As you may have noticed, there have been quite a few additions to the R4’12 Staff lately. So I thought I’d take a moment to make the formal introductions.
A few you already read, and a couple will begin writing shortly.
So without further ado, meet (in the order of their first appearances):
Adam Brickley:
Adam Brickley is best known for his blog “Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President“, launched in February 2007. His efforts helped launch a grassroots internet movement which has been credited as one of the factors in Governor Palin’s swift rise to national prominence. Some Race42008 readers will remember him as “Palin for VP!” from the comments section. In addition to his blogging ventures, Adam has interned with The Heritage Foundation and Townhall.com, and in 2006 he topped the Phillips Foundation’s “Top 100 Conservative Student Activists” list.
Anthony Dalke:
News Editor Anthony Dalke is a junior at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, double majoring in supply chain management and marketing. He has had the misfortune of living his entire life in solid blue Illinois (even worse, Chicagoland). He prides himself on refusing to vote for Rod Blagojevich in 2006. A recovering victim of pervasive Democratic bias in public schools, he received a healthy dose of liberal indoctrination in his high school government and U.S. history classes. Since those days, he has taken refuge in self-educating himself about functioning policy, leading him away from the left side of the political spectrum and toward the right. He has authored an opinion article for his school newspaper, the Daily Illini, and served as as contributing writer for the now-defunct sports website ForeverRivals.com. A die-hard Chicago Blackhawks and White Sox fan, he looks forward to rebuilding and strengthening the conservative movement, with an optimistic eye turned toward America’s future.
Robbie Borchik:
Senior News Editor Robbie Borchik is a 22 year old college senior double majoring in Political Science and Communications at Charleston Southern University in Charleston, SC. His political experience ranges from campaigning during the 2004 election cycle to working for a regional think-tank based in Charleston. He currently works for a news service providing information to high-profile political and business leaders throughout the state of South Carolina. He considers himself something of a pragmatist on domestic issues and a realist in terms of international affairs. He is an avid fan of the Auburn Tigers, the Colorado Rockies, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Fender Guitars.
Anthony Fabiano:
News Editor Anthony Fabiano is a 24 year old graduate of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Class of 2005 with extensive study in economics, Spanish, and above all, vocal performance. Anthony resides on the east coast in the light blue state of Pennsylvania. He was active in both the elections in 2004 and 2008, having campaigned proudly for President Bush and Senator McCain. Mr. Fabiano was a champion Lincoln-Douglas debater throughout high school, is a religious New York Giants and Yankees fan and an avid tennis and racquetball player. Anthony believes that the government ought to be a decentralized government; one in which the power resides in state and local governments, where bureaucracies are limited, and where people are responsible for their own destiny. As a believer in a hawkish foreign policy, fiscally conservative economic policy, and moderate social policy, Anthony was a devout Rudy Giuliani supporter until his demise in early ‘08.
Richard Murray:
Richard Murray is a disciple of President Ronald Reagan and an admirer of his ability to help Americans make themselves great again. His passion for politics was kindled through Rush Limbaugh, and that passion led to action after the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. Richard is a strong, yet pragmatic, fiscal and economic conservative, national defense hawk, and has social conservative leanings liberally peppered with libertarianism. He was proudly a Republican until 2000, when the party’s change in course disenchanted him. Richard left the Republican party, but maintained his predisposition to support them. He is currently a registered independent who supports and works towards a reawakening of the Gingrich Revolution within the Republican Party. After conservative policy, Richard’s second fascination with politics is the ebb and flow of poll numbers, and does shade tree analysis of them in his spare time.
Bob Hovic:
Bob Hovic is a marketing consultant with an international practice, based in the metro Chicago area. He has had three books published dealing with his area of specialization. Bob is a widower with two adult children. Though raised in a thoroughly Republican family, Bob began his political activism as a left-wing Democrat in the Vietnam era, before becoming disenchanted with the authoritarian tendencies of the left and joining the Libertarian Party. “I might still be a Libertarian,” Bob says, “if they were simply more realistic and more focused on accomplishing things, rather than fighting lost causes.” Bob considers himself a conservative with libertarian leanings, but above all a pragmatist, often quoting Otto von Bismarck: “Politics is the art of the possible.”
…And I would like to thank all of the R4’12 Staff for their awesome work!
Over at The Palmetto Scoop, Adam Fogle takes Gov. Mark Sanford to task for crying during Obama’s victory speech:
Yes, that’s right, Sanford told a national news publication that he was so overjoyed at the election of a socialist Democrat who is turning our country into the “People’s Republic of America” that he openly cried. No wonder he caved and decided to take the billions of taxpayer dollars sent down from Obama.
I will now admit something rather embarrassing–I cried during Obama’s victory speech as well.
You see, by election night I had long accepted the fact that Sen. McCain was not going to win (although I never said so publicly) and had already completed all the stages in the grieving process.
I was not under any illusion that John McCain might win when I turned on my television that night. I was therefore able to watch the events from the perspective of a lover of American History who was witnessing an event unfold that would be remembered, perhaps, forever.
So when the TV cameras focused on elderly African-Americans standing in that park in Illinois with tears streaming down their faces, and I thought back to everything that black Americans have gone through in our history–from Slavery, to Segregation, to Jim Crow-and I thought about how much this moment must mean to a person who was forced to sit in the back of the bus, who was turned away at the lunch counter, who really had to endure being treated as less than human, I did, indeed, cry.
In the end, I really do not believe that this says anything about myself or Gov. Sanford as conservatives or Republicans whatsoever. On that night, we were simply human beings, and Americans, watching our fellow countrymen live to see what they had believed to be impossible.
…la la la la la…just droppin’ by…
GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?
STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.” […]
GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?
STEELE: What’s the difference?
La da da…la la la la la…excuse me for not saying much: my foot is clogging up my mouth…la la la…
Insert Chris Matthews quip when necessary… From the Independent:
Politico reports that Tony Perkins may be eyeing U.S. Senate David Vitter’s seat. Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council, the conservative Christian public policy foundation.
First off, please allow me to express my deep embarassment at not commenting on the “Please Don’t Call it a State of The Union” address and the follow up by Vice Pre…I mean…Governor Bobby Jindal. There are two reasons for this:
1) The internet connection at my house is busted.
2) I fell asleep in the middle of the President’s speech (not sure if that was due to content or simple sleep deprivation…but it happened). And as I am now operating out of a noisy coffee shop and don’t have any headphones, I still haven’t heard the whole thing – though I did manage to watch most of the Jindal speech this morning.
Hence, I’m going to avoid the subject entirely other than to advise Gov. Jindal never to wear that candy-cane tie ever again. I’m not terribly into fashion, but that thing was so bright that it actually distracted me while he was talking.
Instead, I’d like to return to Nate Silver’s chart plotting potential 2012 contenders onto an ideological grid (thanks Aron). Personally, I find his analysis very interesting and relevant, though I disagree with some of his placements. While I would like to see at least one more axis added (either a libertarian-communitarian scale or an insider-outsider scale to separate those terms from the technocrat-populist axis), I think he’s definitely onto something.
