratic partisans about what weasels all the candidates are.
For the moderators, we get CNBC's two most left wing journalists, John Harwood and Steve Liesman; big money Democratic contributor, Goldman Sachs guy and Spitzer friend Jim Cramer; and Maria Bartaromo, who is "moderate" in comparison, but solidly in the conventional-wisdom-beltway-industrial-media complex camp. What, Rahm Emmanuel was booked?
Terrible, painful, tedious, uninformative, and deleterious to the party's objectives.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:32 AM | Comments (3)But Keith Arnold thinks:Frankly, I'm ignored the "debates," though I followed a live-blogging of last night's festivities (it was that or the CMAs, I suppose...). From what I followed, Santelli was all but banned from speaking, and Mitt Romney was all but banned from shutting up. The legacy media has already anointed Romney as their choice to run against their sainted Obama; is there really a need for them to keep reminding us? Letting leftist media talking heads manipulate the GOP's candidate selection process is like letting the student body of USC select UCLA's starting line-up on game day.
Off topic, but I'm surprised to learn a bit of Greg Mankiw news that didn't get featured here: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/what_greg_manki.html
I propose that Messrs. Santilli and Mankiw co-moderate the next debate.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 10, 2011 11:56 AMBut johngalt thinks:I found it refreshing. Newt was unapologetic in his mocking of the moderators. Cain had some excellent one-liners. (Kudlow thought Cain won the debate, if memory serves. I do remember him saying that Cain's performance "blew me away.")
This is the kitchen, brothers. We need battle-tested, asbestos-skinned cooks. The debates have merit.
Posted by: johngalt at November 10, 2011 12:19 PMBut johngalt thinks:And we should give props to the debate audience. The instant feedback they gave was like a live, real-time opinion poll. They gave Santelli (coiner of the TEA Party idea) a rousing applause. They booed when Cain was asked if he has stopped beating his wife. They laughed out loud when Perry said "oops." Their display of rugged western individualism restored my faith and confidence in our eastern time zone brothers.
Posted by: johngalt at November 10, 2011 2:28 PM
November 9, 2011
Romney "most electable" - NOT
Mitt Romney's greatest supposed attribute has been his "electability." Erick Erickson and Karl Rove throw cold water on that idea, likening him to the squishy John Kerry.
In the 2004 election, most Americans stood on Kerry's side of the issues, but Rove claims they ultimately voted for Bush because they didn't really believe Kerry believed anything. Voters supposedly like strong leaders they disagree with better than weak leaders who might agree with them on Monday but wake up on Tuesday, wearing a different face.That's exactly the argument Erickson is making, and it's precisely the one that could hurt Romney badly.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:07 PM | Comments (3)But nanobrewer thinks:Just wait till after the 1st debate with BHO. Actually, I don't think you'll need to wait until the end... it'll be quite apparent after about 10 min. who's ready to be a leader.
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 9, 2011 11:29 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:Dammit, I hate agreeing with JG so often...
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 10, 2011 12:13 PMBut johngalt thinks:I'm a bridge-builder.
Posted by: johngalt at November 10, 2011 2:21 PM
Newtzilla 2
He's ba-ack. Dorothy Rabinowitz reporting on the candidate's speeches to the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition forum last month:
Mr. Gingrich predicted, too, that late on Election Night—after it was clear that President Obama had been defeated along with the Democrats in the Senate—the recovery would begin, at once. His audience roared with pleasure. No other Republican candidate could have made the promise so persuasive.Finally, Mr. Gingrich announced that as the Republican nominee he would challenge President Obama to seven Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. "I think I can represent American exceptionalism, free enterprise, the rights of private property and the Constitution, better than he can represent class warfare, bureaucratic socialism, weakness in foreign policy, and total confusion in the economy."
Dorothy's headline 'Why Gingrich Could Win' hinges on Cain imploding. Still not convinced that will happen but if it does, Newt is the next "not-Romney" in line.
At the very least, a good excuse for another listen to the video.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:50 PM | Comments (0)
November 8, 2011
The Feel Good Movie of the Decade!
Watch MoveOn.org's description of Governor Romney -- and you'll want to send him a check!
Posted by John Kranz at 4:25 PM | Comments (0)
Great Take on THE Herman Cain
Blog friend Terri provides a thoughtful post on l'Affair Herman (not excerpting -- it is short and required).
In addition to an interesting gender perspective you're less likely to see here (hey, I've tried to recruit her) there is a reasoned evaluation that is similar to mine. Neither of us is abandoning the Godfather of the Double Breasted Suit, but it suggests more scrutiny is required of his political skills if not his personal habits.
I'll add that I am all for personal accountability, but I am concerned by two things. First, can four women derail a candidacy and get feted on TV for it? Secondly, I am sensitive to the fact that the people whom I want to run for the office are staying home to watch football. We slip further into the realm of seeing only Vice President Goresque candidates, who have planned on running since they were seven. If this takes Cain down (as opposed to his paucity of political skills), we will never see the businessperson candidate again.
Sad on many levels. I don't mean to die on this hill for Herman Cain, but I'm not certain anything untoward has been conclusively presented.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:02 PM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:I added a comment. Perhaps I read her post as more supportive than she really intended, but if this is an attempt by the CLE (collectivist liberal establishment) to derail the Cain Train we play into their hands if we waver now.
Posted by: johngalt at November 8, 2011 3:02 PMBut jk thinks:Jonah Goldberg delivers some hard medicine without the elite condescension and uniformed conventialism that has stuck in my craw (ow!)
The tut-tutting of the WSJ Ed Page, Michael Steele (can we trade him to the Democrats for a 5th round draft pick to be named later?) and even, Et Tu, JimiP has been somehow worse than the joy of the lefties. Goldberg is level-headed and fair.
Posted by: jk at November 8, 2011 3:40 PM
But Terri thinks:Hey, thanks for the shout out.
From reading the papers this morning reporters did not like the denials that Cain had yesterday. I didn't see it. But the more I think about the specific complaint from the Beliak (sic) woman, the more it is unbelievable.
I've checked with the men around here and even the sleazy ones would never immediately reach under the skirt to grab a crotch without first figuring out if the woman was receptive or not. Other than in playboy letters, that will take a little more finesse.
Still on the Cain Train.
You guys will appreciate this from Maggie's farm:David Brooks: Let’s be honest, the Constitution is silly, what with the idea about citizen legislators. We need a professional governing class. With nicely creased slacks.
David, I am sorry to inform you that Americans have no interest in being ruled by our betters. We just don't believe they are better, and have little evidence for it since after the founders.
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/18487-David-Brooks-has-the-Tom-Friedman-Disease.html
Posted by: Terri at November 9, 2011 8:22 AM
October 31, 2011
High-Tech Lynching, The Sequel
Alas, too many people have seen this movie. So they already know what to call this.High Tech Lynching of an Uppity Conservative Black man.
The Sequel.
UPDATE: Erick Erickson's take.
