Sen. Rick Santorum issued the following statement on the Fourth of July:

On this weekend of celebration and relaxation with our friends and families, we all should take a moment to honor and thank those who came before us and who sacrificed so much so that we can enjoy the liberties and freedoms that we too often take for granted. America is more than a country, it is an ideal and an aspiration for all that we are as a people and all that we can be. From our forefathers who sacrificed at Valley Forge to our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because of their courage and sacrifice that we can continue to celebrate our independence as a free and virtuous people. It is because of them that we can say Happy Independence Day.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty issued the following statement on the Fourth of July:

Mary and I hope you have a safe and happy 4th of July. This country is great because the strength of our people. And a special thanks to the men and women of our military for protecting our freedom!

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued the following statement on the Fourth of July:

“Happy Independence Day! Please take a moment to reflect on what makes America exceptional.”

Herman Cain issued the following statement on the Fourth of July:

“Happy Independence Day! The American Spirit began as a tiny, yet determined spark 235 years ago. We must keep the flame alive today!”

Rep. Michele Bachmann issued the following statement on the Fourth of July:

“Happy 4th of July! On this Independence Day, as we celebrate our freedoms, I hope you’ll join me in showing your thanks for our military men and women who protect them.”

Gov. Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the Fourth of July:

“For more than two centuries America has stood for the principles of liberty and self-government. These values remain every bit as important today as the day the Declaration of Independence was signed. As we gather today to celebrate the Fourth of July with family and friends, may we remember the brave men and women who are fighting to protect and preserve our freedoms. May God continue to bless America.”

The New York Post cites some top Republican and Democrat strategists who see a serious possibility.  Cuomo certainly has the popularity, the style, and the freshness to give a boost to Obama’s ticket.  The real question is: since most people assume Cuomo has his eye on 2016 either way, will Cuomo want to possibly be sullied by being part of another four years of Obama’s stagflation, or will he want to make a fresh go at it on his own in 2016?

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Bachmann and Perry are the ones skyrocketing in the polls this week.  In fact, their trajectories have been so similar that they almost exactly overlap in the line graph above, making it difficult to tell them apart.  They’ve both comfortably surpassed Cain, Paul, and Gingrich (and where oh where will Gingrich’s collapse end?  It’s only a matter of time, at this rate, before he hits 1% or less in a national poll).  Michigan Representative Thad McCotter debuts in a FOX News poll at less than 1%, tied with Roemer, Karger, and Moore — not exactly the conservative savior “Second Coming” reception he was hoping for.  What is it, exactly, that sets him apart as a candidate anyway, besides his disdain for Gucci brand footwear?  And the door is rapidly closing on any potential Palin (whose spot in the field is quickly being taken over by Bachmann) or Giuliani (whose pro-war/neocon banner is being hoisted by Pawlenty, and whose social moderate niches are being staked out by Huntsman and Johnson) runs.  It’s looking more and more like the last real late entrants who could truly shake things up would be Perry or Christie.  Perry looks like he might very well get in; Christie seems to have budged little from his long-standing, adamant “No.”

As President Barack Obama flails about hopelessly in office, attempting to salvage a presidency in tatters, a politician of a different shade of blue, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is enjoying a meteoric rise in American politics. Cuomo’s successes during his first six months in office may be paving the way for a post-Obama Democratic Party, one that relies not on the fortification of the traditional Democratic coalition, based on interest groups and mid-20th Century economics, but that instead hitches its trailer to the ascendant American Creative Class and charts a socially liberal, economically sorta-conservative way forward. Indeed, an Obama loss in 2012 could be a gift to the Democratic Party’s rank and file, many of whom, like Cuomo, have little in common with the aging crypto-socialists who control the machinery of the Democratic Party, as well as the op-ed page of The New York Times.

