At the end of his piece, Matt notes:

And of course, the ramifications this has on the midterm elections are huge. People will wrongly attribute this recovery to the Pelosi/Obama $3 trillion boondoggle, and Democrats will maintain healthy majorities in both houses of Congress. Sadly, the economy still would have recovered even without having to beg other countries to please continue purchasing our trillions of dollars of debt, but now a majority of Americans will never be able to assent to that fact and will reward those who spent us into oblivion.

Not so fast.

Never forget that the public has no idea what it’s talking about. George H.W. Bush was kicked out of office because of the ‘bad economy’ despite the fact that the recession had ended a year before Election Day 1992. In Spring 2007, right as the Dow was closing at 13,000, there was only a nine percent gap between the number of people who believed that the economy was in a recession and the number of people who believed that it wasn’t.

Quite frankly, people don’t understand even rudimentary economics. To the public, a “recession” means “a bad economy” (not that the public is good at evaluating when the economy is doing poorly, as witnessed by that Rasmussen poll that I linked to) and a “depression” means “a really, really, really bad economy.” Economic indicators don’t exist, unemployment figures don’t exist, prediction models don’t exist — quite frankly, I’m not worried at all that the public will not catch on by November 2010 that the economy is recovering. It’s a win-win situation: the economy recovers, but we’ll benefit from the public’s wrongheaded perceptions — just like the Democrats did in 2006.

If there’s one thing that politicians are good at, it’s fear mongering – using scare tactics to gin up support for their policies. It usually comes in the form of “If you don’t [pass my legislation, let me perform this action, etc.], then [something big, bad, and scary] will happen!”

And it’s precisely what both the Bush and Obama administrations are doing with this latest economic crisis facing the country. Back in October, Bush told us that we absolutely had to move faster than we’ve ever moved before to let the government spend $700 billion in order to fix the economy. In his words,

“Our entire economy is in danger… without immediate action from Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold… More banks could fail… The stock market could drop even more… The value of your home could plummet…”

We were told repeatedly that unless we passed the bill that Bush’s Treasury Secretary Paulson had recommended, the world was going to fall apart. No time to discuss the root of the problem, and whether or not the bill solved any of those issues. We just had to act, and act fast!

Well, then comes Mr. Hope and Change himself, and instead of advancing the ideas of hope and change, he follows immediately in Bush’s footsteps. Seeing the economy still turning downward even after the massive Bush bailout plan, Obama asked Nancy Pelosi to write another, even larger bailout plan. And to sell this $787 billion plan to the American public, what does he do? Sells it through fear:

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into catastrophe… The time for action is now, because we know that if we do not act, a bad situation will become dramatically worse… If lawmakers do nothing, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.”

Wow. An irreversible recession! Now that’s fear mongering on a professional level, folks.

I shared with some friends before the 2008 election that I didn’t think fear was ever a good reason to vote for or against someone in an election. I also quickly lose respect for politicians who advance their agendas purely based on fear, like Bush and Obama both did, because fear is all about power and control. If people are scared, they will give you power to make whatever is fearful go away.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a necessity to be honest and transparent in leadership. But what Bush and Obama did is not being honest. Their casting fear just so their particular bill can get passed goes beyond the pale.

But let’s take a deep breath and a step back for a moment, shall we? This recession is bad, no doubt. But it’s not as bad as Bush and Obama are making it out to be.

In the Great Depression, unemployment rose above 25%. In the recession of the late 70’s/early 80’s, unemployment rose to nearly 11%. Now, we’re sitting just over 7%.

In the Great Depression, over 4,000 banks failed. Now, a whopping total of 19 have gone under.

“But it’s going to get worse!” you say. Well, probably, but not very much worse.

Exhibit A: The Federal Reserve predicted last week that during this recession, unemployment will top out at no higher than 8.8%. Bad? Yes. Catastrophic? Hardly. Better than the recession of the late 70′s/early 80′s? Easily.

Exhibit B: According to the latest release of a Fed predictive model (which has correctly predicted the last seven recessions in America) released a couple weeks ago, there is little to no chance we will still be in this recession in the 3rd quarter of 2009, and the 4th quarter at the latest, as this handy graph illustrates:

Exhibit C: The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia released their own predictive model last week showing the same thing – this recession will be over by the third quarter of 2009:

Exhibit D: A survey of leading economists released today shows consensus of the belief that the economy will begin recovering the second half of 2009 and fully recover in 2010.

So relax. Take a deep breath. Don’t let the politicians and the media scare you. We’ve survived far worse than this as a nation before, and we’ll survive this as well.

That’s not to say that we don’t need to make fundamental changes to our economy. We absolutely and simply must stop compiling debt – as a federal government and as individual citizens. The problem is, nobody learns that lesson if you just keep bailing everyone out.

And of course, the ramifications this has on the midterm elections are huge. People will wrongly attribute this recovery to the Pelosi/Obama $3 trillion boondoggle, and Democrats will maintain healthy majorities in both houses of Congress. Sadly, the economy still would have recovered even without having to beg other countries to please continue purchasing our trillions of dollars of debt, but now a majority of Americans will never be able to assent to that fact and will reward those who spent us into oblivion.

Despite the interrogation, Jindal holds up well here.  The first two videos contain the most immediately relevant discussion, but the third might be the most interesting.  After watching that video, can you doubt that Bobby’s at least looking at a run?

One of the great advantages of being born in the late seventies is that we got to witness, first hand, the special effects revolution that took place in Hollywood and have lived to see whether those futuristic predictions, courtesy of Hollywood, actually took place. We were the first to see movies that were supposed to portray “the future” and what the world would look like to us when we were adults.

To a child growing up in the eighties, the year 2000 was a scary idea that seemed light years away. It was portrayed with a menacing tone, especially during the Reagan era, and the Hollywood left loved to scare us. Films such as these were going to be our future. This was the Hollywood vision of where Reagan/Bush was leading us. These films were the warning signs.

Perhaps the best advantage of being born in the late seventies is that we’ve lived long enough to see just how accurate these Hollywood predictions have turned out!

So, without any further ado, I introduce this new feature here at Race42012, which I call: The Future According to Hollywood.

In this series, we shall look back at those films of yesteryear (1980-1994) that predicted doom and gloom in our lifetimes… and we will judge the accuracy, courtesy of Hollywood, of these authoritarian societies which have now become present day America.

Well, since the year is 2009, we’ll start this feature with a film that attempted to portray the world as it would be in 2009: 1992′s Freejack…

(more…)

Republicans have a target for 2010. Quinnipiac University polling has got a poll out:

Connecticut voters split 41 – 42 percent on whether they think Sen. Christopher Dodd is honest and trustworthy and disapprove 48 – 41 percent of the job he is doing, his first negative approval rating in a poll by the independent Quinnipiac University.

A total of 42 percent of voters say they “definitely” or “probably” will vote to reelect  Sen. Dodd  in 2010, while 51 percent say the “probably won’t” or “definitely won’t” vote for him.

By a 54 – 24 percent margin, Connecticut voters say they are not satisfied with Sen. Dodd’s explanation of allegations that he received preferential mortgage treatment and 56 percent of voters say they are less likely to vote for him because of this controversy.

“Sen. Dodd is vulnerable.  His approval has sunk to a new low.  More voters disapprove than approve of the job he is doing for the first time in 15 years of polling,” Schwartz said.  “The mortgage controversy has taken a toll on his approval rating.  Most voters are not satisfied with Dodd’s explanation and say they are less likely to vote for him next year because of it.”