Before getting into the details, let's pay attention to what this means.It means for certain that Herman Cain's lead in the polling is real -- very, very real. People are taking him seriously. Mr. Cain is about to spend a week in Washington answering questions and giving speeches. Someone wanted to make sure he has a miserable week.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:39 PM | Comments (6)But Keith Arnold thinks:It is to be hoped that Mr. Cain had a long, informative conversation with Justice Thomas as the Cain Train was starting to pull out of the station. Forewarned is, after all, forearmed.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 31, 2011 2:50 PMBut jk thinks:What truly concerns is that it will work. The headline lead story on Yahoo/AP all morning has been Herman Cain Denies Allegations of Sexual Harassment.
Stopped beating your wife yet, Herm? This is all most people will see. My Facebook Friends will assert that he is some character out of an Adam Sandler movie, and it will go down in the bad history of President Bush (peré) and the supermarket scanner. All from a hit piece with no named source.
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2011 3:12 PMBut Terri thinks:All very true, and I am inclined to agree that this is a lynching and not a truth tale.
BUT, if had been a little less backtracky on other subjects depending upon the wind of the masses and how things "sounded", I would not be "inclined", I would forthrightly state that Herman Cain would never misspeak about such a thing and I believe him 100% and will send him another check.Instead I'll wait a couple of days and see how he handles this.
Posted by: Terri at October 31, 2011 5:43 PMBut jk thinks:Perfesser Reynolds gets QOTD for what I consider the ultimate word on this:"
I repeat my earlier question: Would Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman, Anna Palmer and Kenneth Vogel have put their names on a similar piece, with no named sources, aimed at Barack Obama? Would Politico have run it?Posted by: jk at October 31, 2011 5:53 PMBut jk thinks:And honorable mention to @jamestaranto:
It sounds as though when @TheHermanCain said America is too uptight and needs to get a sense of humor, he was speaking from experience.Posted by: jk at October 31, 2011 5:54 PMBut jk thinks:But there's a sentence in the Politico story that I wanted to point out to everyone. It makes no sense at all: "There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
What does this mean?
The gestures weren't overtly sexual, but the women were uncomfortable and believed the gestures were improper in a professional relationship. These are all second-hand testimonies from "close associates" of the women accusers, but I don't know what standards are being talked about.
I mean, based on this sort of thing, anybody could think anything about almost anything.
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2011 6:13 PM
October 29, 2011
Jon!
I know ThreeSourcers are skeptical, but...
Posted by John Kranz at 2:24 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Immitation, flattery, etc. But is it too much to ask for them to use Jon's own theme song?
Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2011 5:00 PM
October 27, 2011
New Item for the Store?
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:07 AM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:dagny preferred the version without the presidents but I couldn't resist the temptation to put the words in these two men's mouths.
Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2011 3:08 PMBut jk thinks:Hate to pile on, bro, but I think I am with your lovely bride. By making it about Obama and Cain, I lost the saying in the personalities. Just the text, imperative case, is better. IMHO.
Posted by: jk at October 27, 2011 3:15 PMBut johngalt thinks:It isn't a very persuasive message anyway. Many people would be happy to occupy a job, if more existed.
Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2011 4:26 PM
October 26, 2011
Governor Presumptive
The presumptive nominee is frightening me again. Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt newsletter [subscribe] leads with "Romney's Bold, Groundbreaking Form of Hesitation," which opens: "Oh, come on, Mitt. Come on."
The topic is Gov. Romney's refusal to stand with Gov. Kasich's reforms in Ohio
Terrace Park, Ohio (CNN) -Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped into the middle of the charged battle over organized labor in Ohio on Tuesday, but he avoided weighing in on the contentious legislation that would dramatically limit the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions.
"Oh, come on, Mitt. Come on."Geraghty links to an excellent Walter Russell Meade piece that lists the political peril of going all in on public-sector union reform. We cannot all be Gov. Scott Walkers and capture a plurality. But:
"Oh, come on, Mitt. Come on."
Posted by John Kranz at 11:05 AM | Comments (0)
October 24, 2011
Send Money to Herman Cain
JK and jg conspired to provide me with a log-in of my own when I asked jg to loan me his log in for a post I have been composing for most of a year about the administrative burden on business created by government. THIS IS NOT THAT POST!
Now that I have my fancy new log-in I decided to test it out on something more current and shorter. Jg sometimes sends a few dollars in support of various Republican candidates. I don't complain very much and usually vote for said candidates while holding my nose. I have never before actually wanted to send money to a candidate.
I have lamented numerous times on these pages and elsewhere about the lack of candidates that reflect MY values and as there are no mainstream Objectivist candidates, I expect that to continue.
However, comma, Herman Cain finally said something on a very touchy subject that actually represents my values. He said that abortion is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. On that point I heartily concur and I am willing to make a campaign contribution.
With the help and support of family, friends and a team of medical professionals chosen by ME, I have been through 3 healthy pregnancies and 1 miscarriage. I vehemently assert that the decisions made along the way were NONE of the government's business. Should my team and I have decided along the way there was a reason to consider terminating a pregnancy, government interference could only have made things immeasurably worse. Further the government DOES NOT have the right to hold me hostage for 9 plus months.
The bad news is that the talking heads seem to think that this comment by Herman Cain is political suicide and makes him immediately unelectable. Sigh... There I go tilting at windmills again.
Posted by dagny at 1:56 AM | Comments (3)But Terri thinks:Done, actually, done earlier before the abortion comment, but I will continue and if the man still hasn't made a fatal flaw vs rookie mistakes by the end of December, I'll actually become an official Republican just to vote for him.
Posted by: Terri at October 24, 2011 7:57 AMBut jk thinks:Welcome Sister!
I hopped on just at the disappointing part, dagny. The Journal Editorial Report suggests this is the gaffe that ends his candidacy -- and he is furiously backpedaling. Rick Perry has an attack ad out. Glad there isn't a $14Trillion debt or an existential threat to our liberties or anything.
I sent a small amount early to THE Hermann Cain (THC, get the pot vote?) but am keeping my limited powder dry. If he stops backpedaling, I promise I'll start writing checks.
Posted by: jk at October 24, 2011 10:35 AM
But johngalt thinks:No need to wait, Terri. The GOP would benefit from your good judgement! This season's Colorado Republican caucus date is Tuesday, February 7. Mark your calendar and let me know if you can't find the caucus location for your precinct.
Note to unaffiliateds: Not registering with a party, at least in Colorado, means your only choice is between 1 Democrat and 1 Republican. Voting in primaries and caucuses means you get to help choose that 1 candidate for either party. (And since fewer people participate than in a general election, your voice is "louder" by comparison.)
Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2011 2:47 PM
October 21, 2011
Lies. Dammned Lies. And Statistics.
Blog friend The Everyday Econmist is less than enthused about current statistical data on 9-9-9:
I don't know nearly enough about Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan to offer meaningful commentary -- in fact, given the limited information available to the public, I would suggest that many of those commenting on it don't know enough either, but I digress. In any event, the policy has recently been criticized on the grounds that it is regressive and shifts the tax burden away from the rich and more towards, well, everyone else. Some of these criticisms are ultimately meaningless unless we assume that the status quo is optimal.
Whole reading worth thing, well.Posted by John Kranz at 12:47 PM | Comments (0)
She's Baaaaaack!
Kimberly Strassel has been on maternity leave. I was concerned that her August column had been up as her latest. She's back, fine, and again hitting them out of the park on Fridays.