If this chart is to be used as a guide to the 2012 race, however, I think there are two more elements that need to be added to what Sherman refers to as a “galaxy” of Republican leaders. First, any stargazer must be familiar with the movement of the stars and planets; and second, astronomy is much easier when the stars are organized into constellations. Let me show you what I mean:
This is far from complete, and I’m sure there are multiple ways that people could draw it, but these are the dynamics of the galaxy as I see it right now. The arrows indicate directions that I think the “stars” are moving (or are likely to move in the near future), while the solid lines forming “constellations” indicate alliances that seem to have formed or are almost certain to form in the future. These will be very important, as it obviously impossible for all of these people to run for President simultaneously, and many of the lesser stars are likely to become the top surrogates for the bigger ones. We’ll come back to what the dotted line means in a minute.
As you can see, I think there are two significant constellations developing. One is centered on Sarah Palin and connected to Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani – as I think both of these men are likely to become epicenters of Palin support in the next few years. Thompson is almost certain, as his wife Jeri has been a big player in “Team Sarah”. This alliance will likely be key if Palin is to solidify her hold on the Conservative-Populist quadrant against a Huckabee challenge. Giuliani could become even more key, as Palin seems to have struck a chord with him. Should he line up behind Sarah, he will give her an unexpected toe-hold in the Moderate-Technocrat quadrant (where even I will admit she should not draw many votes).
The second constellation I’ve put together forms an axis of moderate governors, all of whom who stood with McCain in the 2008 primaries – so they seem rather homeless in 2012. It is possible that they could band together to back one of their own (likely Pawlenty), but I’m not sure if they have enough collective “oomph” to shoot a candidate into the top tier by themselves. However, there is serious potential here if the big star labeled “Romney” decides to float in that direction.
This brings us to the question on everybody’s mind after last night…what do we do with the big star labeled “Jindal”? Now, I will be the first to tell you that I have no clue, but I have and idea on what I think might be a likely scenario if Jindal and Palin are both smart enough to pick up on it.
It seems clear after last night that Jindal is best suited to move more in the “technocrat” direction. Despite the Southern accent and compelling biography, he’s really a wonky, eggheaded Rhodes Scholar who is only mildly gifted in the charisma department – so it’s time we stopped trying to sell him as a southern-fried populist. That’s not to say he couldn’t be a compelling candidate for President, but it could make it hard for him to compete in a primary with three high-wattage personalities (Romney, Huckabee, and Palin). The “galaxy” diagram also shows that his situation could be further complicated by the fact that he is probably fighting Palin (and maybe Huck) for control of his current quadrant – and would be fighting Romney if he moved upward.
What I don’t think most people have considered is how an alliance between the Jindal and Palin camps would affect the race (that’s my dotted line). If you think back to last year, Jindal and Palin were almost always mentioned in the same breath, as both were rising stars that took on entrenched, corrupt establishments. However, their narratives have since diverged…as it has become clear that Palin needs a little help in the policy wonk department and that (after last night) Jindal needs a charisma transplant. Still, they are still remarkably close to each other ideologically. If they were to form some sort of alliance before the 2012 race, I think they could be unstoppable. The deal would look something like this: Jindal stays out and endorses Palin in exchange for first dibs on the Vice Presidency – and Palin’s promise to return the favor in 2016 should she lose to Obama. This gives Palin two things she needs: a high-level intellectual conservative in her corner and the ability to expand her base into that Conservative-Technocrat quadrant currently known as “Romneyland”. It also gives Jindal some benefits. For one, he gets a win-win situation in 2012. If Palin wins he’s either in the veep slot or the Cabinet job of his choice (with the understanding that Palin clears the field for him in 2020). If Palin loses, he gets Palin’s backing in 2016 and becomes a prohibitive frontrunner. He also gets spared the trouble of running as an underdog in 2012, and he can dispense with the attempts to be more populist and become the intellectual technocrat that he was always meant to be (I think we can all agree that Palin has enough folksiness for both of them).
Now, this is not a certain arrangement, but I think it’s a good one. It is possible that Jindal could instead work an alliance with Romney, but I would avoid this if I were Mitt (he’s better off with Jindal in the race to siphon Palin votes). So, feel free to rip this up, and draw your own versions if you like.
As has been reported all over the information highway, some dunderhead from MSNBC showed his true colors last night on national television, uttering “Oh God” as Governor Bobby Jindal walked to the microphone to give his response to the Obama address.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCgmc32guso[/youtube]
The culprit has now been identified as none other than Tweety (aka Tingle up my leg, mancrush, etc…) himself.
It is time for Sylvester to finally put that little bird out of it’s misery. Or at the very least, Matthews should offer an apology… but that ain’t gonna happen.
UPDATE: Apparently, Tweety will explain his phrasings on Hardball tonight:
I was taken aback by that peculiar stagecraft, the walking from somewhere in the back of this narrow hall, this winding staircase looming there, the odd anti-bellum [sic] look of the scene. Was this some mimicking of a president walking along the state floor to the East Room?
Is this supposed to be a legitimate excuse? Seriously?
UPDATE #2: What are the odds that Olbermann nominates Matthews as his “Worst Person in the World” tonight?
After media pundits slobbered over Obama’s supposedly great speech last night, the real verdict on his performance was handed down today. Hopefully, the One will get the wake up call, he will realize that his rhetoric and speeches don’t qualify as leadership, and he will abandon his attempt to turn America into Venezuela. I doubt he will get the message, instead just heading back out on the road to deliver some HopeNChange and all it’s emptiness to people across the country.
What is this? A Democrat governor may reject some of the stimulus funds? From the Chattanooga Times Free Press:
Perdue, Bredesen may reject jobless stimulus funding
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By: Herman WangWASHINGTON — Tennessee and Georgia may turn down some of the economic stimulus money if the restrictions outlined in the package cause budgetary hardship in the future, the governors said Monday.
After meeting with President Barack Obama, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen said some provisions in the package for unemployment benefits would force states to expand their programs permanently, even though the stimulus funding only lasts for two years.
“We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it,” he said. “We may well be one of the states that say we can’t take on that portion of it.”
Of issue is the package’s unemployment modernization provisions, which require states to update their unemployment insurance systems and provide jobless benefits to workers who now don’t qualify for benefits.
Tennessee will receive $141 million for the modernization program, while Georgia will receive $216 million, if the state legislatures approve the funding.
“We have an unemployment fund which is not in good shape right now,” Gov. Bredesen said. “We’re in the position of going back to our Legislature this year for changes in our tax structure just to keep our fund whole, and taking it to a new level may be too much of a lift for the Legislature this spring.”
Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said he is examining all aspects of the stimulus bill to determine whether his state should accept any funding. The unemployment funding, in particular, could cause Georgia to raise unemployment taxes when the stimulus money runs out, he said.
“We won’t compromise if we’re left with filling a hole that requires higher taxes for Georgia businesses at the end of it,” Gov. Perdue said.