Right now, Dodd doesn’t have a Republican opponent. There are several people rumored to be interested inlculding Former Congressman Rod Simmons (R-CT.) and State Senator Sam Caliguiri are considering a run.  This could be an unlikely pick up opportunity particularly if the economy stays sour and people stay mad at Dodd.

From CNN

(CNN) — They’re on the same team, but the House and Senate Democratic campaign chiefs appear to be looking at different playing fields when it comes to the political environment their party will face in 2010.

A day after Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez predicted big Democratic gains in two years, his counterpart in the House said he doesn’t expect the party will see a “third wave” and would be happy just to “hold the line.”

“If you look at first midterm elections historically, the president’s party loses seats,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, said at a forum in Washington in remarks reported by Politico.

“The historical trend is pretty clear for Democrats,” he concluded.

The president’s party has historically lost seats in a midterm election, especially when that party controls both houses of Congress and the White House. The Democratic Party’s decades-long majority status in Congress ended with the first midterm of the Clinton presidency.

But speaking to reporters Thursday, Menendez discounted that trend, and said he was targeting nine currently held GOP seats, and had an excellent shot at winning many of them given the fact several Republican senators are retiring.

But ultimately, Van Hollen predicted, the fortunes of the Democratic Party will depend on how the country’s flagging economy performs over the next two years.

Actually both Van Hoilen and Menendez both have good points. Van Hoilen is correct as far as the House goes. Historically, the party that holds the White House loses seats in Congress. It can be a minor loss like Bush I the suffered in 1990 (10 Seats), a major loss like Reagan suffered in 1982 (25 Seats) or a catastrophic loss like Clinton suffered.

The Senate is another story. Larry Sabato points out that Senate elections are usually individual elections not subject as much to national moods.  The last two Senate elections in 2006 and 2008 have been exceptions as wave elections for the Democrats. In 1962, 1970, 1982, and 2002 the party in power gained Senate Seats during the first two mid-term of the Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I years. Senate seats were lost in 1978, 1990, and 1994 during the Carter,  Bush I, and Clinton years. So, Menendez is not out of line thinking that Democrats could gain Senate Seats in 2010. The Senate seats more than the House are going to depend on who exactly the Republican candidates are that get recruited.

Republicans do have opportunity. I mean we have four newly minted Democrats Senators who have not been elected by the people of their state, there’s probably at least one vulnerable Democrat out there that Republicans can launch a strong challenge to, but unless you’ve got a national wave, it is a possibility that you could have less Republicans come 2011 than are in the Senate today.

According to James Pethokoukis of Capital Commerce, a new paper from the Tax Policy Center reveals some interesting data regarding taxes and spending:

And to close that gap ["the immediate and permanent increase in taxes or reduction in spending that would keep the long-term debt/GDP ratio at its current level"], Auerbach and Gale says, we would have to cut all government spending by 23 percent or hike taxes by 52 percent.

And for some informative Rasmussen polls…

Democrats may be losing their edge when it comes to voter perception of economic management:

Democrats are still trusted more than Republicans to handle the economy by a 44% to 39% margin, but their advantage on the issue has been slipping steadily since November…In the first poll conducted after Barack Obama was elected president, the Democrats held a 15-point lead over the GOP on economic issues. In December, their lead dropped to 12 points. In January, prior to Obama’s inauguration, Democrats held a nine-point lead on the issue.

Another poll shows that Nancy Pelosi registers the highest favorability rating among Congressional leaders.  However, she also scores much higher when it comes to name recognition:

Pelosi is clearly the best-known member of that group: 92% have an opinion about her one way or the other. Just 75% have an opinion on Reid, a Democratic senator from Nevada, and just over 60% have any opinion on the Republican leaders John Boehner of Ohio and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

I sure hope that name recognition is the main reason respondents rated her most favorably!

Finally, Rasmussen informs us that Obama’s approval ratings have entered a seemingly steady decline, from the mid-60s around Inauguration Day to their current high-50s level.  We can only hope that this provides a harbinger of things to come.

A local Indiana news outlet informs us that Gov. Mitch Daniels will accept stimulus money for Indiana:

While some states are rejecting federal stimulus money Indiana Go. Mitch Daniels said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Indiana will be accepting federal dollars.

Add Daniels into the camp of Republican governors who will (relatively) willingly accept federal funds, along with other prominent members Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  With a small chance of faring well in a 2012 run, thanks mostly to lack of name recognition, Daniels has less to lose politically by accepting the funds than, say, Jindal or Pawlenty.  Still, with experience as Director of OMB and a fairly impressive record on taxes and spending, Daniels damages his potentially greatest asset for a 2012 run: demonstrated fiscal conservatism.

During a Q and A session with Politico, former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour offered an interesting suggestion regarding how the Republican Party can return to power in Washington:

It was certainly unusual that Republicans, in 1992, lost the White House, with our candidate for president receiving the lowest percentage of the vote of any Republican candidate since 1912, and in two years having the majority in both houses of Congress and 31 governors. That is not the norm. But it shows it can be done.

It’s why I tell everybody, don’t talk about 2012. The elections that matter for Republicans are in 2009 and ’10.1993 paved the way for the 1994 congressional election.

This coincides well with a Michael Barone blog I read a few days ago: with Republicans running neck-and-neck with Democrats in generic Congressional ballot polls and Obama maintaining high approval ratings, the GOP would do well by campaigning against Congressional Dems instead of Obama during the midterm election campaigns.  Of course, that will remain relevant only as long as Obama’s approval ratings remain reasonably high.

Hello, everyone!  I’m Anthony Dalke, the new R4’2012 News Editor.  This is my first post on the site, and I’m looking forward to getting to know as much of the community as possible!  If anyone has suggestions for important news topics I do not post, please do not hesitate to email me with ideas (anthony.dalke@gmail.com)!  Anyway, on to the news!

The St. Petersburg times reports that Gov. Charlie Crist has attracted criticism from within the Republican Party for enthusiastically supporting Pres. Obama’s stimulus package.  George P. Bush, the 32-year-old son of former Gov. Jeb Bush, has even jumped into the fray:

“That will be on his track record and people are going to remember that,” Bush said [with regard to Crist's support of the stimulus], noting that Crist is running the risk of falling in the “D light” category of Republicans. “There are numerous actions that I have seen legislatively that do not speak to a strong conservative, it speaks more to a moderate. That’s fine, but when you run as a conservative and then you lead as a moderate, that’s one thing that any leader would have to reconcile.”

As many on this site have speculated, Crist may attempt to run to Romney’s left, as the most moderate Republican candidate, in 2012.  While Crist may have trouble in the Iowa Caucus and South Carolina Primary, if he manages to stay in the race until the bluer states come into play, he could do some damage, especially in some bigger states like New York, Illinois and, yes, Florida.  However, if the stimulus turns into a big flop, Crist will undoubtedly face constant harsh criticism from opponents if he does run in 2012.

This article also reveals that George P. Bush may enter the political scene earlier than many expect, as Bush has in the past indicated that he would like to establish himself in another field (he currently works in real estate) before running for office.  Or, he could also simply see an opportunity to take a public stance that will garner him future support from the conservative base.

Inspired by Attorney General Eric Holder to have frank discussions about race, let us shed any shred of cowardice on the occasion of the House Majority Whip’s racist attack against his home state’s governor and discuss it frankly.

South Carolina’s Republican Governor, Mark Sanford suggested that he might reject certain portions of the stimulus bill due to federal legal conditions that would place a burden on South Carolina taxpayers.

James Clyburn (D-SC) lashed out at Sanford as a “plantation owning slapper of African-American faces.”