Just as I begin to warm to the idea of tolerating a Mitt Romney candidacy (there I go again -- communications director!)...just as I start to think it would not be less pleasant than a plate of live eels and kale...Ms. Strassel dares to tell the big-T truth: Romney's Guilty Republican Syndrome
Mr. Romney has generally espoused the opposing view--smaller government, fewer regulations, opportunity--but only timidly. This hobbles his ability to go head to head with the president, to make the moral and philosophical case for that America. How can Mr. Romney oppose Mr. Obama's plans to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains when the Republican himself diminishes the role of the "top 1%"? How can he demonstrate a principled understanding of capital and job creation when latching on to Mr. Obama's own trademark $200,000 income cutoff?At a town hall in Iowa Thursday, Mr. Romney took it further: "For me, one of the key criteria in looking at tax policy is to make sure that we help the people that need the help the most."
These are the sort of statements that cause conservative voters to doubt Mr. Romney's convictions. It also makes them doubt the ability of a President Romney to convince a Congress of the need for fundamental tax reform.
In a word: nooooooooooooooooooooo!
Posted by John Kranz at 11:59 AM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:This idea of the "moral and philosophical case" for small government and fewer regulations is the key for me. I'll take back everything I said on October 12 if you'll take back what you said on October 18.
Posted by: johngalt at October 21, 2011 10:37 PMBut jk thinks:Kudlow played a clip of The Herman Cain, Gov. Perry, Gov. Romney, and the President. He then pointed out that Romney sounded just like Obama.
Devastating.
Posted by: jk at October 21, 2011 11:19 PMBut jk thinks:And, heh, in my defense: at least mine had Senator Rand Paul in it!
"For me, one of the key criteria in looking at tax policy is to make sure that we help the people that need the help the most."
Hard to think of a quote that would disturb me less.
Kudlow's guests were certain that Gov. Romney would be driven into the flat-tax camp, but Strassel's "GOP Guilt Syndrome" will never go away.
Posted by: jk at October 22, 2011 12:17 PM
October 20, 2011
The President is Smarter Than You Think
A lot of conservative types are piling on the President for expressing solidarity with the
dirty hippies#occupywallstreet protesters. I think they have forgotten President Clinton too soon. Parse the offending comment:
You asked earlier about "Occupy Wall Street" and what I've said is that I understand the frustrations that are being expressed in those protests. In some ways, they're not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party, both on the left and the right. I think people feel separated from their government, that the institutions aren't looking out for them and that the most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership, letting people know that we understand their struggles, we are on their side and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you're supposed to do, is rewarded, and that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don't feel a sense of obligation to their communities and to their companies and to their workers, that those folks aren't rewarded.
Larry Kudlow called it "solidarity." Keith Koffler is offended at the comparison of OWS to TEA. If I may be permitted a small digression, I welcome the comparison. The Tea Party comes out pretty good. I think Tea Partiers should welcome every opportunity to point out the differences -- not say that a comparison is off the table.But word parsers, mad dogs, and Englishmen: can you point to the offending sentence or clause in the President's remark? We "understand their frustration." We want to create a system which rewards "hard work, responsibility, doing what you're supposed to do." This isn't exactly Karl Marx izzit?
Posted by John Kranz at 11:19 AM | Comments (4)But johngalt thinks:Who decides what I'm "supposed to do?"
Also, "irresponsible" and "feel a sense of obligation to their communities" etc? These are value judgements, and are the purview of the private individual - not the state and it's purported power to "reward" good behavior. Bullcrap. The market decides who is rewarded - not government policies, and not government cronies.
Posted by: johngalt at October 20, 2011 2:37 PMBut jk thinks:I was not suggesting that he was going to win you over (though I'm glad to hear he did not). I respectfully submit that in this age of demagoguery, you're bringing a philosophy book to a knife fight.
Kudlow and many others suggest that he has tied himself to the movement and can be painted with all its hippie stench. I think he stopped at the edge.
Posted by: jk at October 20, 2011 4:43 PM
But johngalt thinks:You are right, but this is nothing new for Mr. Obama. Recall Joe Wurzelbacker (sp?) and "spread the wealth around." And I contend the aforementioned stench grows ever closer to the Clean and Articulate One.
How many Americans, particularly westerners, will be content with Washington deciding for them, their "responsibilities, obligations and rewards?" Or telling them what they're "supposed to do?" Those who bristle at this thought are the subset of America that comprises my vast and ever less-silent army.
Posted by: johngalt at October 20, 2011 5:13 PMBut jk thinks:Half silent at best.
I don't know that we disagree. The President's philosophy is now as clear to the rubes as it was to ThreeSourcers in 2008. That, he will have to run on/against.
I'm suggesting that his electoral opponents will be hard pressed to pin even the worst excesses of #OWS on him. He left himself outs.
Posted by: jk at October 20, 2011 6:19 PM
9-9-9: Women, Poor, Hardest Hit?
Readers may have heard reports that Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform proposal "will raise taxes on 84 percent of Americans." Presidential candidate Rick Santorum even repeated the claim in the Las Vegas debate. In actuality, what the analysis by the "non-partisan" Tax Policy Center (which Cain describes as a well-known left-leaning think tank) concluded was that 84 percent of families earning $10,000 or less annually will see a net tax increase, averaging about $110 per month. But this includes the elimination of refundable tax credits - negative taxes, funded by higher earning taxpayers. It assumes that consumption behavior will remain unchanged. (To fully avoid the 9 percent consumption tax individuals need only forego the purchase of new goods, buying used instead.) And it assumes that earnings will not rise and retail prices will not fall in a reduced tax environment. This is just specious.
Furthermore, the entire analysis is biased by its comparison to existing tax burdens. Where is it written that current tax liabilities, with their myriad deductions, ceilings, floors, and politically motivated preferences is fair? What is the moral case for 47 percent of the working public paying no federal taxes in the first place? Their cost of living is too high? Well, reduce the hidden tax burden in the form of corporate taxes and tax compliance costs - two more examples of government being the problem, not the solution.
But talk of fairness may face a tough hearing compared to the rest of the study. The summary table also shows a net tax increase for more than 90 percent of families earning between $10,000 and $50,000, and more than half of families earning up to $200,000 per year. Meanwhile, 70 plus percent of families earning $200,000 or more are shown to benefit from an average tax cut of about $20,000 to $487,000 per year. Unfair or not, this is easy to demagogue in 30-second spots.
UPDATE: Mea Culpa - The complicated summary table also includes a figure for percentage of all households with a tax increase ... 83.8 percent. So the headlines are accurate but so is, I believe, my analysis.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:07 AM | Comments (1)But jk thinks:I believe your analysis accurate and your thesis fair.
Real live, flesh and blood fairness is going to be a tough sell after 100 years of progressive nonsense. The FAIR Tax folk are politically if not philosophically sound to bribe the poor with "prebates" and set-asides.
My high school physics teacher used to say "models are what we hang our ideas on." Real legislation will never be as clean as 9-9-9, but THE Herman Cain is driving the debate toward flatter, broad based, competitive, and less intrusive taxation.