It seems that our colleague Matthew Miller nailed it, per Jindal. He may need to work on that teleprompter delivery, but as I said last night, very rarely does anyone perform well when giving the canned response to a State of the Union style address, so I tend to be less harsh than some of the others watching.
His showing, on the Today Show this morning, was very strong, though.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vue6M5m-LDk&eurl=http://corner.nationalreview.com/&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
HT to the Corner.
Republican senatorial candidate Peter Schiff reacts to last night’s SOTU address. The quality is horrible, but the content makes it well worth your time:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-eE85uFv8k&feature=subscription[/youtube]
More Peter Schiff awesomeness can be viewed here.
Governor Jon Huntsman (R-Utah) was not impressed with the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill (to put it mildly):
The Republican governor of Utah on Monday said his party is blighted by leaders in Congress whose lack of new ideas renders them so “inconsequential” that he doesn’t even bother to talk to them.
“I don’t even know the congressional leadership,” Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, shrugging off questions about top congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “I have not met them. I don’t listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential – completely…”
He said congressional Republicans failed to score political points for opposing the bill – only three Republican senators supported it – because the public saw them as objecting to being shut out by Democrats from helping write the bill rather than as taking a principled stand.
The governor said congressional Republicans are being frustrated by a lack of credibility on the party’s No. 1 tenet: fiscal responsibility.
“That’s why no one is paying any attention,” he said. “Our moral soapbox was completely taken away from us because of our behavior in the last few years. For us to now criticize analogous behavior is hypocrisy. We’ve got to come at it a different way. We’ve got to prove the point. It can’t be as the Chinese would say, ‘fei hua,’ [or] empty words…”
Instead of Republican legislators, Mr. Huntsman said, he turns to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to discuss ideas about health care, environment and energy policy.
“I had Newt Gingrich in my office a few weeks ago,” Mr. Huntsman said. “What did we talk about? We didn’t talk about how you harpoon the opposition through gratuitous rhetoric. It was health care … environment and energy reform. Real ideas.”
Give Huntsman credit. He’s point blank honest and told the GOP off in Mandarin as well as English to boot.
Huntsman is mostly right. Congressional Republicans have no ideas, at least none that have a majority of the caucus behind them. The more I think about it, I think that, in our post-election kibbitzing over who lost the election, we’ve missed a key point. The assumption embedded in these discussions is that something happened in the Second Half of the Bush Administration that ultimately made the GOP collapse from a position of strength. I think the problem is far deeper than that.
Someone studying history would conclude that the Civil War began in 1861. However, the causes could be traced back further. Bleeding Kansas and Harper’s Ferry, Dred Scott, and Uncle Tom’s Cabin. All were critical, 1861 was only the tipping point when war came.
The fall of the GOP began, not in the second half of the Bush Administration, but the second half of the Clinton Administration.
It All Began With Newt
Newt Gingrich brought Republicans to power with an agenda chock full of ideas:
It was a conservative activist agenda that Mr. Gingrich proposed and led on for most of 1995. However, in the last part of the 104th Congress and into the 105th Congress, Gingrich illustrated Acton’s axiom, “Power corrupts those who wield it, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Under Gingrich, Republicans began to break the budget caps they’d set. Under Gingrich, Republicans began the process of earmarking that would go out of control. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) documents this process of the GOP losing its way in his book, “Breach of Trust.” While Gingrich and Former Majority Leader Dick Armey carp about compromises of principle, the compromises began while Gingrich held the Speaker’s gavel.
Republicans prevailed on some key points in the 104th Congress: Welfare Reform and the Defense of Marriage Act both passed. In addition, House Republicans passed bills calling for the abolition of the income tax code and the abolition of the assault weapons ban. However, a blow to fiscal conservatism came in the most unlikely form: A balanced budget with a surplus.
The surplus enabled Republicans at both state and federal level to let flow the spiggot of taxpayer spending and claim fiscal responsibility because the budget was balanced. Outrageous transportation bills were proposed. In the late 1990s, Clinton even threatened vetos of the pork-filled garbage flowing out of the Hastert House. The excessive spending, all permanent, helped create the deficit when the economy sank after 9/11.
Why didn’t voters toss Republicans out of office? I’d suggest several reasons:
The Fall of the House of Hastert
What was happening with the Republicans in Congress over these years was political entropy. John McCain was right about one thing in the last campaign, “Republican came to change Washington, and Washington changed them.” The outsiders became the insiders. Government was no longer “them,” an outside force to be dealt with. Republicans became the establishment; they became the government.
The type of people chosen to go to Congress made this even worse. In district after the district, the key factor in choosing Congressional Candidates became pure pragmatism . The old boys of the state establishment came to town.
The 109th Congress was not an out of the blue change that brought the GOP to its knees. Rather, it was the culmination of years in power with growing corruption, growing arrogance, and a party that had ran out of ideas. Congress was in session for 218 days over two years, averaging 109 working days per year. The good news: nothing bad was getting done. The bad news: nothing was getting done.
Does anyone think our government in the 109th Congress achieved some level of Utopian Perfection that the proper course was to do nothing? The Republicans had no ideas, or at least if they did, they lacked the intestinal fortitude to pursue them. Tom DeLay claimed with a straight face that the federal government had been reigned in during this congress. Really?
We had the debacle of Hurricane Katrina, Republican Congressmen and Senators being collared for crimes like bribery and corruption, and then the final straw of Mark Foley’s breach of trust.
What had happened over the course of twelve years?
Over the course of twelve years, the GOP became what America had hated about the Democratic Majority, and the American people responded in kind.
If you look among the Republican members of Congress as a whole, you find a whole lot of nothing when it comes to ideas. It is only marginally important to most Republican members of Congress who controls Congress. They get their pork regardless. That’s what they call bi-partisanship, don’t you know.
Yet Republicans propose we continue to elect empty suits who stand for nothing. Let’s take Congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO) who is running for the Senate. What great things will Roy Blunt accomplish in the Senate? What great conservative values will he advance? For those who clamor for Blunt and call for Sarah Steelman to step aside, the response is along the lines of, “He’s not that bad, and he’s definitely better than any Democrat.”
Thus the GOP’s new motto: “We suck less than the other guys.” This, fundamentally, is the GOP’s problem.
The GOP not only runs empty suits, it runs empty suits who’ve helped bring the party to ruination. A key example is John Cornyn’s recent meeting with George Pataki about running for the Senate in New York. Pardon me? The same George Pataki who left office with approval ratings in the 30s and set the stage for the oh-so-virtuous administration of Eliot Spitzer? That George Pataki? And ditto Roy Blunt (aka Mr. K Street Project and Mr. Earmark.) The call to nominate various well-known Republicans basically suggests we nominate the same people who got us into the messed up position.
If doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, then the Republican party is downright certifiable.
This story came out last week, but I didn’t see it addressed here in a post: the Pentagon proclaims that Guantanamo Bay conforms with the humane-treatment specifications of the Geneva Convention. I’m looking forward to seeing how the Obama White House tries to spin this one.