The highest-ranking black congressman said Thursday that opposition to the federal stimulus package by southern GOP governors is “a slap in the face of African-Americans.”

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said he was insulted when the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state, which have large black populations, said they might not accept some of the money from the $787 billion stimulus package.

So, opposition to the stimulus is not a slap in the face of whites and Clyburn is not insulted by stimulus opposing Governors of states with small black populations?

“These four governors represent states that are in the proverbial black belt,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn is obsessed with race. He is not alone. Along with abortion rights and weakness on national security, nothing better defines his national Democratic Party than race obsession, even in the wake of the election of Barack Obama.

In fact, the biggest slaps in the faces of African-Americans since the late 1960s have been administered by Clyburns party. Their welfare policies kicked the black man out the house and made Uncle Sam Daddy before Newt and Clinton fixed it in the 90s, only to have Clyburn and Obama’s Dems return to the failed policy via the stimulus last week. They favor Jim Crow-like race-based laws that treat blacks like disabled dependent victims. They oppose school choice laws that would allow poorer blacks to send their children to better schools. Their abortion policies have effected a virtual genocide in the Black community. They carried out a high-tech lynching of a conservative black man when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Clyburn denies he was questioning the motives of the Southern governors. He denies that he was implying they were racist. Yet, wouldn’t poor whites be impacted the same as poor blacks by the proposed policies? Consider Clyburn’s choice of words with respect to the Governor of the Palmetto State:

“He may not need help for the plantation his family owns, but the people whose grandparents and great-grandparents worked those plantations need the help” in the form of federal money.

Plantation owner Sanfords vs. blacks’ grandparents and great grandparents that worked “those” plantations? Sanford is not from South Carolina. Slavery ended in 1865. Great grandparents weren’t alive then? Working in 1903, maybe? Well, they had a job.

But under Clyburn’s rule of his Sixth Congressional Plantation District many don’t have good jobs or good schools, despite Clyburn’s good efforts since his election to the House seat 16 years ago.

Now that is a slap in the face.

The frank truth about race is that it doesn’t matter to most people. Most Americans are beyond race. We understand the equivalence of individual brains and beating hearts under the pigmented dermatosis and that green money affects black and white alike.

Jim Clyburn understands it too, but chooses to slap blacks and whites in the face with racial rhetoric to maintain power over victim dependents. In fact, he and others similarly situated, like John Lewis (D-GA) and Mel Watt (D-NC) must have slapped themselves a bit as they confessed to being shocked that America would elect a black man as President before the election and even backed Hillary or remained neutral early on. Out of touch liberals that demonize whites believed their own rhetoric. So used to disingenuously playing race card against Republicans, Clyburn even lashed out at Bill Clinton for mostly tepid, and completely non-racial criticism of Obama during the S.C. primary.

Of course, the media give Clyburn a pass. He doesn’t have to give three Trent Lott-like apologies. He and his ilk’s pathologies are protected by the drive-bys but not by The Examiner.

No coward here, Mr. Attorney General!

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

Arianna Huffington crosses a line in a big way in her latest Huffington Post screed, where she lists her favorite reader contributions for the “Political Oscars.”

First come a couple of witty ones:

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire
Worst: Bailout Billionaire
(RepugsOut08)

…

Editing:
Best: Elliot Graham, Milk
Worst: George W. Bush, The Constitution
(boatsrwood)

And then comes this, which Huffington thinks is just hysterical:

Performance by an Actor Playing a White Character Pretending to Be Black:
Best: Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder
Worst: Michael Steele, Republican National Committee
(stevemarvin)

Of course, Huffington’s vaunted respect for minorities is been well-established. She’s living cozily off of — and funding her website with — her wealthy gay ex-husband’s cash.

Huffington’s implicit message to blacks, of course, is the same message that I’ve long insisted they send to gays: “We own you.” Disagree with the Party Line and you’re equivalent to a self-hating sellout.

Wake up, black America!

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

This is old news, but unless the rest of you follow pop culture at all, I doubt that you’ve seen this:

Pop star Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana) sued for $4 billion:

The uproar over the Miley Cyrus photo that some Asian groups have deemed offensive has spilled over to the courtroom.

According to court documents obtained by Access Hollywood, a Los Angeles woman is suing Miley over the photograph — for an amount that could add up to over $4 billion.

According to court documents, Lucie J. Kim, who brought the suit against the pop star, claims to represent over 1 million people of Asian Pacific Islander descent in the Los Angeles area. Kim claims that she and others are victims “of [Cyrus’] discriminatory acts.”

Why not just sue for infinity million dollars or something?

Of course, the suit will be thrown out, but it’s just one more piece of evidence to throw onto the heap representing America’s outrageous lawsuit culture.

Oh yeah — here’s the $4,000,000,000 photo (Cyrus is the one in the center):

Listening to our new President’s bank and American free enterprise killing words of late reminds me of Roberta Flack’s 1973 box office hit, “Killing me softly with his song“:

Strumming my pain with his fingers
Singing my life with his words
Killing me softly with his song
Killing me softly with his song
Telling my whole life with his words
Killing me softly with his song

I am struck by how perfectly Flack’s phrase, “strumming pain”, fits President Barack Obama’s governing style. This decidedly un-FDR, un-Reagan affirms no confidence in the ability of the American people to right the economy (nor even a passion that it be righted) and sees no vision of a Shining City on a Hill. No only should we fear fear, itself; the only thing we need not fear is the Shining Obama behind a teleprompter.

Rather than allow Americans to relieve their own pain, he prefers to strum it as the chords that provide an ongoing opportunity to fundamentally change America.

I heard he sang a good song
I heard he had a style
And so I came to see him
To listen for a while
And there he was this young boy
A stranger to my eyes

The Hope and Change song and “cool” style gave life to his campaign to make the young stranger President of the United States. Obama is still cool, but his latest solos and Geithner duets kill all that they serenade.

Was President Obama guilty of attempted murder or reckless homicide against Bank of America last week with his hints of a possible “Swedish” bank nationalization. He has since backed off, but the damage is done. Why would anyone buy BofA stock now? CEO Ken Lewis had the bank’s stock back on the upswing despite being forced to buy toxic Merrill Lynch and take federal funds before Obama’s slip. Was it intentional? Bank of America made a profit last year. It pays it bills. It makes money. Yet, it gets labeled “underwater” given the low value of its stock assets as compared to its liabilities. But it makes money and pays its bills, so does Obama want BofA to be owned by the USofA?

Strumming my pain with his fingers
Singing my life with his words
Killing me softly with his song
Killing me softly with his song
Telling my whole life with his words
Killing me softly with his song

Telling our whole lives with his words and still strumming the pain. Yes, he wants to tell the banks how to live, but doesn’t stop there by a long shot.

Home loan borrowers before 2003 shall help irresponsible such post-2003 borrowers who have a right to stay in “their” homes (even if they paid little or nothing down and haven’t made payments in months) make their payments. Obama wants Bankruptcy judges to be empowered to re-write mortgage contracts, so wedded is he to these special 2003-date borrowers. Does he understand that he is abrogating two of the most fundamental underpinnings of American prosperity in one fell swoop, i.e. the right to contract and the rule of law? But remember, he wants to “fundamentally change” America. You know, the America that is the most prosperous in the history of the world.

Does he understand that such a change would mean that most all future mortgages would only be written by his government and that every foreclosure would be on the taxpayer? Does he understand that the federal government would be seizing American’s assets right and left? I think he does.

There is another group that he tells how to live via his stimulus bill: the unemployed. Don’t worry about getting a job. Obama killed welfare reform as we know it. Obama will take care of you while you volunteer for ACORN.

