To be fair, the following data is in regard to the Bush-supported ‘stimulus’ of 2008. But if this ‘stimulus’ didn’t cause long-term changes, I’m not convinced that Obama’s larger stimulus was any different.
From University of Michigan economist Mark Perry:
Another policy response was the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 passed in February. The major part of this package was to send cash totaling over $100 billion to individuals and families in the United States so they would have more to spend and thus jump-start consumption and the economy. Most of the checks were sent in May, June, and July. As would be predicted by the permanent income theory of consumption, people spent little if anything of the temporary rebate, and consumption was not jump-started as had been hoped.
The evidence is presented in the figure above. The top line shows how personal disposable income jumped at the time of the rebate. The lower line shows that personal consumption expenditures did not increase in a noticeable way. As with the earlier charts, formal statistical work shows that the rebates had no statistically significant increase in consumption.
~From Stanford professor John Taylor’s paper “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Responses: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong” (HT: Lee Coppock)This is a good example of the Policy Ineffectiveness Proposition, which suggests that “governments are powerless in the management of output and employment in an economy.”
______________________________________________________________
You can contact Ben Hodge through his Web site, on Facebook and on Twitter.
The jihad at home, America. It’s happening in mosques all around the country.
Educate yourself:
Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer
While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer
The al-Qaeda Reader, edited by Raymond Ibrahim
Militant Islam Reaches America by Daniel Pipes
Islamic Imperialism by Efraim Karsh
Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
Their Courage
Their courage deems utmost respect
Their mission clear, our way protect
It’s sure to each what they must do
No give or take, keep freedom true
With the grand old flag, they’ll unite
Whenever they must, march to fight
A life we know counts hard on them
Without their ranks, hellish problem
If our Armed Forces ceased to be
How long could we survive as free
Let’s well realize the truthful score
We need our troops just like before
Boils down to this, words to engrave
Land of The Free, Due to The Brave
God Bless each one for being there
Their loved ones too, unending care
Hope born from love touches the will
Do back them strong, means to fulfill
Americans – Who Serve To Give
One Nation – Under God We Live
by Roger Robicheau
In recent weeks, Republicans have been engaging in lots of back-slapping and head-nodding over the notion that former Vice President Dick Cheney has somehow managed to ensure that President Obama’s uppance will finally come due to the veep’s direct and forthright confrontation of the president with regard to national security. Because delusions, however pleasant, annoy me, I am compelled to intervene. Let’s take a look at some poll numbers to see if Dick Cheney really is, as a conservative friend of mine put it, the savior of the Republican Party.
A May 2009 poll on the subject finds that Dick Cheney is supported by 37 percent of Americans. Meanwhile, President Obama continues to enjoy the support of 60-65 percent of Americans.
Relatedly, a recent poll shows that 39 percent of Americans support the policies of congressional Republicans. Meanwhile, President Obama continues to enjoy the support of 60-65 percent of Americans.
Probably not cooincidentally, 35 percent of Americans believe that President Obama is moving the country in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, President Obama continues to enjoy the support of 60-65 percent of Americans.
Anyone notice a trend here? Anyone? Bueller?
I don’t think it’s too great an intellectual leap to presume that the same 35-40 percent of Americans who oppose President Obama are also the ones who support the policies and worldview of Dick Cheney and the Boehner/Cantor Republican congressional crowd. Meanwhile, the remaining 60-65 percent of Americans have said goodbye to all that and are perfectly happy supporting the president and his policies. That makes the GOP the nation’s largest minority party.
The nation hasn’t seen this sort of chasm between its two major parties since the early 1970s, when President Nixon defeated George McGovern in a 61-38 percent rout. The problem that Republicans are facing today is comparable to the one that Democrats faced then — a damaged brand, no sense of purpose, and, probably most importantly, a base whose worldview is so far removed from the concerns of the average American that the other party becomes the default choice for most middle class, middle of the road voters. In Grand New Party, Ross Douthat argues that the Democrats ceased to be relevant to average Americans in the 1960s and 1970s by becoming the party that refused to find solutions for or sometimes even acknowledge the core public policy concerns of the era. One example cited by Douthat was crime. While rising violent crime imperiled America’s major urban areas during the ’60s and ’70s, the leftist Democratic establishment seemed deaf to the cries for help from the average cloth-coat voters who once supported the party of Truman. Legislators, who increasingly answered to an ideological left-wing base, concentrated on figuring out what the “root causes” of crime were while criminals terrorized innocent citizens. Democratic judges made matters worse by tying the hands of law enforcement. Eventually, enough was too much. Nixon may have been a crooked jerk, but at least he wasn’t a Democrat. The average cloth-coat American gave the finger to the defunct party of FDR and started voting Republican because at least Republicans understood there was a problem and were willing to do something about it.
The same analysis could be applied in reverse in today’s environment on a number of issues. Republican public officials, knowing that they’re answering to the voters who would gladly give up a Senate seat by nominating the unelectable Pat Toomey over the highly electable Tom Ridge, remain unwilling to anger their core constituents by actually addressing Americans’ primary concerns. And thus only Obama and the Democrats are proposing real, tangible solutions to Americans’ woes, including the economy, health care, etc. Americans’ analysis of Obama is probably similar to their analysis of Nixon that I summarized above. Obama may be a collectivist nanny-stater, but at least he’s not a Republican.
If the party of FDR and Truman had proposed real, common sense solutions to the crime problem and other issues four decades ago, perhaps the Democrats wouldn’t have spent several decades in the wilderness. Similarly, if the party of Reagan would do the same regarding the concerns of Americans today, Republicans may still be able to change the course of history, which appears to be heading towards a very short election night in 2012.
I was doing a little surfing on some state-level blogs in my home state of Colorado – and I found an interesting tidbit from last week that seems to have gone largely unreported in the national press. Apparently, Colorado district court judge Christine Arguello confirmed in an intereview with a local paper that she was being vetted for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, that story is a few days old, but I think Arguello’s name is worth bringing up for one very specific reason: President Obama is facing pressure from a lot of people to appoint a person who meets specific criteria in the areas of demographics, experience, age, attitude, etc. The laundry list of “requirements” is almost nauseating to read – and almost impossible to find embodied in one person. This is why I’m intrigued by this woman – because up to now, she is the only candidate who meets all of the “qualifications”.