On another, more disappointing, topic, Reuters reports that Obama’s budget projections for 2012 and beyond include revenues from a cap-and-trade system. Now, I see merit with implementing a carbon tax and making it revenue-neutral by supplementing it with a payroll tax cut, but a cap-and-trade system would add another heaping layer of complexity onto the myriad of tax and spending programs Obama has proposed (if I had a dollar for every tax credit and provision suggsted by Obama, I think I would have enough to retire the national debt, even with the “stimulus”).
Finally, an article in the American Spectator cites some interesting data regarding Latino voter electoral behavior in the 2004 and 2008 elections. Now, I do not want to incite any arguments about this contentious issue, but the author does make some compelling arguments at the end:
Free marketers must be convinced to terminate seven million labor agreements with seasonal workers, low-wage workers, and high-tech specialists. Right-to-lifers must be taught the necessity of antagonizing the nation’s fastest growing pro-life demographic (Hispanics) and the nation’s most organized pro-life institution (the Catholic Church)…It is thus critical for immigration restrictionists to repackage their defeats as victories. Because in the moment that conservatives realize that their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform is unnecessary, they will understand that it is undesirable.
Now, I hope to see a respectful, rational debate in the comments section. I, for one, believe that the Republican Party must address the harsh image much of the media and public attributed to it after the 2007 immigration controversy, and the party can do that by taking the lead on comprehensive immigration reform, with special emphasis on welcoming highly skilled immigrants.
Doesn’t Gov. Huntsman just channel John McCain in this video? Just feel the accommodation. Take in all the condescension towards Republicans who dare to act like conservatives:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3aPRyQKCY8&feature=channel_page[/youtube]
If the last two successful presidents candidates have taught us anything, it’s that the way to win is a three-step process: 1.) Satisfy your base; 2.) Identify the the issues that are most important to Middle America, the “kitchen table” issues if you will; and 3.) Campaign like hell on those issues.
The way to win is not to call out your fellow Republicans for taking a principled, conservative stand at great risk to their political futures on MSNBC.
Jon Huntsman is supposed to be quite a smart man, but it does not appear that he learned a damn thing from the 2008 campaign.
FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver has peered into his telescope and discovered a rather fascinating Republican galaxy just a few political light years away.
Silver splits the prospective Republican presidential candidates into four quadrants:
Conservative Insiders/Technocrats
This is a very crowded space, although it could become more or less so depending on the behavior of two individuals: Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal.
I think Romney has wasted an awful lot of time over the past couple of years trying to run as a social conservative, chasing voters he’s unlikely to obtain because they don’t trust either (i) his faith or (ii) his track record (and subsequent reputation for flip-floppery) as governor of Massachusetts. To the extent there’s any early indication about Romney’s direction for 2012, he seems inclined to continue playing to the right, having recently used his PAC to donate to stimulus opponents. Then again, that strategy wouldn’t be mutually exclusive with a campaign based on fiscal conservativism and social moderation, which is what everyone but Mitt Romney seems to think they’re getting from Mitt Romney, no matter what Mitt Romney says or does.
Because of his fundraising prowess, Romney should have the first mover advantage in deciding how he wants to position himself; everyone else will have to follow. But there would seem to be more open space to his left than his right if he is bold enough to go there. The one wild card is Jeb Bush, who seems cut from the same sort of cloth as Romney, but even Jeb would probably have to defer to the Mittster.
The whole appeal of Bobby Jindal is that he can play the part of both the technocrat and the populist, a fact perhaps symbolized by his Cajun-fried heritage. The question is whether Jindal will at some point have to decide between the two. Going the populist route would lead to an eventual high-stakes confrontation with Sarah Palin, either early in the primary cycle or perhaps even sooner. Jindal’s alternative is becoming the choice of the conservative cognoscenti, which could cut off oxygen from alternatives like Newt Gingrich, John Thune, Eric Cantor and to a lesser extent Kay Bailey Hutchison. Gingrich is the only one of those alternatives who might exert enough gravity on his own to alter Jindal’s strategy, although it’s a unclear how Gingrich would position himself in the event of an actually running, rather than merely threatening, a campaign.
Conservative Outsiders/Populists
This is Palin Country, and the ‘Cuda would appear to have a free ticket to the semifinals unless she is challenged aggressively on her populist credentials by Jindal or perhaps by Mike Huckabee (although I think that Palin and Huckabee can co-exist until a fairly advanced stage of the process). The other potential candidates in this category, such as Fred Thompson, are mere nuisances to Palin, and are probably just hanging around hoping she goes supernova. Mark Sanford and Haley Barbour also seem inclined to move in this direction following their threatened rejection of stimulus monies, but they are poorly-defined candidates in a field with plenty of name recognition, the Doddering Richardsons of the GOP hopefuls.
Moderate Outsiders/Populists
This quadrant is generally sparely populated by the GOP, whose liberal wing owes its heritage to the highly wonkish traditions of the Rockefeller Republicans. Several candidates, however, brush up against its fringe, most notably Huckabee, whose Main Street economic populism creates differentiation with almost every other candidate in the Republican field.
Tim Pawlenty fits vaguely into this category (especially if one believes that having a mullet gives you populist cred). But I’ve also never particularly understood what Palwenty’s appeal is supposed to be: he got a fair amount of free airtime during the Republican veepstakes last year and didn’t leave much of an impression.
This is also probably where Ron Paul belongs, although really Paul is in a sort of libertarian hyperspace that few of us can hope to understand. Fellow traveler and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who endorsed Paul in 2008, could provide for a more credible version of the libertarian message, but is probably too unorthodox a candidate for a party that lacks self-confidence and is groping to find a leader.
Moderate Insiders/Technocrats
This is supposed to be Charlie Crist’s space, but I just don’t get the sense that Crist is particularly serious about running, having cozied up to Barack Obama while teeing off the Republican establishment. If Crist does not run, or waits until 2016, that could vacate this space for Utah Governor John Hunstman, who perhaps sensing his opportunity is moving hard and to the left on issues like civil unions and the stimulus. A reform-minded candidate like Mitch Daniels could potentially fill this space, as could a recycled one like Rudy Giuliani; this is also where a wild card from the business or the military communities might wind up fitting in. But it will be filled by somebody, as it’s a valuable space to own in a year where the other party won’t be hosting competitive primaries, leaving independents and Democrats free to weigh in on the GOP contest. The Republicans could wind up with a moderate nominee on accident.
So, What Happens Next?
I don’t know. Ask me again in a year or so. But I think it’s not too early to be talking about this stuff, because the primary wars are also a proxy war for the future of the party.
Fred Thompson returns in primetime… The Fred Thompson Show debuts on March 2nd, from 12pm-2pm eastern time 5 days a week (different air times in different markets). From Westwood One:
“Of all the radio talkers out there, how many can say they’ve debated in the Senate; campaigned for President of the United States; had a successful TV career on Law and Order and shared the screen with Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, Robert De Niro and Sissy Spacek?” said Bart Tessler, EVP Westwood One News & Talk Programming. “Thompson is as unique as they come and that will make for exceptional radio.”