I felt all flushed with fever
Embarrassed by the crowd
I felt he found my letters
And read each one out loud
I prayed that he would finish
But he just kept right on

Strumming my pain with his fingers
Singing my life with his words
Killing me softly with his song
Killing me softly with his song
Telling my whole life with his words
Killing me softly with his song

Obama is keeping right on by halting the process to expedite leases for offshore oil drilling, bankrupting the coal industry and calling what you breathe out “pollution” so that the government can dispense with puny stimulus bills and bailouts and just out and out tell all businesses how to live, as he kills them. He’ll really have some pain to strum when Boston returns to wood stoves for heat and is as smoggy as 18th Century London.

He sang as if he knew me
In all my dark despair
And then he looked right through me
As if I wasn’t there
And he just kept on singing
Singing clear and strong

(Repeat Chorus)

Turn off the American free enterprise killing music and sing your own song in your Representative’s and Senators’ ears. Instead of letting Obama and the Dems fundamentally change America, let’s fundamentally change where they go to work in 2-4 years.

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

Due to the recent stimulus bill and a number of reactions by GOP prospects, I think there are a few major changes to the most recent list.

1) Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney retains the top spot in the rankings for the same reasons; his financial advantage, his organizing ability, his economic expertise, and his runner-up status from 2008.  This time, the governor will be able to apply his resources to organization and message instead of introduction. Michael Steele’s more inclusive ideas at the RNC will also help broaden the party, which will likely help the more centrist leaning candidates, Gov. Romney being the strongest among them. The upcoming failure of Obama’s stimulus plan and the ensuing hyperinflation could, on the one hand, give Romney a great economic issue to lead on. However, a millionaire CEO, even a great one, will be a tough sell to the growing populist mood in the country.

2) Bobby Jindal – Gov. Jindal has been the favorite of many, but unless his decision to run for reelection in 2011 changes, I can’t see him turning around in 2 months and organizing Iowa and NH.  However, the Governor is truly the brightest of the young GOP stars, and is quite possibly the smartest politician in the country.  His recent decision to refuse a portion of the stimulus money shows that the young Governor has much more than reelection in mind. With more money in his war chest then any previous Governor in state history, it seems Gov. Jindal intentions are leaning more towards a presidential bid then another term as governor.  With Jindal slated to give the GOP response to Obama’s address to Congress, expect the buzz to only grow around his 2012 potential. He can more easily capture the new populism growing in the country, and also challenge Romney directly on health care and economics.  His recent actions suggest he is Gov. Romney’s principle rival for the nomination.

3) Charlie Crist - Speculation that Florida’s very popular governor is considering a Senate run moves him up several spots on this list.  Crist is wildly popular and will walk into the Senate untouched if he chooses to run.  A successful 2010 campaign in an always important state will draw national attention for the emerging GOP star.  Orginally I believed no one could come at Romney from the left in 2012, leaving the social conservatives to side with Palin and Huckabee. Now, I believe a Senator Crist could make that run possible from Mitt’s left, much like McCain, and become a serious contender. Also, Gov. Crist benefits greatly from Michael Steele’s new direction at RNC, and Crist is likely to be a major player in helping diversify the party, as he enjoys support from traditional democratic groups such as African-Americans and Hispanics. 

4) Sarah Palin - Governor Palin’s media blitz has died down some after a furious few months. Thats either a sign thats she is not serious about a run, or that she is very serious about a run. The emergence of several other GOP governor’s with national ambition from Jindal  to Crist have knocked the Governor of Alaska down a few pegs.  They are all talented young leaders, but only Palin is tainted by 2008. Plus I don’t think Tina Fey could do a convincing Jindal impression. Still, Palin is the best bet to be the firebrand populist outsider who can run against the bailouts and Washington. She is burdened, however, by Gov. Huckabee in a way the others, like Gov. Crist, are not.  

5) Mike Huckabee - Mike Huckabee was the surprise of 2008. His humor and charm garnered him some of the best media coverage of any republican, and his evangelical support made him an early surprise contender.  The media will take a harder look at him next time around, and his evangelical support is no longer a sure thing with Gov. Palin and other social conservatives in the race. I also think his t.v. show works against him.  Its not a good way to be taken seriously.  If he wanted to stay relevant without hosting a variety show, then he should seriously consider running for Senate in Arkansas in 2010. Defeating Sen. Lincoln would certainly win him many more friends than any t.v. show could provide. 

6) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative, pork-hating Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford is a rising star, but may be hurt by some bad economic news in his state.  The Obama stimulus plan is a perfect target for Sanford, but not if his state is losing jobs hand over fist for the next several years. However, the economic climate will likely help Sanford become a major player in 2012. South Carolina’s position on the calendar and historical importance will make it tougher to dodge, and the more socially conservative candidates won’t be able to avoid SC after the more moderate New Hampshire primary proves unsuccessful for them.  Sanford is a very skilled politician, with a key state in hand, and with a record that can both appease the base and attract Libertarians and moderates. 

7)  Jon Huntsman Jr. – Very smart, very rich, successful business man, governor, and Mormon. Where have I heard this before??? The governor of Utah will likely have an early problem with the far better known Gov. Romney. However, the Utah Governor seems to be taking early steps to avoid some of Romney’s mistakes and to avoid last-minute flip-flopping. He most recent position-flops on civil unions and a trip to South Carolina clearly demonstrate the Governor’s 2012 interests.

8 ) John Thune – Senator Thune is the most likely member of congress to get the GOP nod in 2012.  He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years.  His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. It seems more and more, however, that the next GOP leader will come from outside D.C., harnessing most of the populist anger that is building against Washington bailouts. Thune’s bailout vote could be to the GOP what the Iraq vote was to Senator Clinton in the primaries. Still, expect the senator from South Dakota to top everyone’s VP list in 2012.

9) Newt Gingrich – 2012 could be the return of an old reliable in the form of the former Speaker of the House. Gingrich has reformed his image somewhat, from the polarizing figure of the mid-90s to the idea-man of American Solutions.  A ‘New Contract with America’ could be a big vote getter and help the former Speaker control the debate.  At age 69 in 2012, however, he may be too strong a symbol of the past for a new generation of voters.

10) Tim Pawlenty – Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message.  I imagine T-Paw’s  Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters.

(more…)

Two schools of thought exist regarding Ronald Reagan. One venerates Reagan as the pinnacle of conservatism, whose legacy holds the key to Republican renewal. The second suggests his legacy belongs in the same category as Ghostbusters, valley girl accents, and Wacky WallWalkers: a thing of the past irrelevant to modern politics.

Both positions are flawed. Reagan’s life certainly teaches important lessons for conservatives to learn. Those who diminish the greatness of his accomplishments don’t know what they’re talking about. He played a huge role in the fall of Communism and did more to advance conservatism than any other president. Consider: when Reagan began his Presidency, the top marginal tax rate was at seventy percent; when he left, it was at twenty-eight percent.

However, in the hands of Reagan’s greatest fans, Reagan has become more than a great man. He has become the political equivalent of Barbie: an ill-proportioned, unrealistic figure by which we measure candidates for office. We will always find them wanting in comparison to our image of Reagan. Not even Ronald Reagan himself could measure up to the standards of the myth.

What is the proper view of Reagan? Five realizations will put this great man and his life in the proper perspective:

1) Reagan won’t be reincarnated as the next leader of the GOP.