In 2008, President Obama became the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win an outright majority of the popular vote by promising a presidency that would utterly transform American politics. But from Day One, Obama’s presidency has been the antithesis of forward-thinking, and has instead been a throwback to an era that the very younger Americans who supported the president are desperately trying to leave behind. Indeed, Obama’s presidency has doubled down on the failed Blue Economic Model that dominated America for much of the 20th Century. That model, which cannot and will not survive in a global economy and dynamic society, is laid out here:

In the old system, both blue collar and white collar workers hold stable jobs, a professional career civil service administers a growing state, with living standards for all social classes steadily rising while the gaps between the classes remain fairly stable, and with an increasing ‘social dividend’ being paid out in various forms: longer vacations, more and cheaper state-supported education, earlier retirement, shorter work weeks and so on. Graduate from high school and you were pretty much guaranteed lifetime employment in a job that gave you a comfortable lower middle class lifestyle; graduate from college and you would be better paid and equally secure.

Life would just go on getting better. From generation to generation we would live a life of incremental improvements — the details of life would keep getting better but the broad outlines of our society would stay the same. The advanced industrial democracies of had in fact reached the ‘end of history’: this is what ‘developed’ human society looked like and there would be no more radical changes because the picture had fully developed.

This is essentially the American economic model of the 1950s. And it sounds pretty good on its face. But in order for this model to work, two things are required. One is a metaphorical, or perhaps actual, wall around America, protecting it from too much immigration, and too much foreign competition. Another is a highly regulated society, where Americans have finite choices, both economically and personally. As the 1950s proved, such a model does provide economic and social order. But it does so by stepping on lots of toes. In the ’50s, life was pretty good for Ralph Kramden. But it was downright oppressive for Betty Draper.

Like Plato’s Man in the Cave, the Blue Economic Model was destined to break down as Americans discovered that something better lies outside of its confines:

The blue model began to decay in the seventies. Foreign producers began to erode the market share of lazy, sclerotic American firms–like the Big Three automakers. The growth of offshore financial markets forced the financial services industry to become more flexible as both borrowers and lenders were increasingly able to work around the regulations and the oligopolies of the domestic market. Demand for new communications services created an appetite for competition against Ma Bell. The consumer movement attacked regulations that were clearly designed to protect companies; Teddy Kennedy was a cosponsor of the bill to deregulate the airlines. Anti-corporate liberals rebelled at the way government power and regulation was being used to allow corporations to give their consumers the shaft.

As the old system dissolved, companies had to become more flexible. As industry became more competitive, private sector managers had to shed bureaucratic habits of thought. Lifetime employment had to go. Productive workers had to be lured with high pay. The costs of unionization grew; in the old days, government regulators simply allowed unionized firms to charge higher prices to compensate them for their higher costs. The collapse of the regulated economy (plus the rise of foreign competition from developing countries) made unions unsustainably expensive in many industries.

Some companies (like the automakers) seemed large enough and rich enough that they clung to the blue model long after the sell-by date. The result was a long, slow and grueling decline whose late stages are still unfolding today. They lost market share to more nimble rivals. Their workforce became old and expensive, and they were supporting ever larger numbers of retirees on the basis of smaller market shares and shrinking profitability.

These days, private sector blue companies can only survive with vast and continuing government support. Government protection from foreign competition (economically wasteful and illegal under our trade agreements) is one option; direct subsidies and cash transfers (bailouts and tax breaks) is another. Neither works very well or very long. Both are expensive.

Indeed. And yet it is this very Blue Economic Model that has become the raison d’etre of the Obama Administration, and of the Democratic Party since the president took office. All of the major actions of the Democratic Party since Inauguration Day, 2009, have emanated from a desire to breathe life into the corpse of Blue Economics. This was true of the stimulus, a Keynesian mess that added to the deficit while doing nothing to fuel the private sector economy. It was true of ObamaCare, a classic case of corporatism, attempting to fortify a few major insurers and drug companies by making them wards of the state, and by making the populace their forced customers. It was true of the auto industry bailouts, the state-level battles over public sector benefits, and the endless Democratic temper tantrum over the attempts to declaw unions. Indeed, in no era in recent memory have social issues and defense issues been less prominent; 2009-2011 has been a three-year battle over whether to resuscitate the dream world of FDR, or whether to let it die a natural death.