“This will be the biggest talk radio launch since Bill O’Reilly,” said Dennis Green, Westwood One EVP Affiliate Sales. “We have not even hit the air and radio stations from coast to coast are ready for Fred Thompson to speak to their audiences about the issues that matter.”
Former US senator and 2008 presidential candidate, Fred Thompson will share his views on politics, topical issues, pop culture and water cooler stories, as well as welcome guest interviews and take listener calls. The Fred Thompson Show will be a two-hour daily talk show and will air live Noon-2pm, Monday – Friday from the Westwood One studios in Washington DC. Westwood One will hold all broadcast and digital rights to The Fred Thompson Show including its official website.
No hands shows allowed…
Siena College 2010 New York Gubernatorial Survey
- Rudy Giuliani 51% (42%)
- David Paterson 36% (44%)
- Andrew Cuomo 51% (48%)
- Rudy Giuliani 38% (39%)
Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]
- Andrew Cuomo 69% (64%) / 18% (17%) [+51%]
- Rudy Giuliani 58% (60%) / 35% (35%) [+23%]
- David Paterson 40% (54%) / 47% (30%) [-7%]
Survey of 622 registered voters was conducted February 16-18. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted January 20-23 are in parentheses.
Bobby Jindal has an enviably bright future ahead of him, and if he ultimately runs in 2012, I’ll be the first to wish him luck. But, tonight’s format doesn’t suit him. Jindal is far superior to the average politician in many ways, but skill at reading a teleprompter isn’t one of them. Jindal excels when people are able to see his intellect; when there’s back and forth. There aren’t many politicians who can marshal facts so well. There are dozens of politicos who can sit in a chair, project warmth, and read off a string of already prepared arguments, in a compelling way. So if Bobby doesn’t look as good as Obama tonight, don’t despair; put them on a stage together and our guy will shine.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama had this exchange with former rival, Sen. John McCain:
Said the president’s former Republican rival [John McCain], “Well, thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for doing this…Just one area that I wanted to mention that I think consumed a lot of our conversation on procurement, it was the issue of cost overruns in the Defense Department. We all know how large the defense budget is…your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One. I don’t think that there’s any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas have — have cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money.”
Said Obama, “I’ve already talked to (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates about a thorough review of the helicopter situation…the helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. Of course, I’ve never had a helicopter before. So, you know, maybe — maybe I’ve been deprived and I didn’t know it.But I think it is a — it is an — an example of the procurement process gone amuck, and — and we’re going to have to fix it.”
How, Mr. President, will you fix it? Mr. McCain was exactly right in asking a question like this. Government waste is rampant already and all Mr. Obama can do is give a non-descriptive answer. Go and watch the whole economic forum that Pres. Obama and VP Biden had with various senators and representatives today. It was filled with non-answers, deceptions, and excuses, not to mention a direct attack of President Bush and his policies.
In his opening remarks, Obama returned several times to criticism of past budget practices that clearly was aimed at President George W. Bush’s administration, suggesting the former president and his team weren’t candid with the American people about the scope of the budget difficulties.
At one point, Obama criticized “the casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks, the costly overruns, the fraud and abuse, the endless excuses. This is exactly what the American people rejected when they went to the polls. They sent us here to usher in a new era of responsibility in Washington, to start living within our means again and being straight with them about where their tax dollars are going.”
Let’s all be frank. Certainly, President Bush was not the fiscal disciplinarian that we all have dreamed of. He allowed congress to spend money endlessly without the use of his veto pen and he presided over one of the largest expansions of our central government in American history. Given all of that, Mr. Obama has not earned the right to criticize the previous administration over it’s mistakes when it will be presiding over an expansion of government never seen in American history; an expansion that will create vast new governmental organizations and bureaucracies, millions of new employees paid directly from the state, and thus various ways that our system can continue to get more convoluted by the minute. As Mr. McCain described it, what Mr. Obama is overseeing is akin to “generational theft.”
Prior to this past weekend, I had always considered home ownership to be the essence of the American dream.
No longer.
That was before I was shaken to my core by a prominent conservative blogger’s proposal on a radio show that the government mail $10,000 checks to families of four and criticism of the conservative-galvanizing rant against Obama’s mortgage bailout plan by CNBC’s Rick Santelli.
I now see a clear and present danger of an American nightmare in which we lose not only our houses, but even the sweet land of liberty upon which houses can be built. Obama and the dems are dangerous, but an even greater danger would be if conservatives lose their nerve.
The $10K check proposal was inspired by revulsion for the bank bailouts; despair for families and small businesses that still can’t get credit; despair for small businesses put out of work by the recession and despair for those that face foreclosure due to recession related loss of income, with the amount of the checks derived by dividing the $800B amount of the bank bailout by 300 million Americans. The logic being that “if we are going to bail out the banks that caused this, we might as well stimulate a consumer economy and help people stay in their homes.”
But it was obvious that this respected conservative was animated in his fury against the banks by Santelli’s use of the word “loser” and a false assumption that Santelli had reserved his angry opposition to bailouts for distressed mortgage borrowers instead of banks. It turns out that Santelli has been consistent in his rants, but that only the former garnered wide publicity outside CNBC.
I agree that Santelli’s use of the word “loser” is a poor one, though technically correct in that he refers to those that are “losing” their homes, but that what is significant is why his rant resonated so strongly with so many Americans:
Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages; or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water?
TRADER ON FLOOR: That’s a novel idea.
SANTELLI: No they’re not, Joe. They’re not like putty in our hands. This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise their hand.
(Booing)
President Obama, are you listening?
TRADER: How ’bout we all stop paying our mortgage? It’s a moral hazard.
SANTELLI: We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.
Of course, many people facing foreclosure in this crisis are identical to people that have lost homes since the first home loan centuries ago. They lost their job due to no “fault” of their own. If a government program to abrogate mortgage contracts to prevent foreclosures was appropriate, certainly the best argument would be that we help those without fault. But that has never been advanced as a reason for such a program and isn’t a prominent reason for the Obama plan.
No, the main reason advanced for granting a civil right to stay in homes to a special class of borrowers from 2003-2007 is that the “collateral damage” is unacceptable. Yes, there is also the claim that so many borrowers were duped by “predatory lenders” (an insult to the intelligence of average Americans), but surely that moral claim is inferior to the one that could be made for the newly unemployed. Remember, this crisis began before a great rise in unemployment. We are also told that millions would be rendered homeless, but given they weren’t homeless before and the fact of available rental apartments, we dismiss that as a lunatic scare tactic.
The collateral damage we are invited to fear is the effect of so many foreclosures on the banks and on the values of the property of their neighbors. Even Charles Krauthammer has bought into the latter argument despite his earlier recognition that recovery cannot begin until a “floor” in housing prices is reached.
The Obama plan repeats the Fannie/Freddie policies that caused the bust in the first place by keeping people in homes they can’t afford and trying to prevent further drops in prices.