This ought to go without saying, but it doesn’t. I repeatedly encounter folks who expect history to do an exact rerun, who argue someone can’t be the next great conservative leader based on a difference in personal background. One argument even insists Sarah Palin complete a second term as Governor before running for President because Reagan did. The irony: Reagan didn’t. He ran for President in 1968, after two years as Governor.

I have news for such folk: Reagan is not the Republican version of the Dalai Lama. No one becomes a great leader by mimicking the last great leader. Reagan didn’t become Reagan by attempting to be the next Lincoln. The next great conservative President will bring his (or her) own unique experiences, personality, and style to the White House.

2) Reagan was not the perfect conservative.

As President, he agreed to several tax increases. Two of his four appointments to the Supreme Court (Kennedy and O’Connor) disappointed conservatives time and again. He signed the 1986 Immigration amnesty. Some of the concessions he offered the Soviets angered conservatives. Reagan endorsed the 1993 Brady Bill.

Looking back at the gubernatorial days, in 1975, Reason Magazine enumerated many of Reagan’s breaks with conservatism during his eight years as governor: increasing sales tax, massive increases in public school funding (105%), state funding for junior colleges (323%), and grants and loans to college students (900%.) Fetal rights advocates (i.e. pro-lifers) should add concern with Reagan signing a bill liberalizing abortion.

I say this not to bash Reagan, but to point out perfect Conservatives are mythical. Search for a deviation from conservative orthodoxy to use against a political leader, and you will find it. To expect perfection from our political leaders does violence to common sense. To invoke Ronald Reagan turns him into Hercules-or Superman if you prefer.

3) Reagan was a Conservative

Rush Limbaugh once declared President Bush was conservative, but not a conservative. The distinction seemed odd, but thinking about it years later, it makes sense.

Bush held overall conservative political views, but Bush’s conservatism didn’t define him. He didn’t enter politics over concern about the growing size of government or the culture of death. He entered politics to serve his state and his country, with a policy program being secondary.

Reagan, however, was a conservative whose involvement in politics was spurred by his political beliefs and his desire to change the direction of the country, in both domestic and foreign policy. The reason most conservatives think so little of Reagan’s flaws is that he truly came to Washington to lead a conservative Revolution. Despite his failures, conservatives see Reagan as one of them.

The upshot for conservatives: if you want real conservative leadership, look for someone whose conservative ideals are fundamental to their political life rather than incidental.

4) Personality matters.

How good was Ronald Reagan at attracting Democratic voters? Future Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich voted for Reagan. Twice. Blagojevich didn’t become a conservative because of Reagan. Heck, he wasn’t even a moderate. So why did he vote for Reagan? Reagan made people feel good about their country again, with warmth and optimism.
In recent years, I’ve had to abandon the view that personality should be irrelevant when choosing a political candidate. While a candidate’s principles are extremely important, without the personality to connect with the American people and to effectively wield the presidency, it doesn’t matter what your principles are. You won’t have the ability to act. Now, charisma alone is also not enough to elect a candidate. Bill Clinton had good personal favorability ratings, but didn’t produce any lasting accomplishments for Democrats due to other failings in his character.

That said, I’d rather have a candidate that I agreed with most things on, who had the right personality and style to be a successful president, over someone who agrees with me on everything, but whose campaign will go nowhere because the candidate’s style is off-putting to the average American.

The best political leaders are a combination of strong character, solid principles, and a personality that connects with the American people. Conservatives must look for the strongest combination of these three when choosing a leader.

5) Act as if America’s best days are ahead of it.

When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be I will face it with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.

I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.

Ronald Reagan’s last letter to his country, upon finding out he had Alzheimer’s, brimmed with optimism for this country. Today, conservatives need to rediscover this optimism about our country’s future. Too many live in the past and its victories, and limit our present horizons. Telling people that America’s best days ended twenty years ago is not Reaganesque. It’s a sure-fire way to demoralize your base.

We need to look forward, not backwards. We must be guided by a long-term conservative vision that’s appealing and hopeful. Reagan’s ghost cannot win elections or fight battles for us. To be successful today, we must learn from the past rather than living there.

I like Sarah Steelman. Really I do. I think she has a bright future both in Missouri and nationally.  But this is the exact wrong thing for Sarah Steelman to do.

“Roy Blunt is another white guy in a suit..”

If Sarah Steelman wants to avoid the reputation of a spoiler who costs her party governorships and senate seats then she should think long and hard about challenging Roy Blunt, especially with this kind of harmful rhetoric.

Look I understand her frustration, and she is right about certain aspects of Blunt’s career. But we are facing the most popular democrat family in the state, and we will need the most powerful and well organized opponent to beat them, and that simply isn’t Sarah Steelman.

Steelman runs the risks of burning so many bridges that any chance of becoming Secretary of State, Governor, or challenging Sen. McCaskill will be destroyed.

Roy Blunt may be a good ol’ boy, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Sarah Steelman can’t win this fight.  So rather than be a stubborn spoiler, do what is best for the party, and the party will remember it. If Steelman steps aside now, she will have a great future and will likely find her way to the senate and beyond. If she continues this divisive rhetoric, she will instead become the blonde Ross Perot of Missouri, and be held responsible for yet another Democratic gain that was avoidable.

Just an FYI: I’ve been taken on board at the Independent Gay Forum, which is headed by Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution and the National Journal. Other contributors include Andrew Sullivan, David Boaz, Bruce Bawer, and Congressman Jim Kolbe.

Aside from the comments section, where I’ll reply to people, I will not have original content on the site — it serves only as a venue for writings to be redistributed — but if anyone’s interested, they can go ahead and check it out.

An idea I put out on my blog last Friday is getting a little play over at RedState today, with one guy saying he liked it and another calling my thinking “boneheaded” and suggesting that we “purge it from the GOP”. So, I figure I’ll re-post the original column here, and then we can rip it apart and decide what we think.

—

Draft Cao for U.S. Senate

I watched today’s stimulus vote very closely – not because the outcome interested me (everybody knew the monstrosity would pass), but to see how which Republicans decided to break ranks. Actually, I was really only watching one vote in particular, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-Louisiana). Most political junkies will remember Rep. Cao as the giant-killer who took out scandal-ridden Rep. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson on his way to becoming the first Vietnamese-American Congressman in history. He was an instant hero for the otherwise humiliated GOP, but there were a few problems…which is why this post was not written months ago.
(more…)

CQ has the scoop on what could become the next in the (unfortunately) long line of Congressional scandals.

Apparently, approximately 100 House members directed nearly $300 million dollars to clients of a single lobbying firm in a 2008 Defense appropriations bill. The bill was ushered through the House by none other than Rep. John Murtha who, incidentally, just happens to have close ties to the firm in question, The PMA Group.

The PMA Group, BTW, just happened to have its offices raided by the FBI in connection to an ongoing investigation into improper campaign donations to Rep. Murtha last week.

Scandals come and scandals go, of course, but this one is likely to be one of the more outrageous and impactful ones.

One of the many reasons to be excited by Michael Steele’s election to RNC Chair is his deep commitment to closing the technology gap that exists online between the GOP and the Democratic Party.

To this end, Steele convened the GOP Technology Summit last Friday and asked that Republican strategists and the grassroots come together to brainstorm ideas that will not only bring parity, but transcend the Democrats’ advantage in online organization, fundraising, and messaging.

It is very important that each conservative engage in this process and contribute their ideas to this effort. Our party’s (and our movement’s) future depends upon our ability to evolve, grow, and engage online.

There are many ways that you can contribute your thoughts and ideas in this critically important effort.

First, sign up to become a member of the online community that has been created specifically for this purpose, the Official GOP Tech Summit Workgroup.