Female? Check. Hispanic? Check. Under 55? Check. Lengthy experience outside the courts? Check (only a District Judge since late last October, previously a tenured law professor, a top aide to Ken Salazar, and a counsel to the University of Colorado). Intellectual heft to satisfy Obama’s desire for an academic? Check. “Empathy” for the working class? Check (daughter of a railroad worker, family lived in a boxcar for a while during her childhood).
To top it off, Arguello could be shopped as a “bi-partisan” choice, as she was appointed to her current position by George W. Bush in the last days of his administration. Granted, that probably had more to do with getting her through the Senate, as Bush had specifically chosen not to renominate her earlier in his term (Bill Clinton had nominated her for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and her nomination was still pending when Bush took office).
Her ties to Ken Salazar may also help – as Salazar has himself been agressively pushed for the nomination by Hispanic groups and his fellow Coloradoans. However, as there is an even stronger push for a woman to take the seat, Salazar will likely be unjustly pushed off the short list due to his ownership of a Y chromosome. Arguello gives Obama a chance to tip his hat to both the Hispanic community and Salazar personally while still nominating a woman.
I would also say that her lengthy experience in non-judicial positions, and the fact that she does not sit on a circuit court (a qualification emphasized by several senators) gives Arguello a distinct advantage over the other Hispanic woman being mentioned for the job – Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. And last but not least, Arguello graduated from the same law school as President Obama – if that means anything.
Now, it’s entirely possible that Arguello struck out in the vetting. There could be problems we don’t know about, or the administration could have decided that her views aren’t what they are looking for. However, they have been implying that they are looking at potentially surprising nominees, and at first glance, Christine Arguello looks like their dream candidate.
So, you heard it here first – and while the rest of the world reacts in shock to Judge Arguello’s nomination, we at R4’12 can say that we were watching her all along.
Gingrich 2012 is in full-gear.
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Lately, my growing work schedule has prevented me from being more active here, but after returning home from 7 hours in the car today, I stumbled across this bit of news and wanted to comment.
The press really needs to lay off Mel Gibson. Idiotic bloggers, such as this one for Eonline, are so quick to judge Gibson harshly. Quite frankly, they seem to be foaming at the mouths to take a potshot at the man whenever a chance comes up.
It is too easy to label Gibson a hypocrite, and it is also lazy and underhanded. For the record, Gibson and his wife have been seperated for over three years. From the Perth Sunday Times:
In a formal response to his wife’s divorce petition filed, Gibson said the couple had been separated since August 26, 2006
According to statements made by attorney, both he and his wife had gone their seperate ways in August of 2006. Since that specific date, Gibson has met someone else, and is now expecting a child. Of course most readers, and the bloggers who follow the details of the private lives of the famous devoutly (I am not among them), have no clue what goes on behind the doors of Gibson’s house.
What it comes down to is this… how can one be labeled a homewrecker in this situation, when most of these same writers do not add the “homewrecker” to each article they write about Angelina Jolie or Penelope Cruz (or whoever it was Tom Cruise divorced Nicole what’s her name for)? These same writers don’t foam at the mouths to trash the behavior of a Brad Pitt at every opportunity.
No, Gibson is an easy target for them because they have found some of his remarks offensive or contrary to their own world view.
If that was not enough, the Eonline article goes on to label Gibson as an old man who chases young skirts:
I think I could probably be into it if he signed onto an indie flick where he plays a creepy, middle-aged weirdo and flaunts the fact that he’s no longer the goofy Hollywood star from Lethal Weapon.
Considering the fact that Gibson’s current girlfriend is about to turn 40 years old, while he is 53… that’s hardly creepy, when it comes to Hollywood standards. In fact, Harrison Ford is 22 years older than fiance, Calista Flockhart… and who cares about old Woody Allen these days?
1. Obama: “We’re out of money.”
2. Charlie Crist: “Let there be no doubt – I am a fiscal conservative.”
3. Jerry Seinfeld, in episode 78, “The Marine Biologist.”
Jerry: Hey ya know what I read the most unbelievable thing about Tolstoy the other day, did you know the original title for “War and Peace” was “War–What Is It Good For?”!
No, no.. I’m not kidding, Elaine, it’s true, his mistress didn’t like the title and insisted him change it to “War and Peace”!
Elaine: But it’s a line from that song!
Jerry: That’s where they got it from!
This 30-ish guy is momentarily feeling like I’m a lot younger and hipper than I am.
While I write this, I’m listening to Switchfoot on iTunes on my new $40 Kensington bluetooth wireless headphones with the help of a $20 tiny bluetooth 2.0 USB adapter that can be permanently left in the USB port:
One the themes of life that didn’t really begin to sink in until a few years ago for me, with much help from sites like the Club for Growth and Mark Perry, was the fact that 98% of meaningful progress is due to technology; and that 98% of technology is developed by the private sector. Quite literally, government and government programs that “do things for us” are virtually inconsequential, in the long run.
Or is it just a coincidence that he’s heading to Iowa and New Hampshire?:
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has scheduled trips to Iowa and New Hampshire next month, fueling talk that the former chairman of the Republican National Committee may be eyeing a bid for his party’s presidential nomination in 2012.
But Barbour dismissed such speculation Friday, saying any Republican who was looking past races this year and 2010 “doesn’t have their eye on the ball.”
“I don’t know if I’ll even be alive in 2012,” Barbour said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Besides, I’ve told everyone I know that every Republican ought to be focused on governors’ races in 2009 and the 2010 elections, where 36 governors and the entire House will be on the line.”
In other words: yes, he’s interested.
Quite frankly, he doesn’t have a chance. As Matthew E. Miller pointed out, he came straight out of central casting: a well-fed old white guy from Mississippi is ready to take on the nation’s first black president! And, as Max Twain pointed out, he’s on record as saying that he’s the father of the art of lobbying. Lovely. Thanks but no thanks, Governor Barbour.