Posted by: jk at October 20, 2011 12:27 PM
October 19, 2011
Saint Arthur Sanctifies NINE-NINE-NINE
Okay, put a gun to my head and I'll excerpt. But it's an Art Laffer Editorial in the Wall Street Journal. On 9-9-9. I think whole-thing-readin' is in order. Dr. Laffer's in:
The whole purpose of a flat tax, á la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously--not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased.By making the tax codes a lot simpler, we'd allow individuals and businesses to spend a lot less on maintaining tax records; filing taxes; hiring lawyers, accountants and tax-deferral experts; and lobbying Congress. As I wrote on this page earlier this year ("The 30-Cent Tax Premium," April 18), for every dollar of business and personal income taxes paid, some 30 cents in out-of-pocket expenses also were paid to comply with the tax code. Under 9-9-9, these expenses would plummet without a penny being lost to the U.S. Treasury. It's a win-win.
Co-hat-tip: Blog friend EE, who includes a free link (good seven days)Posted by John Kranz at 3:07 PM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:Excellent. A much better expose than the brief video you linked for us earlier. Laffer defends 9-9-9 as, in the end, the "good" we should not sacrifice to some unspoken "perfect" form of taxation. But I think he's too modest. In an update to yesterday's 'Fair' post I make the moral and philosophical case for 9-9-9 being the perfect. If candidate Cain begins to defend 9-9-9 on these grounds as much or more than on the economic merits he could preside over a modern renaissance.
Posted by: johngalt at October 19, 2011 3:55 PMBut jk thinks:Yup, I'm a pretty big 9-9-9 fan myself.
-- It gives us the lowest corporate tax rate in the world;
-- while future Congresses can always raise rates, this is so transparent they'll have a tough time fiddling with it;
-- Kudlow (and a lot of establishment GOPers)wants to ditch the sales section, but I love shifting the burden from investment to consumption and capturing revenue from "off-da-book" income.I hate to use "perfect" and "tax" in the same paragraph, but we're getting close...8-8-8 maybe...
Posted by: jk at October 19, 2011 5:37 PM
October 18, 2011
THE Herman Cain
Is this for real? Has everybody else seen this?
Posted by John Kranz at 4:32 PM | Comments (0)
Fair
(adj.) 1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.
President Obama is on the campaign trail urging more government spending, in the name of fairness.
He also spoke at the dedication of the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington D.C., where King's daughter, the Rev. Bernice King, claimed that her father "moved us beyond the dream of racial justice to the action and work of economic justice."
No, I do not believe he did. The man who dreamed of a day when all of us are judged not by the color of our skin, but the content of our character, would have cheapened the ideal of racial fairness by linking it with President Obama's ideal of economic fairness. What he and King's daughter speak of is a sort of economic affirmative-action program. Fairness in government spending must be "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice" just as must be legal treatment by race.
Fairness in taxation must also be "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." Like 9-9-9. If any contemporary black man is following the teaching of the Rev. Martin Luther King it is not Barack Obama, but Herman Cain.
UPDATE: (19 OCT) I have amended my construction slightly to comport with my brethren's comments, calling out my uncertainty about Dr. King's ideas about the concept we call "fair" or "fairness" in the realm of economics. And this was my intended focus: Some see fairmess as "everyone pays the same tax" while others will not accede to this position until everyone has the same ability to pay that tax, i.e. equal distribution of wealth.
This leads me to what seems the winning tack in the pro-liberty argument: No man is more or less important, relevant or responsible for our civil prosperity than any other. Taxes must therefore be equal. (This is my ideal of egalitarianism.) But since equality does not, can not and will not exist in the human domains of effort, ability and aspiration, some men will produce more than others. This inequality is to be celebrated, for the alternative is anti-prosperity.
But since the self-made man recognizes the benefit he derives from a more prosperous society he may accede to paying a higher tax than his less able neighbors. A natural mechanism for this is taxation as a non-variable percentage of income, or spending, or both. But this imposition of a greater burden upon oneself is voluntary. It is a grant that may be revoked, in spirit and deed if not in law, when the self-made man sees the fruits of his labor being wasted - such as to line the pockets of looters and grafters and influence peddling politicians, lobbyists and crony capitalists. He may declare that he is Taxed Enough Already and engage in civil rebellion of various sorts.
Herein lies the beauty of the 9-9-9 tax plan. It is a non-variable rate of taxation proportional to prosperity. It taxes income and consumption equally, such that neither is disadvantaged versus the other. It is a progressive tax, since those who earn more and spend more are taxed more. But for the man who knows a beggared neighbor is a liability rather than an asset, an unequal tax burden such as this becomes not only fair, but desirable. For those who are comforted by such things, let us call it a "compromise." But, most importantly of all, it is a tax in which all citizens participate and do so on a par with the greatest and least accomplished amongst us. Tolerance of government waste will diminish, while lines of class and station will be obliterated. America's prosperity will be shared, and it will be bountiful.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM | Comments (2)But jk thinks:Like. But I must mention Thomas Woods's "33 Questions about American History You’re not supposed to ask." This superb book challenged conventional wisdom and revisionist history. Almost all of the 33 whacks were landed hard against the left, but his most serious suggestion for the right was to accept that Dr. King was pretty much a communist.
Conservatives, claim Woods, love to extrapolate meritocracy from the "content of our character" line but many of King's writings called openly and forcefully for redistribution.
I cannot say he is right. But I have made the claim many times myself and am getting a bit leery...
Posted by: jk at October 18, 2011 3:41 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:As I understand, Dr. King was very much a socialist in his younger years. However, after seeing socialism in action in Cuba, he became disillusioned with it and was moving more politically to the right as he grew older. Even so, he was decidedly left-of-center economically.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at October 18, 2011 4:42 PM
Romney - Paul 2012
Don't thank me -- no, go ahead and thank me -- I have saved the nation, the party, and the Republic. While watching Kudlow.
Larry had Senator Rand Paul (HOSS - KY) on last night. I always enjoy listening to Paul filé. While others might be called "Tea Party Darlings" am I wrong to call Rand Paul its intellectual cornerstone? Of course not.
It's frequently a fool's errand to look for a running mate that plugs a candidate's ideological lacuna; better to pick off a state with rich electoral votes or possibly appease a sectional split. But I am going to call this election different. The Tea Party types in the GOP are not ready to "fall in line" with a conventional, establishment candidate like Governor Romney. The PowersThatBe, conversely, are not going to sit still while a national Christine O'Donnell is nominated. Either side staying home would spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r.
Gov. Romney has the money, organization, backing, smoothness, smarts, and hair to be elected. Senator Paul has the conviction that the Tea Party craves and a Christieesque ability to articulate its merits. The Tea Party and a good portion of the Ron Paul rEVOLution will have a tough time not supporting this ticket.
At the same time, the out-of-mainstream beliefs of libertarians will be off to the side. Governor Romney can say responsible things about Social Security, Paul can call to schedule its demise. There might be some tension -- but no worse than Kennedy-Johnson!
You're welcome.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:54 AM | Comments (2)But johngalt thinks:Very intriguing. If Romney can stand Paul, and more importantly if Paul can stand Romney, I could rally behind that ticket.
But I'm seriously considering Romney because he strikes me as more "electable" than Herman Cain. However, Scott Rasmussen says, Who's your electable daddy now? (Or is someone going to convince me that Cain is "a national Christine O'Donnell?")