Secondly, join the official Facebook group and invite all of your conservative friends to join as well. You can also tweet both of theses URL’s and post them to your Facebook status.

And finally, actually get online and start contributing your insight to the effort!

James Antle, writing at the American Spectator takes on the suggestion that Mitt Romney lost because of anti-Mormonism and makes the case that Romney instead lost because of being perceived as a flip-flopper. The test of whether Evangelicals are really anti-Mormon or just anti-flipflopper, Antle has a better suggestion:

That’s why Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has always been pro-life, might be a better test of evangelical willingness to support a Mormon presidential candidate than a formerly pro-choice, pro-gay rights governor of Massachusetts. On the other hand, Huntsman might have even bigger problems among secularists. Romney’s Massachusetts residence and Bain background gave him some distance from anti-Mormon stereotypes that will be difficult for a Utah governor to achieve.

I think Antle is making a mistake and is misreading Jon Huntsman. I think there’s clear evidence to suggest a Huntsman run, but I think Evangelicals aren’t even a big factor in Huntsman’s mind. Huntsman is concerned about more secular voters and is working on blasting these stereotypes away:

Here is a sentence you probably never expected to read: Utah’s governor supports civil unions.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a spokeswoman said Monday, backs Equality Utah’s Common Ground Initiative, a legislative effort that would provide some rights to gay and transgender Utahns. Even more, the Republican governor favors civil unions.

It’s a position that runs counter to his political party and against the majority of Utahns — 70 percent of whom oppose civil unions, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll.

“He’s long supported many of the ideas that are presented within the Common Ground Initiative,” said Lisa Roskelley, the governor’s spokeswoman, noting her boss waits to endorse specific bills officially until presented to him in final form. “He supports civil unions.”

It’s doubtful Huntsman’s backing will lead to civil unions getting past the conservative Legislature. And it may not help the rest of this year’s gay-rights legislative push, which already has shrunk from four bills to two.

Huntsman position has nothing to do with advancing the current issue and represent a major flip flop. What it has to do with is winning the 2012 election. And what does supporting Civil Unions have to do with winning Evangelical Votes? Nothing at all. What’s Huntsman game?

First, the official theme music:

(more…)

This is sort of inspired by MWS’s post a few days ago, where he articulately made the case for tax increases to balance the budget and pay off the debt. But, I didn’t see him use (and I apologize if I’m mistaken) what is perhaps an even more classically conservative rationale for higher taxes: namely, that when we run deficits, we shield voters from the costs of services.* Conservatives make this sort of argument all the time in other spheres. For instance, we’ve argued that a health care system which pays for services, instead of quality, shields individuals from the cost of those services. In such a system, individuals have little incentive to seek out bargain health care or to use services sparingly. Similarly, we’ve argued that a certain sort of welfare system-one not tied to work-shields individuals from the value of services. In short, conservatives routinely argue against infantilizing citizens.

But, isn’t it equally infantilizing to allow voters to continue to push for increased government spending- expansion of services and the like- without directly showing them the costs of such services? If government spending increases, and you don’t see a hit to your pocketbook, aren’t you more likely to support future government spending? Yes, yes deficits and debt lead to inflation, decreased wealth etc, but we can hardly expect a voter to say “Oh, I have less money now, because a decade ago the government spent money on a new economic development program without charging me for it”. Even economists have a hard time making linear connections like that. By running deficits, you’re essentially telling every citizen that they can vote for additional goodies, free of charge.

In fact, it seems to me that our current predicament is simply a natural result of a political climate where one party absolutely refuses to raise taxes, and the other absolutely demands increased spending.  Voters will demand that Republicans not let Democrats raise their taxes, and they’ll demand that Democrats not let Republicans cut spending.  I’m sure game theorists have some thoughts on this.  How about you?

*MWS notes that he did mention this argument. He wrote: “If you really want to cut spending, make people pay for what the government is spending. If you want to shrink the government, make the voters actually pay for their government. Stop the free ride.”

While I admire Alex for his persuasive opinions demonstrated in After 9/11: Worldview vs. Worldview, he failed to address the large hole that resides in the middle of the neo-conservative agenda he outlined: the need to reduce the power granted the executive office. George Washington stated that “the constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

While the goal of pre-emptive war is noble, in the end, one has to take into account the ways in which that war is initiated. In short, no man or single branch of government should have the power to carry out a war upon a nation or group. It flies in the face of conservative and federalist principle. Many of our great minds warned us of the kind of sweeping authoritarian agenda that the Bush Administration sought. If one wants to lead this nation into pre-emptive war, then he must not have the ability to do so alone.

That is too much power for any one man to ever grasp and is also an abandonment of Federalist principle. Those whoc declare themselves such, and yet follow totalitarian philosophy do so at the risk of compromising those standards with which they hold themselves to. No one should have the power to become another Nixon, who (as Fred Thompson eloquently stated) “abused the umbrella of National Security” when his actions were not in the best interests of national security.

An article recently published by Hoover Institute states:

The bush administration’s legal strategy in the war on terror has been deeply flawed. Because of its interest in establishing powerful precedent in favor of executive powers, it took bold positions that carried substantial risks of judicial repudiation and failed to obtain legislative endorsement at times of political opportunity. As a result, the Supreme Court said on two occasions that the president was acting illegally, confirming an impression that he was a rogue operator outside established law and popular opinion. The lesson for future administrations seems clear. First, recognize that we live in a time of much more activist courts even in the era of foreign affairs. That fact may be bemoaned, but it cannot be ignored, and the reality of their possible interventions must be factored into strategy from the outset. Second, rely more on Congress than on courts, particularly when the president enjoys support in the initial states of conflict or his party controls Congress.

It is the executive power to persuade from a position of strength rather than formal legal powers that is the president ’s greatest asset

According to Gene Healy of the CATO Institute, it was resentment over Watergate that led to this ideological shift of some. M. Stanton Evans declared, at the time, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.”

Healy notes that:

By the ‘70s, prominent conservatives had begun to see the executive as the conservative branch, and set to work developing a conservative case for the Imperial Presidency. In November 1974, National Review featured a cover story by Jeffrey Hart, “The Presidency: Shifting Conservative Perspectives?” Hart began by noting the “settled and received view” among American conservatives, who “have been all but unanimously opposed to a strong and activist presidency.”

That conservatives were willing to strengthen the powers of the presidency even when the office was occupied by their political enemy shows principle of a sort, but it’s unclear why it’s a conservative principle. Far more than liberals, conservatives recognize the imperfectability of human nature, and, taking man for what he is, have generally supported restraints on the concentration of power. Russell Kirk was no libertarian, but on this point, he and most of the postwar conservative movement stood with Jefferson: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”

Goldwater, one of our staunchest Cold Warriors, still recognized that:

We hear praise of a power-wielding, arm-twisting President who “gets his program through Congress” by knowing the use of power. Throughout the course of history, there have been many other such wielders of power. There have even been dictators who regularly held plebiscites, in which their dictatorships were approved by an Ivory-soap-like percentage of the electorate. But their countries were not free, nor can any country remain free under such despotic power. Some of the current worship of powerful executives may come from those who admire strength and accomplishment of any sort. Others hail the display of Presidential strength … simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means…. If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.

-Barry Goldwater, 1964

It was a point brought up during the 2007 primaries by Fred Thompson:

Thompson agreed that he didn’t share the views of Vice President Cheney when it comes to the supremacy of the executive branch.

“No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that,” he said. “The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it’s divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power.”