Tim Pawlenty – 99%
He’s running, he’s been running ever since McCain put him on the short list, and with Huntsman in China and Crist headed to D.C., Pawlenty will step into their void with not only the ability to win over moderates but with far better conservative credentials, all wrapped up in a blue-collar package that has won him two-terms in a blue state that even Reagan couldn’t win.
Potential VPs: John Thune, David Petraeus, Bobby Jindal, Jack Keane, Tom Ridge
Mike Huckabee- 99%
Has Huck ever stopped running? I’m surprised he didn’t announce his run at the 2008 convention. The guy has never stopped campaigning, his TV show is basically a glorified weekly campaign ad, and he is already headed to Iowa for a book tour. Huck is in, and in many ways, he was never out.
Potential VPs: Tim Pawlenty, John Thune, Tom Ridge, David Petraeus, Jack Keane
Mitt Romney – 95%
Mitt is in, and he is gaining the backing of the congressional establishment more each week. He seems to be the guy gaining the most favors with candidates across the country, and like Huckabee, has never seemed to stop campaigning. I know some feel that if Obama seems unbeatable that Mitt won’t run, but I doubt that scenario. Decisions to run for President need to come 2 years out, and it’s impossible to determine that far out what the eventual position of Obama will be. This is what i call the ‘Cuomo Rule’, which is if you have the chance to run, no matter how bleak the polls, you take the chance. If Cuomo had run despite Bush 41′s high numbers, he would have been President. Eventually the economy turned, Perot entered, 41 forgot how much milk costs, and the country turned to the last clown standing. When the chance comes, you run, let the polls be damned. The only reason Mitt is not as much a mortal lock as T-Paw and Huck is because of Anne’s multiple sclerosis, and there is no way to be sure what her condition will be 3 1/2 years out. Unlike silky John Edwards, Mitt is clearly devoted to Anne, and would give up anything and everything for her, and that includes his presidential ambitions.
Potential VPs: Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, John Thune, Tom Ridge
Sarah Palin – 90%
She is another one who seems to have continued campaigning endlessly. With a book due out in 2010, and an army of devoted Sarah-worshippers, she is in. Palin seems to have multiple potential motives, from wanting to prove her critics wrong, to avenging her family, to wanting to actually serve the country, to wanting to make some big money. All are plausible reasons for her to enter, but which reason motivates her will likely decide the outcome of a bid. If she is in to sell books it will be obvious and she will fade. If she is in just to spite the media, it will likely backfire. However, if she comes in with a team of elite operatives and a staff worthy of a serious campaign, having done the preparation needed at this level, and goes on to prove herself in interviews and debates, then her candidacy could move from punchline to serious threat.
Potential VPs: David Petraeus, Jack Keane, John Thune
Since Obama has been inaugurated he hasn’t had a single figure with the stature and knowledge to take him to task for his bad decisions.
This last week that has ended as former Vice President Richard Cheney has criticized the President’s weak policies on terrorism and the handling of terrorists.
The President has listened to good sense on releasing more images that could put our troops in danger. He’s also quickly walking away from a “truth” commission as he’d not like what came out of it. On Gitmo he’s being a bit more stubborn. He may think he can take on the public on this one but the Democrats in the House aren’t as anxious to touch this hot potato.
Perhaps they’re afraid of what would happen if one of these enemy combatants was released from a prison within the United States.
I appreciate Cheney finally offering a corrective to a media that acts as the President’s propaganda wing.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Forrester can be contacted at starvingecongradstud@hotmail.com or on Facebook.
It’s Memorial Day weekend, so let’s remember the brave men and women who have risked it all to keep us safe. Thank you for your service to your country! We wouldn’t be where we are without it!
Tim Pawlenty- 95%
He’s taken on the responsibility for unilaterally trimming 2.7 billion in budget, which would make for Minnesota’s first decrease in spending, in real terms, in….well, decades. He recently ostentatiously vetoed a 400 million program to provide health care to folks making under $8000 dollars a year. He’s acting fairly peculiarly if he wants to try to become the first 3-term Governor ever, of a state that voted for Obama by 10 points.
Potential VPs: Jindal
Mike Huckabee – 90%
He desperately wants to be President and he’s polling about as well as any GOP’er in the primaries and the general. He continually declines to run for the Senate, an inexplicable move unless he has something more significant planned.
Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty
Mitt Romney- 85%
Unlike Alex, I don’t think a Romney run is a lock. I think, of all the major candidates, Romney’s the most likely to be scared away by a seemingly “unbeatable” Obama. Romney isn’t one to believe in his ability to, through sheer force of will or through providence, overcome impossible odds. If Obama looks unbeatable, Huckabee will run anyway, just like he continued running after Super Tuesday. Romney will at least weigh his options.
Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty
Mark Sanford – 75%
Sanford’s doing all sorts of highly visible things and he’s making a compelling case for his candidacy. Plus, the libertarian niche is wide-open. Still, a few years ago he swore he’d never run for office again, and he doesn’t exactly seem to burn with ambition. It makes sense for him to run but, as with luminaries like Tom Coburn, he may just not want it.
Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty
John Thune – 70%
There’s always some Senator running; he seems the most likely player.
Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty
Sarah Palin – 65%
How does she get together a capable team when only 5% of the GOP establishment thinks she’s our most promising Governor? She has an incredibly narrow window to prove that she’s a different candidate, and it’s hard to imagine her pulling that off with a cadre of Alaskan advisers. I suspect she knows this and it’ll weigh heavily on her decision.
Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty, Huntsman
Newt Gingrich – 50%
Like I’ve said before: if Gingrich runs, there’s an even chance he’s just playing stalking horse for Bobby. He has no chance of becoming President; he must know this.
Potential VPs: Jindal, Pawlenty
Haley Barbour – 30%
He’s received grades of C and D from CATO the last 4 years. After agreeing to a cigarette tax hike, he’ll probably be in the D category for the second straight 2 year window. Governors like Pawlenty and Sanford are demonstrably more conservative than him on virtually score. Is there really room for another Southern fiscal moderate/liberal? But, yeah he probably wants it.