Posted by: johngalt at October 18, 2011 2:34 PMBut jk thinks:I use the comparison with care but with purpose. I actually liked Ms. O'Donnell, but respectfully submit that THE Herman Cain comes awfully close. The "liberals are destroying this country on purpose" excited the base and one Lawrence Kudlow, but I think it was ill advised.
Posted by: jk at October 18, 2011 3:22 PM
October 14, 2011
Headline of the Day
Well, we'll call it a nominee for Headline of the Day unless you guys have a better one:
Three-Way Hot Tub Lutherans for PerryPosted by John Kranz at 2:40 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:
9-9-9
I thought that everybody who liked THE Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan coincidentally happened to have ThreeSources logins.
But now I see Art Laffer is on board. I cannot embed or link directly, but if you follow the link to the NRO Site, look for "Former Reagan Economist: '9-9-9 Is A Wonderful Plan' 3:25"
UPDATE: James Pethokoukis is generally favorable.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:36 PM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Laffer on opening the door to future tax hikes:
"If I could do anything to stop future politicians from ever raising taxes I would love to figure it out but I don't know how to do that."Laffer on prices going up because of 9-9-9:
"As long as you're collecting the same amount of total revenue in a fairly efficient way none of these systems will lead to higher or lower prices than the others."I was trying to remember where I read the convincing argument on 9-9-9. Turns out it was a post by one of this blog's handsome and scholarly contributors.
Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2011 10:56 PM
Quote of the Day
If a more conservative third party could rise, destroy the GOP, and still win elections, I'd be just fine with that. Or, if the Democratic party decided to become a thoroughly libertarian party, I'd be perfectly fine picking and choosing sides on an issue-by-issue basis between the two major parties. Also, maintaining the same level of plausibility, I would be totally psyched if Frodo had simply flown the Millennium Falcon to Mordor, saving all that time. Or we could use the proceeds from Meghan McCain's invention of an all-in-one cold-fusion, perpetual-motion, and dashboard-mounted smoothie blender to simply buy a slice of America from the federal government and create our limited-government nation-state. -- Jonah GoldbergPosted by John Kranz at 12:59 PM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:No likey link.
Posted by: johngalt at October 17, 2011 1:38 AMBut johngalt thinks:Also, no findey right one.
Posted by: johngalt at October 17, 2011 1:38 AMBut jk thinks:I have been enjoying Jonah's and Jim Geraghty's email newsletters but they do not lend themselves to linking. I forwarded the G-File to you (and will provide this service free of charge to other ThreeSourcers on demand).
Posted by: jk at October 17, 2011 11:01 AM
October 13, 2011
Gratuitous?
Blog Brother jg suggests that I might have included a photo of Eliza Dushku more to build blog readership and less as an important and practical way to advance the storyline.
Ergo, in fairness, THE Governor Mitt Romney:
UPDATE: Smooth as Governor Romney is, Dan Henninger says he's not there yet.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:23 PM | Comments (3)But Keith Arnold thinks:Following up Eliza Dushku with this cold shower is just... wrong.
For the record, what's that thing on his necktie - the Olympic skating logo? A subliminal message that he's going to skate to the nomination, or is this a jab at Barry Soetero's failure to get the Olympics for Chicago "Chicago is OUT? Chicago is OUT?")?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 13, 2011 7:40 PMBut johngalt thinks:Saw the Henninger piece earlier but hadn't read it yet. I think a Frank Luntz observation from Hannity's radio show today is most germane here: In 2008 neither Obama or Hillary attacked each other. But Republican's internecine battles damage them all. Instead of a field from which "any of them would be a fine choice" the casual voter is left with the impression "they're all bums." Henninger doesn't do anything to reverse that trend with this column.
Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2011 1:37 AMBut jk thinks:I think Henninger actually voices the opposite theory: that a good candidate is forged in the hottest flames (or maybe that was "Zoolander...")
I remember candidates Obama and Clinton in a debate, and then-Sen Obama savaged the then-Sen from New York. I felt that he won the nomination at that moment.
For those playing the home version, the topic was health care, and Mister Obama ridiculed Mrs. Clinton over the stupidity of the individual mandate in her plan. Ah, happy days.
Posted by: jk at October 14, 2011 12:39 PM
THE Mitt Romney
A surprising consensus seems to be forming amongst the commentariat that big-city eastern RINO Mitt Romney is persuasively pivoting to become TEA Party friendly THE Mitt Romney. Personally I haven't given up on Herman Cain, and I admit I'm a little unsure about TMR when my sister and her husband derided him right after the Bloomberg debate as a "political chameleon who knows what he has to say to get elected."
Philip Klein echoes them saying, Tea Party is Losing the GOP Presidential Primary.
The Tea Party movement was fueled by opposition to the Wall Street bailouts, President Obama's health care reform legislation and out-of-control spending in Washington. Yet the current favorite to win the Republican nomination has rejected the Tea Party line on all of these issues.Well, his tune seems to be different now than it once was. Call it the Cain Effect. Both men still contend that protecting the currency is a necessary evil but that is the extent of Romney's defense of bailouts. He's also called for repealing Obamacare and slashing spending - a return to private sector implementation of, well, nearly everything. It's probably time for a closer look at that 59-point plan.
Another factor in Romney's favor is that former fellow RINO Lincoln Chafee now says, Romney 'a different person' as he woos GOP base.
"It's the same thing I saw with John McCain, and I saw with George Pataki and with Rudy Giuliani," Chafee told WPRI.com during an interview at his office Wednesday.Referencing a speech on foreign policy Romney gave last week at The Citadel, Chafee said: "The appeal you have to make to the Republican primary audience -- that's just alien to what's in our best interests as a country."
Linc Chafee didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left him. Cain effect indeed.Posted by JohnGalt at 3:26 PM | Comments (0)
October 12, 2011
Tweet of the Day
Posted by John Kranz at 5:39 PM | Comments (0)
October 5, 2011
jk Defends Rep. Bachmann
Against a common enemy of the Washington Post, we must put aside our differences and stand as one. The WaPo afternoon politics mailer (which really is pretty good, and free) shouts:
Video: Bachmann agrees with 'impeach' Obama wish
Oh my, oh dearie me, what has our brunette of the lakes done to disgrace us now? Thinks me. But if you click through (only 30 second clip), I think you could call it a joke or -- at worst -- some hard edged political persiflage.Paging the WaPo: a sense of humor was found in the parking lot; please claim it at the front desk.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:26 PM | Comments (0)
...and the rest!
Remember the early Gilligan's Island episodes? The theme song singer got tired of enumerating the island's residents toward the end and dismisses the last two with "...and the rest." It was replaced by the iconic "the professor AND Mary ANN" as America's ginghamed sweetheart rose in fame.
I was singing that at the last GOP Presidential Debate. Bret Behr going down the line and I fully expected him to give up somewhere Huntsman-ish and sing "and the rest!"
Yet we find ourselves, as the WSJ Ed Page laments, with the field we have. Gigot and his minions are more upbeat than I, but we see the same lacunae:
Most notable is the absence of those, like Mr. Christie and Congressman Paul Ryan, who have been most engaged in the fiscal and economic debates of the last three years. The field is weaker for their absence, and Mr. Christie's remarks yesterday about the lack of current Presidential leadership showed why so many people wanted him in the race.I did a telephone town hall with Governor Romney yesterday. It is a great format and I am always appreciative of candidates (and officeholders, my Representative, Jared Polis, has done several) who put these on. The Governor was himself in all his glory. His mellifluous baritone makes up for not seeing his excellent hair and skin tone.