Thompson described checks and balances as “a constant tug and pull. Controversy and differences of opinion over legitimate national security concerns is not a bad thing. Every branch needs to stand up for itself. And I saw that as, in effect, an attorney for the executive branch, and then as a legislator.”

Thompson said he sides with the Bush administration in its struggle with Congress over “issues of surveillance,” but he suggested in some of the cases on detainees that have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court he sides with the Congress.

From CATO:

The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking.

I am not refuting the need to carry out the War on Terror, but the need to highlight the ways in which the government, our government, conducts it. While the Cheney/Gingrich (who unsuccessfully campaigned for the repeal of the War Powers Act) model is bold and forward thinking, it should not come at the expense of the original intent of our founders. I don’t trust politicians with the power to act alone. It is a basic piece of the foundation of conservative/federalist philosophy.

As Healy again stated:

Our outsized conception of presidential responsibility has driven the growth of presidential power. Only by reducing those demands can we restore the presidency to its proper constitutional place: a modest office with modest powers.

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” -James Madison

I’ve met many of you before, but considering that “Race 4 2012 Contributor” is a new role for me, reintroductions are probably necessary. My name is Adam Brickley, formerly of the blog “Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President” and currently the proprietor of “The Brickyard“. However, anyone who’s been around this site for while probably remembers me better as “Palin for VP!” from the comments section.

First off I’d like to thank Kavon for the opportunity to post here. I’m extremely excited about the chance to interact with the other poster, as well as what I consider to be one of the best comments sections on the internet. Seriously, you guys are fantastic – and as a Palin-promoter, I should probably thank you for your  contributions our efforts. The people at R4’08 were an invaluable resource, as you  were willing to take the idea of a Palin candidacy seriously long before anyone else did. Even those of you who weren’t thrilled with Palin were fantastic, as you usually had the best anti-Palin arguments before anyone else did, which helped us stay ahead of the curve with responses (and then we used you as guinea pigs for those responses, which meant you came up with even better anti-Palin stuff for us to work with).

Hopefully, we will have many more good discussions in the future, and hopefully I will find some common ground with those of you who may have locked horns with me in the good old days. Obviously, I am a rabid Palin supporter, and will probably compete for the title of “most vocal Sarah-bot on  R4’12″. However, the 2012 primaries are a long way off, and there are a multitude of other issues I want to talk to you about. When you boil it down, most people here are on the same team, no matter who you might like in any particular race. If you’re a die-hard Romney or Huckabee supporter, I think you’re still supporting a good man, a good Republican, and a much better option than Barack Obama. So, here’s hoping that we can generate some good ideas together.

If you haven’t read my stuff before, here’s a brief primer on what to expect. First, I’m a firm believer in the “great man” (or woman) theory of history, so you’ll probably see a lot of focus on personalities that I think have the potential to advance our cause. Whether it’s David Cameron in England, Stephen Harper in Canada, or Anh “Joseph” Cao in Louisiana, I think there are a lot of people breaking new ground in conservative politics, and we will never rebuild the GOP if we don’t learn from as many examples as  we can. Second, I’m not afraid to occasionally pursue ideas that may sound a little crazy at first blush (Heck, I promoted a relatively obscure Alaskan governor for two whole years). I’ve always loved flirting with the fine line between genius and madness. So, if you catch me trying to draft a first term Congressman as a primary challenger to powerful Republican Senator, I’m not off my rocker – that’s just how I roll.

I’m looking forward to learning from all of you, and hopefully you’ll be willing to join me on a few of my wild flights of political fancy. This is going to be a fun ride, so buckle up and let’s get this show on the road.

In politics we often speak, rightly, about the need to expand coalitions and draw in new voters. Despite the claims of some ideologues, this is never accomplished through more robust ideology. Conservatives do not win over centrists because they’ve articulated increasingly conservative policies (though, they may win over centrists while articulating increasingly conservative policies). Instead, coalition expansion almost uniformly occurs through something very much like triangulation, though the type of triangulation may vary from election to election. By triangulation I simply mean the marrying of some element of conservatism to some element of liberalism, or vice versa. Compassionate conservatism was thus a type of triangulation- it married liberal rhetoric and strategy (compassion and activity in government) to some conservative ideals (accountability). This particular triangulation involved a meaningful, though not drastic, shift to the center on policy, but major center-wards shifts on policy are by no means a requirement of triangulation.

Both the Reagan Revolution in the early 80′s and the Gingrich-driven Republican Revolution of 94′, were driven by conservative policies, married to liberal goals and conceptions. Conservatism under Reagan and Gingrich was revolutionary, populist, and active, all of which are traditionally liberal impulses. Conservatism historically is interested in stability, authority, and passivity. Bush won by convincing some of those interested in compassionate and active government, that a certain brand of conservatism was better at this then liberalism. Reagan and Gingrich won by convincing some of those interested in revolutionary, people-oriented, active government, that full-boat conservatism could better provide those qualities. All three men were doing essentially the same thing, and if Bush had to compromise ideologically in a way that Reagan and Gingrich didn’t, it’s because Bush faced an electorate less amenable to Republican persuasion. You can see similar Democratic triangulations (Clinton’s marrying of conservative impulses of limitation and stability to watered down liberal policies, parallels the Bush triangulation nicely). Triangulation is a staple of elections.

But, if it is common practice, it nonetheless presents uncommon difficulties, the chief of which is this: it leaves its practitioners with no natural foul-weather defenders. To see why this is so, we must consider what I take to be a central fact of political behavior: in order to defend or embrace a policy, at least one of two factors must be in place. 1.) We have to genuinely agree with the ideas and impulses behind the policy. 2.) We have to be invested in the fate of those implementing the policy. The first is, to some extent, changeable from one election cycle to the next and it is what drives candidates to attempt serious triangulation in the first place. It is taken for granted that there is a certain set of fungible voters in the middle, who can be convinced through various mixtures of conservative rhetoric/ideals and liberal rhetoric/ideals. The second is of more durable consequence (less changeable) and it is what allows some candidates to succeed in triangulation. It is taken for granted that there is a certain set of non-fungible voters who, for historical and practical reasons, are invested in the success of a particular party/ movement. In short, when everything is going swimmingly for a party, they convince middle voters through a triangulated mash of conservative rhetoric/ideals and liberal rhetoric/ideals, and hold and excite their base through party/movement loyalty.

Now consider what seems to be an obvious problem with this sort of set-up: the voters in the middle will only defend and embrace this triangulated mish-mash, for as long as they accept the impulses and ideas that animate it. Because these impulses and ideas were not their impulses and ideas, in full, but rather something they were convinced of during one election cycle, these voters depend heavily on the results of the agenda, to determine their future preferences. This clashes heavily with what I take to be a central fact of existence: the nearly inevitable deterioration of confidence when an untested ideal meets with reality. When a candidate runs a campaign, on an at least mildly new agenda, they have the advantage of not having done anything. Obama’s new universal health care system has not been put in place. No one can yet have grievances against it, and a less then fully informed electorate does not have the necessary tools to marshal or accept all the possible grievances, ahead of the fact. It is an ideal, that cannot easily be combated- lacking, as we do, whole or even partial analogies- until it’s been implemented. This is taken as almost a staple in poli-sci literature-that incumbent parties, no matter how powerful, ultimately fall out of power because as time passes enough groups accumulate grievances against the party or agenda, that a simple “I’m not X” will do for the opposition, in a pinch. If this is true, we’re then left in a curious situation: many of the voters who we’ve tailored our triangulated mish-mash to suit, the voters in the middle, will almost inevitably drift away from the standard, while the voters who have an interest in our party’s success (the base voters) will find that they’re trying to defend a mish-mash they never truly accepted, indeed that they don’t even possess the language to defend. This has happened repeatedly in the last few decades.