Jon Huntsman – 20%
Unlike Alex, I think this pretty much rules Huntsman out. There were a cadre of Weaver moderate type advisers ready to help Huntsman put together a run. They’ll be looking elsewhere soon. Also, it’s hard to imagine Huntsman spending less than 2 years in China.
Bobby Jindal – 20%
If Newt’s a stalking horse, maybe.
Jeb Bush – 5%
No.
Potential VPs: Dick Cheney
Charlie Crist – 5%
No….no.
Potential VPs: Rob Simmons, Richard Simmons
All the rest: Who cares?
Mitt Romney – 99%
Is there any question that Mittens is in?
Barring unforeseen family matters, he’s running. He’s been writing up articles, showing up on television, appearing on conservative radio shows, keeping his PAC running smoothly, and remains an active Republican voice. He’s got the support of the establishment at this point, and, quite frankly, 2012 is his last chance. He’s an ambitious man and he very well could win the nomination — which, like the 1992 Democratic nomination, may be worth having after all.
Potential VPs: Jindal, Huckabee, Thune, Whitman, Cantor
Mike Huckabee- 92%
If Mike Huckabee doesn’t run, it will only be because he thinks that it’s better to wait. Hey, he’s young — why fight Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney for the chance to run against an incumbent? But waiting is risky. Even assuming that President Obama is re-elected in 2012, more religious leaders will inevitably emerge in the interim. And it’s pretty hard to sustain your profile for a full decade. Huckabee has a high-profile media gig and remains an active voice for religious conservatives. The probability of him not running seems ridiculously low. He also needs a split primary to win the nomination, so he’ll probably just hope that Palin fizzles out early. Huck’s in.
Potential VPs: Romney, Jindal, Sanford, Thune, Kyl, Cantor, Ridge
Sarah Palin – 88%
Now this woman is a novelty. She’s got legions of adoring fans ready to crawl over shattered glass for her, and she needs to tap into that energy before it goes away. She’s young and needs time to mature, but who cares? Not her. Not her fans. Certainly not the media. You can’t blink, man. It’s probably 2012 or never for Palin. She’s going to need to get re-elected governor by a landslide (which is likely), get a host of credible foreign policy hawks on her team, and she’ll be good to go for a credible run.
Potential VPs: Giuliani, Romney, Sanford, Perry, Ridge (Her dream VP would be Petraeus, but keep dreaming, Sarah)
Mark Sanford – 85%
Sanford has emerged as one of President Obama’s most vocal critics on spending policy. Think that’s an accident? Already a favorite of the libertarian right, he’s endeared himself even more by getting on board with the Tea Party crowd. Make no mistake about it: Sanford is going to run as the outsider, take-no-prisoners free marketeer. The big question mark is whether he’s willing to shift right on foreign policy to appease that plank of the party. If he manages to win the nomination — which isn’t completely crazy — might he want to tap a Giuliani type as VP? Hmm…
Potential VPs: Thune, Giuliani, Kyl, Crist, Ridge
Tim Pawlenty...
We may have had our first “as good as” declaration for the 2012 race today. If an interview with a Minnesota program, Pawlenty said the following:
I think if people are going to re-elect somebody to a third term as governor, whether it’s me or somebody else, they’d expect there’d be a commitment that you’d serve out your term and I think that’s a reasonable expectation.
He also said he expected to make a decision “this summer”:
So that either I have enough opportunity to run and run a vigorous campaign and present my ideas to the people of Minnesota or somebody else does.
Whatever you thought about Pawlenty’s likelihood to run before this, does anyone seriously think that he would pledge to serve out a full-term (until 2014), two months after he won a huge budget battle which made him a conservative hero of sorts, with glowing praise from Grover Norquist and the Wall Street Journal, and nearly 40 months before the Presidential election? It’s a laughable idea. Jindal, Barbour and Crist don’t seem likely to run, so he’s far and away the favorite among current Governors, in establishment circles. And he lives next door to the state with the first primary. And he’s a clear VP possibility for any Republican nominee. But, he’s going to pledge to sit around Minnesota until 2014, in the summer of 2009? Not in this universe. We have our first candidate for President, ladies and gentleman.
I’m surprised that no-one here has picked this up yet – but since I already have a reputation for being overly fixated on Louisiana’s 2010 Senate race – I might as well be the first. As of yesterday, adult film actress Stormy Daniels is the proud owner of an exploratory committee – the first official step toward becoming a candidate against Senator David Vitter in 2010.
Now, anyone who reads this blog knows that I have a strongly stated position on that particular race. But for the moment, let’s set aside my favorite Congressman and look at Miss Daniels’ candidacy in and of itself – because I am becoming more and more intrigued by the political phenomenon surrounding her. Personally, I highly doubt that she will be the next Senator from Louisiana – but I’m starting to think that she may be more of a political force than most of us are expecting.
While most coverage of the Daniels has been lighthearted and filled with double entendres, there is one person who seems to be dead serious – Stormy Daniels herself. If you’ve actually listened to any of her recent interviews, she’s actually talked a pretty good game. She says that she refuses to be a joke candidate, and that she really isn’t interested in making a fool of David Vitter. Instead, she’s attempting to genuinely respond to a surprisingly successful draft movement – and is willing to get in the race if the people want it.
While the “Draft Stormy” people may have wanted a circus, there’s a chance that they picked the wrong girl and now have a serious candidate to deal with. In all honesty, while Daniels’ occupation disgusts me, I’ve been genuinely impressed with her handling of this situation. And, were she not a porn star, I would say that she seems like a smart, relatively well-spoken, and thoroughly electable individual. Furthermore, she has done some genuinely admirable work toward keeping adult materials away from American children – so she is indeed a concerned citizen who doesn’t seem to be running on an ego trip.
Much remains to be seen about how this candidacy will unfold, and we don’t even know what party she will be running for (she’s been mentioned for the GOP primary, but I think she might go with a Jesse Ventura/Kinky Freidman-style independent campaign). However, I think there’s a decent chance that Stormy Daniels will be far more interesting than expected. We may all be laughing now – but from what I have seen so far, Stormy Daniels may just have what it takes to wipe those arrogant grins off of our judgemental, elitist faces.