What’s promising for conservatives is that Democrats have pretty much lost this war in the realm of public opinion. They lost the major statewide races in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009. They lost the nation in 2010. And they even lost what was essentially a referendum on this very issue in Wisconsin in 2011. The only major blowback for Republicans thus far has been the special election in NY-26, which wasn’t really an election about Obamanomics as much as it was about Ryanomics. Note to Republicans: just because the public has rejected Obama’s economic policies doesn’t mean they are sold on Ryan’s. That’s just the reality of the situation. But that’s a topic for another time.

Democrats’ inability to pivot from their losing stance in favor of the Blue Economic Model is a testament to the power of the unions within the Democratic Party. But the rot, I think, goes far deeper, and probably lies within the collective psyche of the ancient Baby Boomer politicians and operatives who control the upper echelons of Team Blue. These were the folks who, as youngsters in the ’60s, stormed the Democratic National Convention in 1968 in an effort to wrest the levers of power from the hands of LBJ-style Southerners and culturally conservative traditional Democrats. These upstarts saw themselves as forerunners of a modern-day socialist revolution as they engaged in combat with law enforcement in Chicago, ironically battling the very blue collar Americans that they believed they were liberating from the clutches of the bourgeoisie. And while there was to be no revolution in Chicago in 1968, these folks slowly but surely made their way into the mechanics of the Democratic Party, to such an extent that, now nearing retirement, these once-and-future revolutionaries now see it as their duty to prevent the last relic of their reign from dissipating into history’s dust.

But what’s happening in New York may signal that America is about to say goodbye to all that. Gov. Cuomo has in many ways been governing as a Democratic Anti-Obama. While President Obama doubles-down on Blue Economics, Gov. Cuomo acknowledges reality and attempts to move the state forward fiscally and economically. So far, Cuomo has demonstrated some real fi-con chops, both with his budgetary moves and his proposed cap on property taxes. He’s also taken on the unions and insisted on pension reform, a move that makes him seem more like Chris Christie than Barack Obama. And while Obama has been reluctant to acknowledge social issues, Cuomo championed and signed into law same sex marriage in New York, pushing the issue to the forefront once again given that New York is one of the nation’s largest states.

Despite popular belief among many conservatives, and a few liberals, public opinion has been moving slowly but surely in favor of same sex marriage. More to the point, the issue is largely generational, with younger folks favoring SSM by a wide margin. This is an example of a social issue that will favor Democrats in the long run, and Cuomo is taking the long view on this issue, knowing that by the time he’s ready to run for president, he will be the candidate who was on the “right side” of the issue even back when the public was still divided. As I’ve often pointed out, one of the tricks to long-term success in politics is to recognize leading indicators versus lagging indicators of where the nation is going. Hispanics, for example, are a leading indicator. Educated folks, given the realities of the new economy, are a leading indicator. Old white people, to be blunt, are always a lagging indicator of where the nation is headed. Winning the votes of white seniors may allow victory in one battle. But it won’t win the war.

As such, if Obama loses in 2012 after governing as a socially agnostic champion of traditional Democratic economics, perhaps the highly successful Andrew Cuomo, as governor of a large state and as a public official who seemingly understands where this nation is headed both economically and socially, may do what his father only dreamed of by becoming President of the United States. If so, it may be Cuomo, and not Obama, who emulates Ronald Reagan for the Democrats by earning a place in history as a truly transformative president.

This past Friday I posted a recommendation of five books of historical and contemporary significance for your summer reading pleasure.  Commenting on my posting, reader Jaxemer11 suggested Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner.  I agree; it is an excellent book.

In today’s Washington Post columnist George Will discusses Reckless Endangerment, a book that should be read by all for its detailed account of the corrupt political practices that were largely responsible for the financial-real estate crash of 2008.

Incidentally, you may find the Wikipedia entry on James A. Johnson and his political and business background to be of some interest.  There is not a better example of what can (or usually) happens when business and government collude in a mutually manipulative fashion.  Thus, Reckless Endangerment can be thought of as a tribute in a sense to free market economists-philosophers Friederich Hayek and Milton Friedman and their warnings of what usually happens when business and government conspire as in the case of Fannie Mae, et.al.

The Club for Growth has released their Presidential White Papers on Michele Bachmann. Check out the link for the entire article. Here is the bottom line summary from the Club for Growth:

With very few exceptions, Congresswoman Bachmann has supported pro-growth policies throughout her career. She especially deserves praise for her consistent defense of school choice. After reviewing her record, we are confident that Congresswoman Bachmann would be a pro-growth President.