We were told that Banks were too big to fail and now some conservatives consider the rest of us too little to fail? This gets to the crux of the “foreclosing of the American mind” but first let me be fair to my conservative friend’s reasoning and be brutally honest about my underlying fears concerning the nerves of the American people in this crisis.
I wrote “A Hard Time vs. Hard Times” last year during the credit crisis and suggested that no matter who was elected, that Americans would face a test of character because even if the government implemented perfect supply side and bank stabilization policies we faced a hard time for a year or so due to the natural consequences of the loss of wealth and lack of savings. We would face long, hard times if fail the test of character.
Now, let me address the arguments for the $10K check proposal that this is a unique situation from normal recession cycles and that since we are a consumer driven economy and that we should stimulate consumption in this way.
I would concede that there are unique aspects to this crisis of government policy failures, but that the cause of same does not suspend the rules of human nature re debt and savings and that therefore, time is required to solve the matter, along with correct policies. People will have to save money before they are comfortable taking risks on spending and investing. Government policies forcing banks to eat their loans will deter future lending. And if writing checks to people would solve the matter, then the USSR would have been Shangri La.
Throwing money at the problem to relieve all present suffering and hoping it reduces the length of the recession, when time for healing is baked in the cake, only exacerbates the problem; lengthens the recession; bakes in the danger of inflation; and threatens to foreclose the American mind.
Included in all present suffering is the holocaust of having to move and rent; the calamity of living in an owned home with less equity; and the deluge of consuming less goods.
I am reminded of the reactions to Katrina here and abroad. Foreigners marvelled at how few died and how little suffering was had due to rescue efforts and our government safety net. Too many Americans saw a reporter on camera with a refugee within 24 hours and concluded that since Shepherd Smith was there, surely Bush should be there with manna from heaven to prevent more than 5 minutes of suffering and all refugees in the Waldorf-Astoria watching cable before midnight.
How did America become America?
It didn’t become the most prosperous, benevolently powerful, liberating force in history by pain avoidance. We have seen what happens when government is Daddy. In the USSR the right to a home turned out to be the right the share a two room apartment with three other families (see Ninotchka). In Europe, it means that you have a perpetual state of mediocrity and an inability to defend oneself from foreign enemies. It is only because the United States stands in the way of the usual course of history’s conquering despots, that most of the free on Earth are safe.
And now we get to the crux of impending mind foreclosure: Why is it that the United States is so wealthy and strong that we can have obese folks in poverty and out gun slave holding tyrants?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Especially liberty and the pursuit of happiness and its lynch pin element of the right to private property. One has the right to the fruits of one’s labor. Our system has encouraged people to take risks, and the facts are in after 5000 years of human history and 233 years of American history: our system that allows success and failure results in less suffering and more happiness than all the other systems.
We revere so many of our forefathers for their great sacrifices, from the Pilgrims and Washington’s army (pictured at Valley Forge) thru the Greatest Generation that endured the Great Depression and won WWII.
They suffered to make and keep this nation exceptional. They were not bailed out. They rejected the class envy of France and class system of Britain.
Current government policies threaten to discourage risk taking, because for every person bailed out, there is a person that is bailed on. The producers of society won’t produce if the prospect of getting bailed on is prominent.
As for the banks, I do see a distinction between them and the rest of us, but was against the Paulson bailout. However, it is the duty of government to regulate a banking system. It may have been best to let some banks fail last year. I don’t know what those consequences would have been. (Many believe that had Hoover not passed Smoot-Hawley and raised taxes after the 1929 market crash, that the recession would have ended in a year or two. I don’t know.)
But the fact that we may have made mistakes in trying to save a necessary institution of free enterprise in banking, would not lead me to give up the ghost on prudent fiscal policy and propose a massive expansion of the welfare state safety net for the truly needy to define “truly” as avoiding having to move and rent.
My mind is open to policies I would reject out of hand in non-crisis times, but we must keep our bearings and not lose sight of values essential to our long term prosperity and dumb down acceptable suffering in an affluent society, or we will lose the ability to stay or regain affluence, and with that, Liberty itself.
Remember the suffering of those at Valley Forge; keep this hard time in perspective; never lose hope; never give in to despair and join me in the fight to keep the lights of the Shining City on a Hill burning.
Remember the Battle of New Orleans, when the Brits held Washington, D.C. and threatened to tear America asunder. One man with courage made a majority in 1815 and brought us back from the brink against the greatest army on Earth. (General Andrew Jackson pictured)
We can prevail against an army of community organizer-in-chief led acorns if we don’t give up.
Remember the Battle of New Orleans, when the Brits held Washington, D.C. and threatened to tear America asunder. One man with courage made a majority in 1815 and brought us back from the brink against the greatest army on Earth. (Gen. Andrew Jackson pictured)
We can prevail against an army of community organizer-in-chief led acorns if we don’t give up.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Republican Icon Fred Malek (who served as John McCain’s National Finance Chairman) has published the latest installment of his reflections on the 2008 campaign. In this post, Mr. Malek writes about the challenges imposed on the McCain Campaign in May of 2007 after fundraising had dwindled in reaction to Sen. McCain’s role in comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. Malek writes:
Whether you loved or hated John’s position in the Immigration debate, his actions that June exhibited the quintessential get-in-the-middle, role up your sleeves, bi-partisan leadership that has marked his service to our country. Unfortunately, at the time, much of the Republican base did not see this leadership as a positive attribute. As a result, the fundraising well dried up, and it could not have come at a worse time.
Terry and John Weaver presented the situation to us. The campaign had accrued a great deal of debt due to heavy spending and the harsh fundraising environment in June. In fact the campaign was not only broke but owed money. Despite the problem, John remained encouraged and upbeat. He shared his vision for America and thanked us for continuing to support his bid. Marlene and I enjoyed the stay at the McCain’s cabin thoroughly and left with deep concerns but continued commitment.
John left Sedona and headed to Iraq with his good friends and colleagues Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. Although we left Sedona with great uncertainty on the future of the campaign, we also left with a stronger commitment to John and his vision for our country, and a deeper impression of his resolute discipline and perseverance.
Malek concludes:
It’s funny given that I run in both business and political circles, for years if not decades, I would consistently hear CEOs complain about politicians and Washington and state, “if politicians could only be for like us, Washington and this country would be a better place.” In light of our current economic crisis, I can say without a doubt if every CEO had the discipline, perseverance and sense of honor of John McCain, this economy and this country would be in a much better place.
The next installment in the series focuses on the shake-up and its resurgence of the McCain Campaign, culminating in one of the greatest political comebacks in American history.
If you followed the 2008 race as obsessively as I did, Mr. Malek’s writing are essential in understanding what occurred behind the scenes of this most historic race.
Join us tonight and comment on President Obama’s first State of the Union Address as it happens.
The speech is scheduled to begin at 9pm EST. Our Open Forum will go up at approx 8:30pm EST.
Color me skeptical:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has steadied Wall Street by telling Congress the recession might end this year.