I’m not saying that she can’t make a fool of herself – she can – nor am I saying that her pornographic activities won’t make it extremely hard for her – they most definitely will. However, I WILL say that she has outperformed expectations up to now – and that aside from her occupational decisions – she would be exactly the type of grassroots, anti-establishment, self-made candidate that I would typically support.
So, were she to run as a Republican and put out a decently conservative platform (I’m obviously thinking she’ll skew libertarian, but that’s not really a bad thing) – she may meet more open ears than she expects.
Considering her opponent’s reputation and the lack of other Republican challengers, there might even be a small – and I do mean SMALL – chance that she might be able to win my endorsement. And that’s not coming from a pro-porn libertarian – that’s coming from a devoutly religious mainstream conservative.
So, Stormy – you’ve got my attention. Now let’s see if you can win my support. If my candidate of preference stays out of the race – there’s an off chance you could get it.
—-
Oh…and in case I haven’t already given the comments section enough flame-bait – I’ll use the words “Senator” and “Joseph Cao” in the same sentence. For reasons that are beyond me, that always seems to generate quite a ruckus.
The Republican Party, that is. The school is no longer recognizing the College Democrats:
Liberty University says the College Democrats can no longer be recognized as an official club at the university because their principles are anathema to the school’s Christian doctrine, and the club misled the school.
“It’s a symbolic thing,” said school President Jerry Falwell Jr. “These are great Christian kids, I sit with them at ball games, they mean well, but they’re not doing what they said they were going to do when they formed.”
He said they promised to stand for pro-life, pro-family causes and to work to move the Democratic Party in that direction, but have instead supported pro-choice candidates anathema to the school’s Christian beliefs.
I’m not going to argue the merits of this; as a private university, Liberty University can do what it wants. You have to wonder why any Democrat would want to attend the institution in the first place, however.
It’s political war these days between the two major political parties, and recently most of the battles have ended in wins for the Democrats. But this past week has seen a remarkable come-from-behind triumph in Minnesota where the lone standing Republican statewide officeholder, Governor Tim Pawlenty, snatched an unexpected victory from the jaws of lip-smacking Democrats (called locally Democratic-Farmer-Laborites or DFLers) who control both houses of the state legislature.
Although this feat may not be duplicated in other states, demoralized GOP partisans across the nation are likely to take inspiration from this bold coup de guerre by the two-term conservative governor who vowed, even in the severe current recession, not to raise taxes.
Here is the background to this turning-point series of events: Pawlenty was elected to his second term in 2006 by a plurality when the Independence Party candidate took enough votes from his DFL opponent gave him the win for the second straight election. In 2002, Pawlenty won his first term under similar circumstances. Also in 2002, Republican Norm Coleman won a U.S. senate seat over Walter Mondale, a last-minute DFL candidate who replaced incumbent DFL Senator Paul Wellstone who had died tragically a few days before the election in a plane crash.. Nationally that year, President George W. Bush was at the height of his popularity following September 11. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and one house of the Minnesota legislature. Republicans also held most of the other statewide Minnesota offices that year. By 2006, however, Republican fortunes were in clear decline in this state and across the nation.
Norm Coleman’s senate re-election race is still not resolved seven months after election day, and Pawlenty had become an isolated figure in state government. Last year, his veto of a major transportation bill was overriden. In 2005, the governor and the legislature had come to a stand-off on raising taxes, a partial shutdown of state government followed, and an unpopular special session was called in which the governor agreed to increased “fees” to balance the state budget (although these fees were seen as actually new taxes, and the governor’s reputation with conservatives took a dip). The 2008 election brought new defeats to the state GOP, and to Republicans across the nation, accompanied by a popular new liberal Democratic president and an even larger lead for Democrats in the Congress. Talk a significant new income taxes to respond to the sharp current recession has been commonplace and new federal taxes are expected to be passed.
In Minnesota, DFL legislative leaders argued over how large the tax increases would be, and who would pay for them. It was expected that most of the taxes would fall on those with highest incomes and on businesses. But the DFL legislature (in its hubris?) went a further step, and decided it would propose tax increases across the boards. Pawlenty vowed none of them would get past his desk. Probably short of enough votes to override most of his vetoes, DFLers angled for an end-of-session showdown, assuming Pawently would have to compromise on the tax issue to avoid another very unpopular special session. Trying to paint Pawlenty as someone not facing reality, the DFL put maximum pressure on the stubborn governor.
Then Pawlenty dropped a political bombshell.
Invoking his constitutional powers, Pawlenty said there would be no new taxes and no special session, If the DFL did not cut spending to his liking, he would use his power of line item veto and the little used executive right of “unallotment” to balance the budget unilaterally. The legislature, if this happened, would not be able to override the governor, and his new budget would automatically take effect.
DFL leaders cried foul. The DFL speaker of the house (and the DFL’s leading candidate for governor in 2010) whined that the governor was trying to “bully” the legislature. Other DFLer screamed and hollered, but as one statewide political newsletter, Politics in Minnesota, proclaimed it: “Point, set and match” for Pawlenty.
On Monday night at midnight, the current session ended. The DFL majorities defiantly passed legislation to balance the budget by raising significant new taxes. The governor then stated he would veto the legislation and keep his promise to balance the budget himself, and not call a special session.
The dimensions of Pawlenty’s action are not yet visible, but it is a rare and potentially huge victory for those who want reduce the size, influence and financial cost of government. The line item vetoes will cut welfare aid and entitlements to many groups, and cut government aid to the arts and other special interests which had come to expect increased government help before the recession hit. The unallotment is likely to dramatically alter past funding assumptions.
Pawlenty’s cuts will be unpopular with some voters, most of whom always vote for the DFL. Most importantly, Pawlenty’s actions will likely be perceived, and opinion polls so far support this, as a necessary and good thing by many independent voters and taxpayers who have come to believe that the state’s income taxes and fees are already too high, especially in an economic recession where individual net worth has been diminished by lower home real estate values and the lower stock market on which IRAs and pensions are based.