With a detailed record in Congress, the Club for Growth has a lot to base her record on that the CfG has been actively tracking. The same holds true for McCotter when they decide to compile his ratings. It’s worth a read as Bachmann, as a state legislator and Representative had to vote on…everything. Check it out.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

Most Minnesotans know by now that their state government has been shut down because the state cannot pay its bills. It is also a national news story, and many persons across the nation are looking to see how Minnesota will resolve it budget impasse.

An impasse it is because the Democratic (here called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or DFL) governor is adamant so far about raising additional revenue to pay for state programs by placing an additional tax on rich Minnesotans. At the same time, the Republican controlled legislature is insisting there be no new taxes while limiting new spending. It is the classic political/economic confrontation of contemporary America, and the same scenario is being played out in other financially-overdrawn states as well as in a similar confrontation in Washington, DC where a Democratic president and Democratically-controlled U.S. senate is at basic odds with a Republican-controlled U.S. house of representatives.

In some states with these problems, the governorship and the legislature have been of like mind, and an historic transformation has begun to take place. Most far-reaching of these is perhaps Ohio where former congressman John Kasich is the new governor. He has turned the state completely around with conservative policies that cut back state spending, reduced the size of Ohio stated government, and levied no new taxes. Kasich, a Republican, was a leader for advancing these principles when he was in Congress, but they are not necessarily partisan. Others such as former Democratic Congressman Tim Penny worked closely with Kasich in those congressional days, and remains a friend and confidante. Penny failed to win the Minnesota governorship in 2002, and an historic opportunity for that state was thus lost. The man who beat Penny, conservative Republican Tim Pawlenty, did try to transform the state’s economic policy, but he lacked control of the state legislature, and was unable to initiate much true reform, other than block new taxation.

The new governor of Minnesota is the very liberal Mark Dayton who ran on a platform of increasing the income taxes of rich Minnesotans. Dayton had been a presence in Minnesota politics since the early 1980s when he served as a commissioner for DFL Governor Rudy Perpich and then ran unsuccessfully for the US. senate. He subsequently ran for and won the post of state auditor for one term. After a failed bid for governor in the 1990s, he re-emerged to stage an upset win in the 2000 DFL U.S. senate primary, defeating the DFL-endorsed candidate, and went on to win the senate seat. He also served one term, but retired in 2006. In 2010, Dayton again re-emerged to challenge the DFL-endorsed candidate for governor. He won the primary, and went on to win the state’s top executive position by the narrowest of margins, and like his predecessor Tim Pawlenty, gathered only a plurality of votes.

Dayton is an heir to the state’s fabled department store fortune, and grew up in privileged circumstances. Not unlike many other rich Democratic politicians in his circumstances, he adopted the populist position of seeking to tax the rich, as if to make credible his claim to be an ordinary Democratic person. While he served well as a state commissioner and state auditor, he was clearly not comfortable as a U.S, senator in Washington, DC. His retirement forestalled probable defeat at the polls in 2006. His most notorious moment in that job was when he closed his office in the Capitol following a health scare. (Although he was ridiculed for this, I wrote then in a Washington daily newspaper defending his action, saying while it was a political mistake, his motivation was the welfare of those who worked for him, and he did not deserve all the opprobrium he was receiving.)

I do not share some of Dayton’s political philosophy, and certainly disagree with his populist rant about “taxing the rich,” But I have observed that his long political career in Minnesota has not been without personal integrity and notable political accomplishments. The latter includes coming back against all odds in 2000 and 2010 to win high office, and defeating party-endorsed DFL candidates. I have long opposed the so-called precinct caucus system in Minnesota as undemocratic and elitist, and Dayton has almost single-handedly rendered it impotent.