In his semiannual report to the Senate Banking Committee, Bernanke predicted the economy is likely to keep contracting in the first six months of 2009. But he also said “there is a reasonable prospect” the recession will end this year. He warns that a recovery will require getting credit and financial markets to operate normally.
What this statement is really about is stopping the bleeding on Wall Street, which it appears it has-at least for now.
The Hartford Courant profiles another potential GOP challenger to Chris Dodd, Euro Pacific Capital President and former Ron Paul economic advisor Peter Schiff:
Anthony Astolfi is a 24-year-old Republican from San Diego; Peter Schiff is a broker and financial pundit who lives in Fairfield County. Astolfi believes that together they can topple U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.
Astolfi is part of a loose group of libertarians scattered across the nation who embrace Schiff’s message of free markets and small government. They believe that Schiff can beat the Democratic incumbent in 2010 and have launched an Internet-based effort to draft him.
“Peter Schiff was on YouTube constantly, predicting the housing bubble and economic meltdown,” Astolfi said. “When we found out that he lived in Connecticut and we saw that Chris Dodd’s seat was coming up in 2010, we knew it would be an epic battle.”
The would-be candidate, however, is not quite ready to jump in. “It’s not something I was planning on my own,” Schiff said Friday. “It wouldn’t be easy to win in a state like Connecticut.”
Schiff is known for his outspoken opposition to federal bailouts and stimulus efforts and has made frequent appearances on CNBC and other networks, where he was credited with having foreseen the current financial crisis. Schiff served as economic adviser to Ron Paul, who sought the Republican presidential nomination last year.
If he were to run for Senate, Schiff said he would run as a Republican. “If I wanted to and put in the effort, I could probably get the Republican nomination, but I don’t know if I want to,” he said.
But what would be the point? “I don’t need the power, the fame … or the money,” Schiff said. “I don’t need those things. If I really thought I could make a difference, might I be willing to change careers? I might …but there needs to be a bigger movement, there needs to be more candidates.”
Now before you scoff at the thought of a Paulite capturing the GOP nomination and going on to defeat a sitting U.S. Senator in the Northeast, watch Schiff’s now infamous predictions of our current financial mess from 2006-2007. Take particular note of the condescending laughter of the economic experts who disagree with Mr. Schiff’s predictions in the clips:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1YhJRXqnXI[/youtube]
In the interests of full disclosure- should Schiff go on to capture the nomination, the Democrats likely method of attack will be to draw attention to certain statements by Mr. Schiff regarding the need for Americans “to stock up on guns and ammunition” (painting him as a fringe, survivalist-type) as well as the fact that he is the son of infamous tax protester Irwin Schiff, who is currently serving a 12 year sentence for tax evasion.
Schiff is an interesting candidate, and from a party-building standpoint his nomination as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in a deep-blue state may provide a fairly painless way towards integrating the Libertarian faction of the GOP back into the party.
For more info, visit the Draft Schiff 2010 grassroots site. The “Draft Schiff” Facebook group is here.
Hat-tip: Aron Goldman
Need more proof that the left absolutely fears the prospect of having their messiah go up against the superior intellect of Bobby Jindal in 2012? Well this editorial smear by the Times is just the latest of the full-on media effort to attack the young Louisiana Governor. It follows nightly attacks by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, and just last night the absurd comments by Chris Matthews, calling the Brown and Oxford graduate a ‘cartoon’ who partakes in ‘stupid talk’. Ironic that Matthews would claim Jindal was cherry-picking items from the stimulus, when Matthews himself was cherry-picking one line from a half-hour interview.
The left expected a GOP that would simply sulk away into the wilderness, too afraid of Obama’s media glow to speak up in opposition. Well, what they have found out is that this party will not go quietly, not while our nation is being besieged by socialism and reckless spending unlike anything we’ve seen in the past. No, what they have realized is that there is a united minority in Congress committed to protecting the American taxpayers, and a slew of governors ready and willing to stand up to the president.
My advice to Obama’s media fan base is simple; get used to it. No amount of push polling by liberal media outlets will get us to abandon our principles. No amount of smears aimed at the GOP will silence our opposition to these terrible ideas. No amount of whining about bipartisanship from a party that made undermining our commanders and our troops their signature campaign effort will make us back down.
And it will take more than sad hit pieces by a crumbling newspaper giant to slow the rise of Bobby Jindal. Tonight the American people will get their first full glimpse of the governor, and we will all get another chance to see why the left is fretting so much about his presidential prospects.
So to the Times, I would recommend you save your energy from these useless smear attacks for more pressing issues, like for example, sucking up to Carlos Slim some more in the hopes he saves your hapless organization. Lots of luck with that!
UPDATE: You can add Roger Simon of Politico to the list of media shills unhappy that the GOP is not on its collective knees bowing at the Obama altar. He must be trying to one-up the Times and their efforts to attack Obama’s intellectual superior, Bobby Jindal.
This ad is running in the race to fill the seat of Rahm Emanuel in Congress:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op6K-glVU4E&eurl=[/youtube]
Now, I may not care for the portrayal of President Bush as the Joker (and what was with Cheney saying Nyuk, Nyuk? Was Curly from the Three Stooges a Batman villain?) Still the ad is one of the most clever I’ve seen in any campaign.
(Hat Tip: Save the GOP.)
I just came across two intriguing articles about Bobby Jindal – the first, positive, and the second, not so positive:
Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News’s “God & Country” blog speaks highly of Jindal and the implications of his future on Christian conservatives. Although he breaks no new ground, I like what he says at the very end:
Religious conservatism in the GOP ain’t dead. Far from it. The real story is that it has been reborn in younger, more sophisticated, and less divisive politicians like Jindal.
The second article concerns something I never knew about: dissatisfaction with Jindal among some Louisiana conservatives. Monroe, Lousiana-based Blain “Moon” Griffon, the “Louisiana Limbaugh”, as the article calls him, points some particularly harsh criticism toward Jindal:
The Moon Griffon Show describes Jindal as a “tax-and-spend liberal”…Griffon — a 47-year-old salesman-turned-pundit with a knack for nicknames who dresses in khakis, loafers and plaid dress shirts — was so miffed about Jindal that he dropped his Republican Party affiliation last November to “no party”…According to Griffon, Jindal has betrayed conservative causes by not cutting enough taxes and shrinking government.
Perhaps readers more familiar with Jindal and his record could offer some opinion regarding Griffon’s assessment?
Finally, this article from the AP explains how Obama’s defecit projections incorporate extremely optimistic assumptions regarding the economy, tax revenues and defense spending. I consider one part of the article particularly noteworthy:
Obama’s target would place the deficit at about 3 percent of gross domestic product. The GDP is a measure of a country’s economic activity and many economists say deficits during a stable economy should amount to no more than 2 to 2.5 percent. At $1.5 trillion, the deficit would hit a whopping 10.6 percent of GDP this year. Obama’s 3 percent goal would still only lower deficits to ranges similar to those under Bush.