The DFL leadership has seemed to be living in a pre-Ronald Reagan liberal fantasy where voters and taxpayers expect and even welcome higher taxes to pay for ever increasing state services, welfare (and now for recession deficits). Pawlenty’s coup would seem to bring this policy reverie to an end with a political thud.
In 2008, Pawlenty was the finalist with the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to be John McCain’s vice presidential running mate. Then a fresh face nationally, with obvious communication skills, an attractive working class background, and conservative credentials, he was reportedly keenly disappointed he was passed over. But it may have been a blessing in disguise. With his unexpected triumph on the tax issue in Minnesota, he could easily become the poster candidate for a Republican rebirth of economically conservative principles nationwide. Keep an eye on developments in Minnesota.
-This article appears courtesy of The Preludium News Service. Copyright (c) 2009 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please visit Barry’s personal website, The Preludium News Service.
Watts says after considering his options with his wife and family, he decided now is not the time to make a run for the state’s highest post.
“I have observed with great interest and pride the progress my state is making under the bold and innovative leadership of the state legislature. Nothing would give me greater joy and satisfaction than to go work with these leaders to grow and prosper Oklahoma. However, my current business and contractual obligations create hurdles that I cannot overcome at this time.”
That makes Congresswoman and former Lt. Gov Mary Fallin the presumptive nominee.
She performs well in preliminary match-ups and should by all means be considered the frontrunner.
The current Oklahoma governor is a Democrat, Brad Henry. He is retiring in 2010.
To the disdain of the Washington media, Vice President Cheney is winning the public relations war on the Gitmo detainee issue. Cheney is winning this war of words, in part because President Obama is stumbling on this issue.
Although he is a powerful force from the podium, President Obama is leaving much to be desired with his management capabilities. Obama’s Gitmo plan includes sending the detainees to Colorado’s Supermax prison. His administration is claiming that the prison is ready and ‘ideal’ to house Al-Qaeda terrorists.
As President Barack Obama and congressional leaders point toward the Colorado federal prison as a possible new home for some of the detainees, one big problem is the bed-space crunch.
Supermax’s approximately 480 concrete cells already are jammed with the likes of Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols, Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph and other notorious domestic criminals. There also are 33 international terrorists, including Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef and failed airline shoe bomber Richard Reid.
Only one bed was not filled Thursday at Supermax, U.S. Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Tracy Billingsley said.
“There’s a whole contingent of issues that have to be well thought out before we ever agreed to bring inmates of that caliber into our system,” said Bryan Lowry, president of the National Council of Prison Locals, which represents federal correctional officers.
“These inmates that are in there now are some of the most dangerous inmates in the nation. I don’t know how you move them out just to move inmates from Guantanamo in. Alternatives have got to be explored.”
Are we to presume that the Unabomber will be released from Supermax, to make room for Gitmo terrorists?
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Nate Silver has an interesting article looking at the Gallup Party Identification by age breakdown. He suggests that there’s a real correlation between the popularity of the incumbent President, when a voter turns 18, and their life voting patterns. I.e, voters who came of “age” politically during the popular Reagan Presidency are less Democratic than other voters. The Next Right’s Publius takes on this assertion, somewhat, but generally just expands the thesis. He writes:
As you expand the age range, the correlation improves. If you average the Presidential approval for when the voter was 18 and 19, and regress it against the Democratic identification advantage, the correlation is about .08, and the variable is fully significant. As you keep adding on years, the correlation grows stronger, until you are averaging the Presidential approval ratings from when a voter was 18 until she was 32 (at which point the r-square is about .282 and the t-stat is 5.22. Every point increase in average Democratic Presidential approval rating over those years results in a .3% increase in Democratic affiliation. After that, adding years to the spread decreases the model’s predictive abilities….
Then, if we move the bottom end of the range backward, the model continues to improve. In other words, if we look at average approval rating where the voter is 17-32, 16-32, 15-32, etc., the model continues to improve. It reaches maximum efficiency at an r-square of .66. I’m ultimately skeptical of the strength of this model, because we know that things like race, gender, income, and parental partisan affiliation have an impact on a person’s id as well. It seems like this is explaining too much. Nevertheless, it seems that – as we may intuit – partisan identification is not determined precisely at age 18, but rather is a process that occurs over several years of a young voter’s life….
Ultimately, Silver’s main thesis is intact: Bush is likely to haunt Republicans for a generation, as the back-to-back successful Clinton Presidency and failed Bush Presidency have likely set younger voters on a pro-Democratic path that will endure. Of course, even voters who turned 10 in 1996 have not yet finished their partisan development, so if Obama’s Presidency takes a wrong turn, Republicans will have an opportunity to bend the trendline in Democratic ID back their direction
This last point seems particularly notable: if Obama remains popular, the effects will endure for generations and winning conservative majorities will become considerably harder. This is why I find the Republican strategy of bypassing Obama, and trying to engage his congressional allies, so shortsighted. Yes, this President is popular. Yes, there are all sorts of difficulties with attacking people who are more popular than you are. But, even if we manage to reap short-term gains by villifying Pelosi, we’ll lose the long-war if we don’t attempt to break Obama’s hold on the nation. 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of a successful Obama Presidency, will cripple conservatism for a generation or more.
In a surprise announcement, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson has declared that he will not run for governor “at this time”. Barring some unforeseen circumstance that causes Bronson to change his mind and throw his hat in the ring, the announcement virtually paves Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s way to the Republican nomination.
Chris Cillizza reports that Haley Barbour will travel to Iowa to participate in a Republican fundraiser on June 25th:
Barbour’s decision to travel to the Hawkeye State indicates that rumbles that he has not ruled out a presidential bid in 2012 are justified.
Barbour allies insist that this trip is one of many he will make to states with competitive gubernatorial races in 2010 and nothing more should be read into it.
No matter what Barbour or his people say about the trip, however, always remember the Fix mantra about presidential politics: No politician — we can’t emphasize that strongly enough — goes to Iowa by accident. Doesn’t happen.
Cillizza has a point.