But, I am going to be hard pressed to swallow hard and support this guy. If I may quote blog friend Sugarchuck without permission, early on in the race he said "I look at Romney and I see 'the enemy.'" The Governor was a "pander bear" on the call. I don't expect him to pick fights with potential supporters, but there is the Evelyn Waugh "up to a point" agreement. No, the Governor is everyone's friend and agrees with everyone's position.
The main question about Mr. Romney is whether his political character matches the country's huge current challenges. The former Bain Capital CEO is above all a technocrat, a man who believes in expertise as the highest political virtue. The details of his RomneyCare program in Massachusetts were misguided enough, but the larger flaw it revealed is Mr. Romney's faith that he can solve any problem, and split any difference, if he can only get the smartest people in the room.
Amen, WSJ folk. Amen.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:08 AM | Comments (1)But johngalt thinks:Boston Globe: GOP Elite Still Not Sold On Romney
Yeah, seems they don't think he can appeal to the TEA Party.
Others, however, said it reflected lingering concerns among some establishment Republicans about Romney's ability to connect as well with Tea Party activists and anxious middle-class voters as he does with party leaders."Mitt just really hasn't caught on yet," said Michael Reagan, a son of President Reagan and conservative commentator. "He can relate to the people who own the water cooler but, to win, he has to relate to the person who drinks water from it."
So in this view, he was just meant to be the TEA Party Palatable version of Romney. Without him though, they're stuck trying to get us to warm up to Romney, candidate from "the experienced governor/Northeast wing of the party."
Posted by: johngalt at October 5, 2011 2:48 PM
October 4, 2011
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Gov. Christie is not in.
UPDATE: Five reasons b'rer ka was correct.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:26 AM | Comments (2)But Keith Arnold thinks:Toldja. I wouldn't have minded seeing him in the race, and I'd have no hesitation voting for him were he the winner of the primary - but, toldja, just the same.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 4, 2011 11:50 AMBut johngalt thinks:I think he read the TEA leaves correctly.
Posted by: johngalt at October 4, 2011 12:23 PM
October 2, 2011
Quote of the Day
This goes back to the Insta-Daughter's theory of presidential opposites, in which each President is chosen to be the opposite of his predecessor. What's the opposite of a skinny black guy from Hawaii? A fat white guy from New Jersey!
UPDATE: Roger Simon emails: "What's the opposite of a phony black guy from Hawaii? A real black guy from Georgia." Good point! -- His InstynessPosted by John Kranz at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)
September 30, 2011
Tough Room - Tough Love
After praising the Chris Christie keynote address on Tuesday I criticized a portion of his speech, drawing an exasperated reaction from our dear proprietor. As the leading blog promoter of NewNewt, it's only fair that I give him the same treatment.
Newt's draft "21st Century Contract with America" has been released to the world. Newt's plan for Social Security and Medicare is to "save" them, basically by offering alternatives that taxpayers have the option to choose from. For Social Security this means:
We must therefore consider a voluntary option for younger Americans to put a portion of their Social Security contributions into personal Social Security savings accounts. Other countries, such as Chile, have found that this model creates vast savings while giving beneficiaries more control over when and how they plan to retire.
But if we're honestly talking about bold, sweeping, permanent solutions to government problems we need to get something more like The Salzman Plan on the table:
But here’s a plan – call it the Salsman Plan – that would ensure electoral support from all three groups, and thus potentially guarantee a political landslide for the candidate who proposes it. First, tell the elderly that they’ll no longer be subject to political scare tactics, because immediately they’ll be given an account in their name that’s full of U.S. Treasury bills and bonds, whose worth equals the present value of what they’d otherwise receive in Social Security checks for the likely balance of their lives. They can do what they wish with their new account: cash it out now, slowly liquidate it over time, perhaps buy an annuity, or keep most of it as is. Second, tell the young and the middle-aged they will no longer have to pay the 15.3% payroll tax, and they too will immediately receive an account in their name with U.S. Treasury bills and bonds, based on what they’ve already paid in so far. They too can do what they wish with their sudden investment windfall. Social Security, no longer empowered to tax payrolls or send retiree checks, would then be closed overnight.Posted by JohnGalt at 2:53 PM | Comments (0)
Kudlow on Christie
Larry goes out of his way to say he is not endorsing anybody in the GOP primaries. But we can safely say, he liked the speech:
First, Christie gets the linkage between domestic economic growth, national security, and foreign-policy influence. This was an absolute key Reagan principle.
[...]
Second, at the Reagan Library, Christie talked about the New Jersey model, where in a tough war against government unions and teachers, divided government worked to reform the state’s pension and health benefits, cap property taxes, and hold down arbitration awards for union salaries. (Christie didn’t mention this, but he also stopped the millionaire’s tax in New Jersey.)
And while the governor said there was compromise on a bipartisan basis, and while he emphasized leadership in compromise several times in his speech, he noted that he balanced two budgets with over $13 billion in deficits without raising taxes.
So there’s compromise, and there's compromise.Posted by John Kranz at 2:50 PM | Comments (0)
Gov. Christie: Clean, Articulate White Man...
If you followed the Rick Newman link below you've likely seen this but I couldn't resist promoting it.
... who can also be trusted to not call Republicans socialists?
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:41 PM | Comments (9)But johngalt thinks:Now that you mention it, I haven't heard Favre say "no" yet either.
Posted by: johngalt at September 30, 2011 7:13 PMBut nanobrewer thinks:I think it accurately portrays the GOP reaching for anything and anyone to get away from the vicissitudes represented by the Tea Party. They arrrr nervous me hearties.
Posted by: nanobrewer at October 1, 2011 1:00 AMBut jk thinks:I agree 100% nb. My problem is the suggestion that Governor Christie be considered the establishment candidate. I like him because he the clearest and loudest voice for freedom, not because he will appeal to Peggy Noonan and David Brooks.
To be fair, Brother jg's Speaker Newtzilla has been a good and loud voice for liberty. I can't get past the ethanol support (in Iowa, if you can believe it) and Speaker Pelosi global warming commercials (which he has at least recanted). Love a lot of what he says but I cannot get on that train.
Posted by: jk at October 1, 2011 11:49 AM
But johngalt thinks:Methinks you are right jk. Were I selecting a candidate merely for myself it would be his Newtiness. Yet I can't get any love for him from any of my female relatives. Call it "First Wife Phobia." Fortunately there's another excellent choice, one we all like "if only he could win." And if he's as saavy as I hope he is, he's working Chris Christie and Sarah Palin for endorsements sometime after the next debate. Herman Cain.
Posted by: johngalt at October 1, 2011 5:51 PMBut jk thinks:The second I get a definitive no from Christie, both my size 11s will be in the Cain Camp.
He did pretty well at TeaCon, they tell me.