Gingrich convinced Republicans that they needed to be activist, revolutionary and bold, and as the middle drifted away (the voters in the tent most inclined towards those sorts of priorities), base Republicans discovered that bold, revolutionary activism wasn’t really their thing, and they groped helplessly for the conservatively rooted language necessary to defend such ideals. George W. Bush convinced Republicans that they needed to be compassionate and activist, and as the bloom came off the rose (as ideal failed to meet reality), base Republicans found themselves- with a sense of bewilderment- defending a Big Government, Missionary conservatism they had never articulated. But, the debate over the war in Iraq illustrates the most striking example of this sort of difficulty. George Bush initially framed the decision to invade in terms of near-immediate security, something the conservative impulse can latch onto. But, as time passed, to broaden support for the war, Bush began to talk of spreading Democracy and a potentially transformed Middle East. This became the central argument for war when we failed to find WMD’s. But, it was an idea distinctly non-conservative in origin (as commenter MWS has pointed out), and as the war deteriorated, and as the middle (who had maybe been attracted to that Wilsonian framing) drifted away, base conservatives were pressed to defend and embrace a fierce interventionism in which they had no ideological stake.

In short, triangulation all too often leaves those who’d most naturally defend a party (because they have a stake in its success or perceived success) ill-equipped (and none too happy) to do so, while those to whom the triangulation had been tailored- and therefore its most natural defenders- don’t have enough stake in that party’s success to defend its agenda, as sweet idealism clashes with bitter reality. What we need then is triangulation that turns the second set of voters (the middle, who possess the language and ideals necessary to defend the triangulated mish-mash) into a sub-set of the first group of voters (the base, who have an incentive to defend the party’s policies). Whether such a triangulation is possible- and what it might look like if it was- is the subject of another essay.

Yesterday in Denver, President Barack Obama signed the much ballyhooed 1079-page government-growth-ulus bill that neither he nor Congress had time to read before enacting it into law.

As one of their We the People bosses, Gamecock suggests a group reading on the order of the “reading the Bible through in a year” programs or public library book clubs. For instance, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library is in the middle of a community read of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” just now.

Would that all that needed to be killed in this alleged economic “stimulus” bill were a single bird.

The bill more resembles a pig giving the American people the finger. Most of the negative publicity for portions of the bill that Republican opposers revealed has been pork, but this War and Peace length tome contains many more significant plot twists and turns than mere Bar-be-que fodder.

In order to read the bill through before New Year’s Day 2010, beginning on Monday, February 23, 2009 we would have to read only 24 pages per week. I would suggest that one read five pages per day on weekdays and spare yourselves the torture of possible ruined weekends.

To compare the burden to Bible readings, my KJV version of Holy Scripture is 1291 pages long, requiring the reading of a mere six pages per weekday beginning next week.

But while you will encounter no six-day creations nor parting of Red Seas, you will discover the respective resurrections of the Great Depression-causing Smoot-Hawley II (Buy America provision requirement on all federal contracts) and Welfare as we used to loathe it.

You will marvel at the miracle-like 30% growth in the welfare state, the saving of state and federal government jobs that your taxes will have to pay for and the creation of greenie extremist lawyer and bureaucrat jobs to kill private sector jobs via environmental impact studies and lawsuits for small animals.

There will be no building of Towers of Babel, Tennessee Valley Authorities nor Hoover Dams, but you will see the exponential growth of babbling government meddlers in your business to the tune of 300,000. That is 295,000 more than Christ fed with his loaves and fishes.

President Obama and his bosses Pelosi and Reid are busy people with busy “work” trips to, respectively, rescue mortgage scofflaws in Phoenix, compare notes on socialism in Paris and study Las Vegas-Hollywood high-speed rail lines for idle rich boondoggles. But what happens in D.C. and Denver must not stay in D.C. and Denver.

We the People rule here. Let’s read the handiwork of our employees together. But let us write the final chapter:

Fire the lot of them that saddled us and our progeny with this burden and elect new yea/nay voters that will repeal the monstrosity.

________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Gov. Jindal has stated that Louisiana may not accept all or most of the money available to it, despite the state’s estimated $4 billion budget shortfall:

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, has suggested his state may not be interested in all of the roughly $4 billion allotted to it in the economic stimulus package to be signed by President Obama today.

“We’ll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it’s beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars,” Jindal said, according to CBS affiliate WWLTV.

Jindal is scheduled to give the response to the president’s not-exactly-a-state-of-the-union address next Tuesday.

Louisiana reportedly faces a possible $2 billion budget shortfall next year. It has been allocated $538,575,876 for infrastructure spending in the stimulus package, and the White House predicts the bill will create 50,000 jobs in the state.

Hat-tip: MWS

If you’re looking for a House in Utah or Massachusetts, have I got a deal for you:

(CNN) — He has been estimated to be worth in excess of $250 million, but former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney may just be belt-tightening along with the majority of Americans.

Romney, the former business whiz and governor of Massachusetts, is looking to unload two of his four mansions, collectively valued in the currently-sour real estate market at close to $10 million.

The more expensive of the two homes is a 9,500 square foot cabin on 11 acres in Deer Valley, Utah, listed at $5.25 million. The property comes complete with 9.5 bathrooms and is entirely furnished with custom-made furniture. The real-estate Web site Zillow.com describes the 10-year-old ski cabin as the “perfect retreat” with “several gathering areas [that] provide enough space for lots of family and/or guests.”

Also on the market is the Romneys’ chief residence in the posh suburban Boston neighborhood of Belmont, where most home prices run well into the millions. The Romney house, which comes with a tennis court and 2.5 acres of land, has yet to be listed, though the Boston Globe estimates the price will be set at $3 million — $1 million less than what the home was worth 2 years ago.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, said the moves are not an indication the nation’s flagging economy has affected the Romney family.

“Now that the children are all grown with families of their own, the Romneys have too much space and are downsizing and simplifying,” Fehrnstrom said.

The former governor is still holding on to a large retreat on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire and a recently purchased $12 million home in La Jolla, California. Fehrnstrom also told CNN Romney plans to buy a condominium in Boston.

“They want to maintain Massachusetts as their official residence, but it will be an apartment-size dwelling,” he said. “Massachusetts is where the Romneys raised a family, where Mitt Romney started his business and where he was governor for four years, so they have an emotional attachment to the state and many friends there.”

With a crashed real estate market, it seems like a heck of a time to be unloading houses, simplification or not. Romney may just not have confidence that the market is going to bounce back any time soon. The proceeds could help provide seed money for a 2012 campaign effort. Romney’s assets are tied up in Stocks and Real Estate and it’s hard to imagine a better asset to sell than houses you don’t want anymore.

I also have to admit some curiosity as to the state of Romney’s wealth. CNN’s estimate of the Romney’s wealth here is $250 million. That’s actually a figure we heard during the campaign. Estimates by the media for Romney’s wealth during the last Presidential campaign ranged from $190-$500 million, with the consensus between $250-$260 million. Given that Romney’s wealth is in growth stocks and real estate, that figure would fluctuate from day to day. However, if Romney was worth $250 million before he put down $40 million of his own money during the Presidential campaign, in the current market, he could have lost quite a bit. We won’t know how much until/if he has to file financial disclosures again. He may not be able to afford to provide near as much support to a 2012 effort as he did in 2008.

I also think that the desire to maintain Massachusetts as an official residence means rumors of Romney seeking an office in California or Nevada can pretty much be put to rest at this point.