Finally, Gov. Romney has written an op-ed for National Review, in which he provides commentary on the Obama vs. Cheney war of words regarding national security:
Two speeches, two very different men. Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans.
His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.
President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician. Contrary to the advice I and others gave him, he has placed two of his top political consultants in the West Wing, looking to them to opine on matters of national security. Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.
It is laughable to suggest that Guantanamo is a meaningful aid in terrorist recruiting. Before Guantanamo came the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing at Riyadh, the attacks on Khobar, the bombing of our embassies, the Cole. There will always be rallying cries for recruitment whether it is the existence of Israel or the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Appeasement has not ever, does not now, and will never satisfy a foe who looks to destroy freedom and rule the world.
Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to the politics but with abiding respect for the truth. Barack Obama is still hanging on to the campaign trail. He said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That’s a big difference with Vice President Cheney—when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep.
Keep the good stuff coming, Mitt.
(Previously titled “These People Just Don’t Live In Reality”)
Rep. Alan Grayson was standing in the middle of Disney World when it hit him: What Americans really need is a week of paid vacation.
So on Thursday, the Florida Democrat will introduce the Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would be the first to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law.
The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week.
The idea: More vacation will stimulate the economy through fewer sick days, better productivity and happier employees.
Oh, where to begin…
1) “Gosh, I really enjoy this opulent lifestyle that important Congressmen like me are able to live. I wish I had the power to let everyone get a free week off like this. Hey, wait…maybe I do.”
2) More vacation time will not stimulate the economy. “Economics is haunted by more fallacies,” the esteemed Henry Hazlitt once noted, than any craft known to mankind. One of them is the broken window fallacy, which he spelled out in his wonderful book Economics In One Lesson: imagine a boy breaks a window of a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper will have to pay the repairman, thereby stimulating the economy — right? Well, no. That diverted money is the same money that would have gone elsewhere, thereby contributing to actual growth, otherwise (say, didn’t we just pass some expensive bill based upon this fallacy? Does anyone remember what it was? No matter — we’re onto the next $800 billion dollar project now). A mandatory free week of paid vacation would do nothing to stimulate the economy. It would result in less growth, given that there will be less work attended to. EDIT: It is worth quoting in full:
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.
3) The weekly checks earned by most Americans don’t get you off to Disney World, Congressman Grayson.
4) Why do liberals (and not a handful of conservatives) so despise the concept of property rights? If you start up a business with your own capital, then doesn’t that business rightfully belong to…well, you? If it’s yours, and someone else voluntarily signs a contract, shouldn’t the government leave that between the two consenting individuals — employer and employee? Am I completely crazy for thinking that? Mr. President? Congressman Grayson? Hellooo?
5) If it’s true that more vacation time leads to more productivity and superior results, then what explains Congress? Last I checked, they were only in session for half of the year, and only actually worked for about twelve days of those. Yeah, let’s apply the Congress Model to private businesses. That should lead to prosperity.
PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 52% (49%)
- Mike Huckabee 39% (42%)
- Barack Obama 53% (50%)
- Mitt Romney 35% (39%)
- Barack Obama 56% (53%)
- Sarah Palin 37% (41%)
- Barack Obama 53% (52%)
- Newt Gingrich 36% (39%)
Obama Job Approval
- Approve 55% (53%)
- Disapprove 38% (41%)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Mike Huckabee 44% (42%) / 32% (34%) [+12%]
- Mitt Romney 40% (40%) / 36% (35%) [+4%]
- Sarah Palin 42% (42%) / 50% (49%) [-8%]
- Newt Gingrich 30% (36%) / 47% (44%) [-17%]
Among Conservatives
- Sarah Palin 73% / 17% (+56%)
- Mike Huckabee 60% / 19% (+41%)
- Mitt Romney 59% / 18% (+41%)
- Newt Gingrich 51% / 22% (+29%)
Among Moderates
- Mike Huckabee 40% / 36% (+4%)
- Mitt Romney 35% / 42% (-7%)
- Sarah Palin 29% / 64% (-35%)
- Newt Gingrich 21% / 58% (-37%)
Survey of 1,000 voters was conducted May 14-18. The margin of error is +/-3.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 17-19 are in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 40% (D), 34% (R), 26% (I). Ideological breakdown: 47% Moderate, 38% Conservative, 15% Liberal.
H/T: Tommy Boy
From a PolitickerNY 2012 handicapping piece:
Mitt Romney: 2-1.
History makes him the favorite. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all finished second in G.O.P. primary races before turning around and claiming the nomination the next time it came open.
Please, someone stop repeating this meme. It just doesn’t work.
Ronald Reagan “came in second” out of two candidates in 1976 after running a go-nowhere campaign in 1968. He took on an unpopular, unelected sitting president with some measure of credibility. Yes, I suppose he “came in second” last time and used his name recognition and standing amongst the conservative movement’s loyalists — which all of the 2012 frontrunners have, to some degree or another — to bolster his 1980 bid. But it must be remembered that not only was he the consensus candidate in 1980 — something that won’t exist in 2012 — but he was the only candidate in 1976 other than Gerald Ford. This will prove important below.
George H.W. Bush didn’t win the nomination because he came in second in the 1980 primaries. He won the nomination because he was Ronald Reagan’s vice-president. Period. Without Reagan’s legacy, it’s doubtful that he would have walked into the nomination as smoothly as he did.
Bob Dole is the exception that proves the rule. He came in second in the last set of contested primaries, but using the 1976 Reagan-as-heir-apparent line of thinking, why didn’t Pat Buchanan win the nomination in 1996, given that he ran against Bush in 1992 and mounted a credible campaign in 1996? And if it’s the last set of contested primaries — that is, no incumbent — that counts, then why is Reagan’s 1976 run counted?
What was George W. Bush? How, exactly, was he the candidate “next in line”? Hell, why wasn’t Pat Buchanan the next in line? He clearly came in 2nd in 1996. What about Jack Kemp? Could Jack Kemp have won the nomination if he ran? Of course not. Give me a break. Being the son of a former president does not make you the next in line. If so, is Jeb Bush the next in line, then? Do elected family members of former presidents trump former primary winners?