Posted by: jk at October 2, 2011 10:30 AMBut nanobrewer thinks:
@JK: My problem is the suggestion that Governor Christie be considered the establishment candidateWell someone will be and we can best hope that we get one with enough backbone that he (sorry, Michelle) becomes the establishment and not the other way around. Cain does seem to fit that bill better then Mitt, but I think he's too new, as was Romney in 2008. Recall, Reagan had 10+ years in the GOP (many at very low levels) before he jumped into the presidential ring.
Now, the "Bush" GOP that we have these days might need someone new, but there's a reason one doesn't just go around upsetting applecarts. Today's "reasons"? Ryan, Pence, McConnel, Jindal, Haley, Barbour, Kasich and a host of others that keep me believing (but not registered!)
While I have as much respect for Newt's intellect and output as anybody here, we should all admit to his unelectable stature. If we don't admit, let the tomatoes be thrown!
Posted by: nanobrewer at October 3, 2011 1:29 AM
Praise for 9-9-9
From US News and World Report's Rick Newman.
Enriching the incentive to work or run a company in the United States, however, would have a more direct impact on the U.S. economy. The problem with many tax-cut proposals isn't low taxes; it's the huge cut in government spending that would usually have to accompany them, since most advocates of tax cuts don't suggest ways to replace lost government revenue. But Cain's national sales tax would provide cover for cuts to personal and corporate income tax rates and allow expensive programs like Social Security and Medicare to keep functioning normally. Again, there are many complexities, and Cain's math probably isn't bulletproof. But the principle of higher consumption taxes paired with lower income taxes is a sound one.In other words, Cain's 9-9-9 plan could bring in the same revenue as the existing income tax only scheme while at the same time stimulating production and growth, moderating consumption, and encouraging individual savings. If this three-headed tax monster could be kept on an unbreakable leash it could do wonders.
Hat Tip: My darling dagny via email
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)
September 29, 2011
If I Cannot Have Governor Christie!
Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.
Dan Henninger at the WSJ Ed Page counters the "He is great, but..." candidacy of Herman Cain. He's #3 in the polls and he's five points off that incumbent president whose CV he blows away.I believe I am in the Herman Cain Camp.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:57 AM | Comments (6)But Terri thinks:YAY!
Posted by: Terri at September 29, 2011 12:18 PMBut johngalt thinks:I love Herman Cain. I too would love "seeing Herman Cain make his case to black audiences" because it "would be interesting, period." But...
I worry that despite his corporate success he could easily be roadblocked and railroaded in the business of reforming government. That job is better left to a reformed ex-government solutions leader. One who recognizes he will need the continued support of the "fully mobilized" American people to "insist that their elected officials follow through and get the job done."
Newt's 21st Century Contract with America recognizes that:
2.The combined forces of the elites—in the news media, the government employee unions, the bureaucracies, the courts, the academic world, and in public office—will fight bitterly and ruthlessly to protect their world from being changed by the American people.And3.Therefore any election victory in 2012 will be the beginning and not the end of the struggle. It will take eight years or more of relentless, determined, intelligent effort to uproot and change the system of the elites—laws, bureaucracies, courts, schools-- and replace it with laws and systems based on historic American values and policies.Tonight at 9:45 EDT Newt will host a teleconference that you can participate in (just listen is all I do) by submitting your phone number here. (Hosted by TheTeaParty.net) They'll automatically call you at the appointed time.
Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2011 12:47 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The Refugee is open to taking an in-depth look at Cain. He seems to fulfill the Christie call for a leader. Currently, on both sides, we have people running contituency and litmus test candidacies. We do not need another technocrat trying to tweek this or that to fulfill pet projects of narrow interests, left or right.
Newt is a fount of innovative, bold ideas, many of which are quite worthy. Nevertheless, he is a technocrat. He is not a leader in the sense that he inspires people to acheive the best in themselves. Moreover, his personal peccadilloes make even The Refugee queasy. He is absolutely unelectable.
Cain's lack of foreign policy knowledge, let alone experience, is a major concern. However, he certainly did not turn around Burger King or Godfather's by himself. He found the right people with the right knowledge and let them do their jobs. He likely would do the same thing from the oval office. If you could take Cain's sense of leadership and combine it with Newt's policy knowledge, Huntsman's diplomacy and Ryan's fiscal sensibilities, you might have a helluva administration.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 29, 2011 2:31 PMBut jk thinks:You left out Rep. Michelle Bachmann's heading up the FDA...
Other than that, I agree whole-heartedly.
Posted by: jk at September 29, 2011 3:28 PMBut johngalt thinks:I'll be sold if he also co-opts Newt's 'Contract.'
Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2011 3:38 PMBut johngalt thinks:Another of Cain's benefits is how well his name does in campaign slogans. Dick Morris wrote today Raising Cain. Even better, Dennis Miller coined the bumper sticker slogan: 2012 - CAIN VS. UNABLE
Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2011 4:37 PM
September 28, 2011
Exceptionalism
Last night Chris Christie reminded us what the word means. Not that "Frenchmen think France is exceptional" or "Spaniards think Spain is exceptional" but "the condition of being exceptional; uniqueness."
In emphasizing the Q&A, JK says the speech is skippable. Perhaps, but a few choice lines are, shall we say, an exception.
"Telling those who are scared and struggling the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others, trying to cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard, insisting that we must tax, and take, and demonize those who have already achieved the American dream. That may turn out to be a good campaign strategy Mister President, but it is a demoralizing message for America."The riffs on leadership and compromise, hope and failure, and fixing government were excellent but what impressed me most was philosophical. He defended the idea of American exceptionalism, and explained that what our nation represents over the past few years doesn't live up to that standard. "Real American exceptionalism" is "earned American exceptionalism."
Quoting Reagan describing, in 1989, what he always envisioned whenever he spoke of America as "a shining city on a hill..."
"In my mind it was a tall proud city, built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. A city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."Then Christie:
"That, is American exceptionalism. Not a punch-line in a political speech, but a vision, followed by a set of principled actions that made us the envy of the world. Not a reelection strategy, but an American revitalization strategy. We will be that again, but not until we demand that our leaders stand tall by telling the truth, confronting our shortcomings, celebrating our successes, and once again leading the world because of what we have been able to actually accomplish. Only when we do that will we finally ensure that our children and grandchildren will live in a second American century. We owe them, as well as ourselves and those who came before us, nothing less."Posted by JohnGalt at 2:42 PM | Comments (6)But jk thinks:Not bad for an East-coast RINO, eh?
Just kidding -- awesome post!
Posted by: jk at September 29, 2011 10:52 AMBut jk thinks:Room for one more?
Today, the biggest challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves. To not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of accomplishment. To not become a country that places comfortable lies ahead of difficult truths. To not become a people that thinks so little of ourselves that we demand no sacrifice from each other. We are a better people than that; and we must demand a better nation than that.
Full text. Posted by: jk at September 29, 2011 11:21 AMBut johngalt thinks:And now, the critical evaluation (that would be prescribed if he had become a candidate but is merely academic now.) I think you know the part of that passage I have a problem with. Please parse, explain and justify for us: "To not become a people that thinks so little of ourselves that we demand no sacrifice from each other." Unless he misspoke or I misread, this sounds like demanding the unearned. And it stands in direct opposition to his words above. He might call it "balanced" or a "compromise" but I call it hypocritical and contradictory.
Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2011 11:53 AMBut jk thinks:Whoa -- tough dang room!