So, after decrying the “reckless” and “irresponsible” spending of the Bush administration since 2006, Obama aims for the illustrious goal of slashing deficits to rock-bottom levels not seen since…the Bush administration. Now, granted that Obama faces a tougher economic climate than Bush, he does merit somewhat lower expectations. However, this tidbit still illustrates the vast multitude of budget-related hypocrisy Democrats have displayed since they regained control of Congress in 2006 (anyone remember all those pay-go campaign promises?…)
Carol Platt Liebau has written a column titled “Sarah Palin’s Problem”. Other than the title, the column is a mostly unobjectionable look at Palin’s public relations faux pas’ (the decision to let Bristol give an interview is the focus). Unsurprisingly, the column drew a lot of heat. Liebau seems puzzled by this. She writes in her blog:
The reaction to my piece, as reflected in some of the comments, has been interesting. It’s remarkable, and a little sad, that many readers interpret any criticism of Sarah Palin — however gentle or well-intentioned — as tantamount to betrayal of the conservative movement.
I don’t find it at all remarkable. The Republican Party has just seen the end of the Presidency of George W. Bush a man who, for all his many admirable qualities, has battered the conservative movement. He has not only embraced agendas and policies hostile to conservatism, but he’s exercised such a gargantuan influence on Republican politics, that most of the major Republican players have been co-opted to his version of conservatism. Few hands are left unbloodied; nearly all have taken up the lash in the service of government largess. To add to our woes, we’re now powerless to combat a radically liberal agenda. A more drastic political collapse can scarcely be imagined.
But, nature abhors a vacuum. If we’re powerless by necessity, we won’t be rudderless by choice. For millions of conservatives, in the absence of any spirited conservative direction, Palin is that rudder. Sure, she has problems of her own, but she’s authentic and confident; two things the modern Republican Party decidedly isn’t. There’s a good bit, in the otherwise mediocre film The American President, where Michael J. Fox says something like “The people are thirsty for leadership, and in the absence of water they’ll drink the sand”. The people who criticize Sarah Palin, occasionally have valid arguments, but they’re missing the point. If perhaps some of Sarah Palin is sand, or muddied water, she’s at least something and she knows it; the Republican Party is practically nothing and it doesn’t. And if folks like Liebau- well-meaning though they may be- want conservatives to take a more critical look at one of our few stars, they ought to focus on irrigating GOP deserts. Then, maybe the folks looking for leadership won’t need to drink the sand.
It’s finally out. The long awaited John Ziegler film “Media Malpractice: How Obama was Elected and Palin was Targeted” has been released on DVD, and I will admit that I am anxious to see it. That said, I’m certainly not giving a full-throated endorsement to this thing just yet. Obviously, I think Mr. Ziegler has a point that the media was in the tank for Barack Obama (every self-respecting Republican, and 18 million Clinton voters, will tell you that). I also think that most people would agree that, regardless of one’s opinion of Sarah Palin, the media didn’t treat her with the same respect they reserve for other candidates, let alone the drooling awe in which they held Obama. I would even say he has a point that many Palin interviews were deliberately made to look far worse than they actually were. I remember my own horror at comparing the full transcripts of the Gibson and Couric interviews with the final TV cuts, because several answers had actually been chopped in such a way as to remove Gov. Palin’s actual answer to the questions, leaving only the introductory and concluding sentences (hence creating the illusion of meaningless babble when the questions had actually been answered in some detail).
I think it should be ridiculously easy for Ziegler to make his desired points. However, based on his own over-the-top performance in interviews, I question whether or not he has the restraint necessary to treat the issue in a fair-minded way. Now, there is a big part of me that thinks the film itself will be slightly better than the promotional effort. For one, I would expect Mr. Ziegler to be combative with the media…after all, he did just make an entire film about how badly he thinks they screwed over the country. Hence, I think he might be a little more level-headed when he isn’t staring “the enemy” square in the face. Secondly, I think there’s a good chance that parts of his performance were purposefully designed to anger the interviewers and trick them into disclosing their biases publicly. For instance, I think played MSNBC’s David Shuster like a fiddle …getting him so mad he flew of the hook, deemed Palin “clearly unqualified”, and accused Ziegler of trying to set her up for a 2012 run (which, if you watch the clip below, Ziegler actually thinks is a bad idea).
So, now that the movie is out, we get to see whether Ziegler is a serious filmmaker or a just a conservative Michael Moore. As I said earlier, I think Ziegler has chosen an argument so easy that it could be credibly constructed by an orangutan with a serious brain injury…so if he messes this one up, I’m going to be really angry.
First, some updates regarding Republican governors and stimulus funds:
Local South Carolina and Florida media outlets report that Mark Sanford and Charlie Crist have provided more detail regarding how they hope to use their states’ stimulus funds. First, Sanford:
A spokesman says Gov. Mark Sanford isn’t likely to approve extending unemployment benefits to part-time workers.
But Sanford has agreed to increase unemployment benefits in the state by $25 a week.
Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer says the governor’s approval for the extra benefits came Saturday. Sawyer says those benefits are temporary but the part-time benefits would have been permanent and the state can’t afford that with a bankrupted unemployment fund.
And next, Crist:
Under his [Crist's] proposal, the state’s universities will get almost $3.6 billion, including tuition revenues, which is about $270 million more than the amount set aside by the current year’s budget, according to Crist’s budget Web site.
The amount includes about $131 million from the economic stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama last week…Crist is expecting $4.7 billion in stimulus money next year and $12.2 billion over three years.
Nothing really shocking here. I just wanted to give everyone some more specifics regarding the stimulus funds. It’s too bad more people in Washington don’t approach the federal budget like Sanford approaches South Carolina’s (Sanford spokesman: “…the state can’t afford that with a bankrupted unemployment fund.”). I, for one, look forward to seeing how Crist’s ardent support for the stimulus will affect his prospects in the future.
RealClearPolitics offers a nice account of how House Republicans plan to control (as best as possible) federal spending by freezing federal agency funding in the upcoming omnibus spending bill. Also included is a nice quote from Mike Pence:
“After a spending spree that included the rest of the banking bailout, a massive stimulus bill, a call for a housing and mortgage bailout — now the federal government is poised for the largest increase in discretionary spending since the Carter administration, with the exception of 9/11[.]“
Consistent with what others on this site have advised, by offering a sensible alternative to Dem proposals, this helps the GOP avoid becoming “the party of ‘no’”.
An insightful blog by Rich Karlgaard of Forbes details how the Washington lobbyist for the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies appraises the situation in D.C.:
It goes like this: President Obama has delegated domestic policy (including economic concerns) to the House. This means Nancy Pelosi, with her Obama-endorsed power and large Democratic majority, is the most powerful House Speaker since Sam Rayburn…In exchange for extreme loyalty, Pelosi delegates wide authority to her House committee chairs.
Finally, continuing with my habit of making frequent posts about Charlie Crist, Erick Erickson at RedState penned a particularly scathing account of the governor. This connects with one of my entries yesterday about George P. Bush publicly blasting Crist. I’m curious to know if residents of Florida or people more familiar with Crist agree with Erickson’s viewpoint.