John McCain’s primary trimph was by no means inevitable. A few thousand votes the other way in New Hampshire or South Carolina and John McCain would have been eliminated. He walked a tightrope to the nomination. Nobody “fell in line” behind John McCain. He never even won a majority of the votes before Super Tuesday. One different move by Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee along the way and McCain could have been denied the nomination. What if McCain had lost South Carolina, perhaps leading to Charlie Crist and Mel Martinez endorsing Rudy Giuliani? What if Mitt Romney had won New Hampshire, leading to a Michigan blowout and a siphoning of votes from McCain in South Carolina, snowballing into a Florida win? To speak of McCain’s win as inevitable is history being rewritten under our noses.
So please: stop trying to square the circle of this next-in-line myth. It just doesn’t fit the facts.
Not one elected republican in D.C. has called for Speaker Pelosi to step down.
Not one.
Un-elected Newt initially called for her to resign but now only calls for an “inquiry.”
Not one elected Republican has recognized that the Dem refusal to fund the “closing” of Gitmo and their opposition to transferring Gitmo detainees to facilities in the Lower Forty-Eight justifies the Bush position that they all (but Lieberman) opposed for seven years.
Not one.
But we are supposed to eschew Reagan?
Ironically, given the Supreme Court rulings, there is no legal difference between Gitmo and St. Louis, but the GOP is letting the Dems pretend to be “tough” on protecting the American people via their silence on how the Dems and Obama said that Gitmo made us more un-safe for the past 6 years due to Gitmo.
Not one elected Republican is willing to take in President Barack Obama, whose actions on numerous war power policies affirm the wisdom of Bush and repudiate his own policies and those of the democrats over the past 7 years.
Not one.
The spineless Republicans must be lead!
By us.
They are pathetic.
The United States of America is under siege my brothers, and the only chance it has resides in us!
Us? Non-elected conservative patriots.
For God sakes, don’t dare count on elected Republicans serving in D.C.
Call them out! SHAME them!
That is our only hope.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
For 2012 and the GOP presidential primaries, I’m hesitant to enthusiastically support any candidate who has unapologetically embraced the earmark culture or other wasteful spending habits, especially if it’s to the level of refusing to ever change the culture (as opposed to the perhaps more common among the GOP Congressmen, “Yeah, it’s ugly, but right now everybody does it and I’m going to get my share”).
While “a big and wasteful federal government” is certainly central to what is wrong with the GOP, I’m going to label eminent domain abuse as more of a black-and-white issue. Though, I concede I find myself questioning whether I should be more principled with regard to federalism (meaning, on the two issues, should I be equally outraged and equally willing to draw a firm line in the sand?); after all, the 5th and 10th amendments are both in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps it’s that eminent domain abuse so much more clearly, more entirely, and more immediately takes away freedom from an individual private citizen, when compared to the much more complex negative effects of Big Government (which both redistributes and causes opportunity costs for the private economy in ways that are difficult-to-clearly define).
And perhaps it’s that voters are quite hypocritical when it comes to pork (love-hate relationship on the local level), while with earmarks, the issue is about as close as we can get to a near-univerally-accepted point of view among the overall electorate (meaning, it just might be politically obtuse not to adopt that viewpoint).
Because of McCain-Feingold alone, John McCain never should have been nominated to be the GOP nominee. Of course, McCain didn’t clearly win the nomination; he merely came the closest to 50% of the remaining three candidates, when one of them — Mike Huckabee – had remained in the race for reasons I’m not sure anybody fully understands.
McCain is no doubt a fine man in many ways, but character alone does not qualify a person to be the leader of the free world; particularly when that person is suspicious of the very notion of freedom.
Newt Gingrich has declared that Speaker Pelosi — because she has without sufficient evidence shows tremendous disrespect to an important level of government, arguably risking national security — has “disqualified” herself from the position of Speaker of the House.
I’ll argue that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has disqualified himself from ever deserving the GOP nomination because of his veto of property rights legislation.
In a piece at Reason Online titled, “Sold Down the River: How Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour sabotaged eminent domain reform,” associate editor Damon Root writes:
In addition to enjoying strong bipartisan support in the statehouse, this piece of long-overdue reform was backed by groups as politically diverse as Americans for Tax Reform, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Mississippi Forestry Association.
But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state. As Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted in his veto statement, had he not promised Toyota that he would use eminent domain to secure a piece of contested land for its Blue Springs facility, “Toyota would have broken off negotiations with us and chosen one of the other states competing with us for the project.”
I will give props to Barbour for his candor and honesty. But I’m of the opinion that an honest person who will give up basic American freedoms for the short-term economic benefit of a private company — in this case, a foreign-based private company — has disqualified himself for deserving the title of US President.
Root concludes his article:
Christina Walsh, the director of activism and coalitions at the Institute for Justice, the libertarian legal firm that represented Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court and has since spearheaded many state-level eminent domain reforms (including this one), urges Mississippi lawmakers to reject Barbour’s bill and “to stand behind the constitutional principles they voted for earlier this year and behind the constituents that voted them into office.”
In March 1792, James Madison took to the pages of the National Gazette to explain why property rights were essential to the preservation of a free society. “Where an excess of power prevails,” Madison observed, “property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” Here’s hoping those lawmakers do the right thing and stand up one more time for Mississippi’s victimized property owners.
Sen. McCain has endorsed Charlie Crist in his Senate bid:
“I was proud to have had Charlie’s support in my campaign, and I am proud to support him in his campaign,” the senator from Arizona said in a release.
As the article explains, this shouldn’t surprise us. Good Time Charlie may very well have put McCain over the top in the Florida primary last year, and Crist’s ideological leanings align more with McCain’s than do Rubio’s.
SurveyUSA has released a new poll showing that Tim Pawlenty’s budget standoff with the Minnesota DFL has not noticably damaged his standing with the public. In fact, T-Paw leads against all the prospective DFL nominees for the 2010 gubernatorial election included in the poll. A summary of the findings (crosstabs available by clicking link):
As of now, Pawlenty appears to sit in the driver’s seat should he run for a third term.