I think the call is for others to make sacrifices for themselves: put some of y'own damn money away for college or retirement. I suspect you don't accept that one can sacrifice for oneself, but I think it is a common linguistic device used for deferred production and gratification.
Posted by: jk at September 29, 2011 1:03 PM
But johngalt thinks:That interpretation quite honestly never occurred to me. Thank you. The correct way to say what you suggested, however, is by replacing "sacrifice" with "self-sufficiency." Or by suggesting one "forego" instant gratification in favor of enjoying his rewards when they are earned. But the best, and hopefully his intended, way of saying it is just to remove the word "no" between demand and sacrifice. That would be consistent with the rest of the paragraph and earn my kudos.
*rant*
I had missed the word "sacrifice" in my prior viewings of the speech. It is a poisonous idea. Asking, or demanding, others to make sacrifices for "a people" is a demoralizing message for America, and is certainly not American exceptionalism.
"The failure to give a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as "sacrificing his interests." -Ayn Rand
*/rant*
Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2011 3:21 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:When you compare hard work and delayed gratification to a gubmint handout, it is a sacrifice. And, such sacrifice is for the betterment of society. To wit, one's unwillingness to be a burden on his neighbors.
A welfare mentality turns the concept of sacrifice upside down.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 29, 2011 7:16 PM
Olive Branch
I wept a few times during the Q&A session last night. And a couple of times after, thinking that he was not running this time.
I think I have figured out what divides my blog brother(s?) and me on the Garden State Guv. If you want to plot him ideologically on a single axis, Gov. Christie will certainly not be the most doctrinaire conservative. He holds several apostate views, and I have to believe he holds them sincerely and honestly.
But, but. but -- on the issues of entitlement funding, entitlement spending, and entitlement mentality, he is off-the-charts good. And that is the key issue of our time. He also has a warmth and personal integrity. "Leadership, pure and simple" he says of President Reagan. I'd apply it to the big man himself.
UPDATE: By the way, the speech is skippable if you have a job or something, but the Q&As at the end (34:00) are NOT to be missed. I'm with the woman at 43:40.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:43 AM | Comments (3)But johngalt thinks:Peace brother. First we must acknowledge that Br'er KA was right. Whether by preternatural prescience, luck, or just old-fashioned inside information his emphatic prediction held true.
I happened upon the Christie keynote live last night, cold, with no advance billing. I thoroughly enjoyed his rhetoric. I found it erudite without condescention (contra Huntsman) hard-hitting with grace (contra Perry) and delivered with a humor and confidence that seem to elude Mitt Romney no matter how hard he tries.
I might have liked to see if he could carry off the same demeanor through the entire primary season but the idea that his presence might aid Governor Perry, who I've soured on quite a bit, leaves me pleased that he decided to sit this one out. I'm eager to see him campaign for our nominee East of the Mississip while Governor Palin does the same out West.
Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2011 2:41 PMBut Boulder Refugee thinks:The Refugee remains a big fan of Christie. The speech did reignite The Refugee's desire to see a Christie candidacy. The Refugee shares JG's waning enthusiasm for Perry.
Despite a delivery that did Ronaldus Magnus proud, the speech was less than it seemed. The best lines were attributed to Reagan. Being able to read from the bible does not make one a saint.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 28, 2011 4:21 PMBut jk thinks:The Q&A is the real deal though. He is funny, likable, tough, smart and principled. I could use a little of that in the current GOP field.
Posted by: jk at September 28, 2011 4:29 PM
September 27, 2011
Chris!
The poll found that 54 percent of New Jersey voters approve of the way Christie is handling his job as governor, while just 36 percent disapprove. That's a sharp tick up for Christie since May, when 44 percent said they approved of his job performance and an equal number said they disapproved.Read more: Daily CallerPosted by John Kranz at 7:04 PM | Comments (0)
Read It and Weep
The guy who is not running has written a book.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) said at AEI today that "we're facing a survival-level threat to the America we’ve known" from spiraling debt, diminished optimism, and a turning away from self-sufficiency.
Short thing read whole the.Posted by John Kranz at 4:19 PM | Comments (0)
September 26, 2011
SNL The 7th or 8th GOP Debate
Posted by John Kranz at 7:20 PM | Comments (0)
Murphy's Primaries
With the looming potential of a Christie candidacy NYT's Nate Silver theorizes that the big winner could be ... Rick Perry.
The other view is that the campaign has not been about Mr. Romney per se, but instead is simply a struggle between moderates and conservatives. If the median primary Republican voter wants a “movement conservative” as their nominee, then Mr. Christie may not pass that test because of his stances on issues like immigration and climate change.Mr. Romney could still win under this view if several candidates split the conservative vote and he has the moderate vote to himself. But the entry of Mr. Christie would complicate his equation and lower his odds, while posing less threat to Mr. Perry’s campaign.
In the 2008 race Romney, the Colorado favorite, suffered from also-rans to his right. Four years later he could face the same problem, but this time from his left in Chris Christie.
UPDATE: Added missing links. (Antropologists wish it were so easy!)
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:52 PM | Comments (1)But Keith Arnold thinks:Christie's not getting in. Trust me on this. He's committed to New Jersey.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 26, 2011 2:34 PM
Breaking...
@baseballcrank calls it "The Most exciting Jon Huntsman story of the year.
Did Huntsman, who was profiled in the September issue of Vogue, join the latest fashion craze? The downward spiraling economy -- and example of the new Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton -- caused fashionistas to start recycling outfits, dubbing themselves recessionistas.Or perhaps it's a lucky tie? Either way, the Huntsman campaign won't say. When reached for comment, a Huntsman spokesman said tie decisions were above his paygrade.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)
September 25, 2011
Huntsman Defeats Bachmann!
But then, Michele only drew 1.5% support ... in the Florida GOP straw poll. Among 2600 party activists the big winner was the Hermanator with 37 percent - nearly as much as the next three finishers combined.
Miami Herald says Perry "in big trouble."
The vote and spectacle underscored that Cain, who polled in single digits this week, is the new tea party darling. And Michele Bachmann isn’t. She was the big loser, coming in last place. Once a top-tier candidate who won the Iowa straw poll, Bachmann had trouble breaking through in recent debates, failed to give specifics and didn’t reach out to the Presidency 5 grassroots voters.Or maybe her appeal is truly regional. At any rate, she's losing momentum along with former "white knight" Rick Perry. A Miami-Dade activist said of Perry: “... it’s become increasingly clear he can’t perform. He has electile dysfunction.”
I doubt it will keep him in front but at least the showing gives Cain a chance to be in front for a time. Who knows?
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:26 AM | Comments (1)But jk thinks:I know that I am not alone in abandoning Rep, Bachmann for her kooky comments on Gardasil. I remember a Twitter eruption of some serious and very conservative pundit types who declared her candidacy "over." at that time. She has done nothing on the plus side to counteract.
I liked 9-9-9 when I first heard it, but it could easily become 20-30-27.5 -- it seems unwise to give future Congresses three numbers to raise. I could certainly support Mister Cain just for the sheer joy of a Cain - Obama race, but I cannot believe he is "ready for prime time."
Posted by: jk at September 25, 2011 12:04 PM
September 23, 2011