But now, Mark Dayton is at a new crossroads in his political career, and clearly the most important one, perhaps the most important he will ever face. As the surprise winner of the 2010 Minnesota governorship, while the DFL equally surprisingly lost control of both houses of the state legislature, and the first DFL governor in 20 years, Dayton is in a unique position to resolve the budget impasse in Minnesota. The DFL needs him far more than he needs the DFL, and he could fashion an historic resolution to the state government shutdown. In my opinion, it is time for Dayton to shed his atavistic and discredited mantra about “taxing the rich.” Nowhere in the U.S. is this policy working. I don’t think that Dayton’s life experience as a “rich kid” needs any longer to be compensated for by him. He has paid his dues over 30 years. He has shown himself to be compassionate and progressive.

The way out of the current Minnesota shutdown impasse is for a true compromise. A true compromise is not “splitting the difference” between the DFL and GOP positions. It is not meeting “half way.” That would rightly be perceived as as a one-sided victory for the DFL since it would raise taxes. Raising taxes is off the table in 2011, as is increased state pending and expanding state regulations and government. The voters decided that in 2010, and even more powerfully, economic circumstances in the state and nation, preclude it. In my opinion, Governor Dayton should go beyond the tax issue, accept new governmental discipline, and demand as his side of the bargain the preservation of certain progressive and DFL-favored institutions and programs. He may worry that he would be criticized in his DFL political base for conceding the tax issue, but as I have previously pointed out, the DFL political base needs Mark Dayton much more than he needs them.

I would also argue that if he does not do this, and get the credit for statesmanship, he will have to do it in the end anyway, and not get any credit. The GOP leaders of the legislature, and its members, would be committing political suicide to agree to any tax increase. And, as I pointed out, they won the election running on a no-new-taxes platform, while Dayton, I would argue, did not win because he said he would tax the rich, but in spite of that. (His Republican conservative opponent was discredited early in the 2010 campaign, and ran well behind GOP legislative candidates.)

Not only Ohio shows the way for state government today. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, Governor Bob McConnell of Virginia, Governor Rick Scott of Florida are leading similar movements in their states. Yes, they are Republicans, but believe it or not, conservative measures are also being adopted by such Democratic governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Jerry Brown of California. Doing the right and successful thing is NOT necessarily a partisan matter in these difficult economic times.

The onus for resolving the Minnesota shutdown is not primarily on the Republican conservative legislature. The real responsibility, as it usually is, is with the state governor. Mark Dayton is at his biggest crossroads. Let’s see if he rises to the occasion.

_________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

Okay, so the numbers are slowly beginning to trickle out. Pawlenty raised $4.2 million – a miserable total for the supposed anti-Romney candidate which was made even more miserable with the acknowledgement that much of the total was raised for the general election — money that cannot be spent during the primaries and must be refunded to donors if Pawlenty doesn’t win the nod.

Pawlenty’s campaign is refusing to reveal the breakdown of primary vs. general election money, but luckily our very own Smack posted some campaign info a few days ago showing Pawlenty raised $1.5 million for the general election. Assuming that number is correct, that leaves about $2.7 million in primary money for T-Paw. (We will update the leaderboard accordingly on July 15th when the FEC filings are made public.)

Pawlenty’s campaign tried to spin their total by claiming Tim has more cash on hand than Mike Huckabee or John McCain did at the end of Q2 2007… however, this would not be difficult to do since Huckabee was existing on just over $400,000 cash on hand, and McCain was actually $1.8 million in debt at this point. So all we know for sure is that Pawlenty has more than $400k on hand to start the third quarter with… not exactly inspiring stuff.

Meanwhile, Herman Cain announced a total of $2.46 million raised — an announcement that came just before his Iowa staff resigned. And Ron Paul’s numbers remain an enigma — all we know for sure is that he raised somewhere north of $4.5 million. That places him at the top of the leaderboard for now, and we’ll adjust his numbers as well when we find out more.

So the most up-to-date version of the leaderboard yet:

¹General election funds
²Self-funding loans



UPDATE: Multiple sources report that some of Herman Cain’s money is also courtesy of self-funding, although no one knows exactly how much. Cain has said that it “pales in comparison” to the $2 million that Huntsman lent himself, but other than that we are left guessing.

Jon Stewart let loose with a hilarious skit on the state of the GOP race for their 2012 presidential nominee. Click below to have a good laugh — unless, of course, you are the type of person who gets upset when other people make fun of your candidate.

(h/t Bosman @ Rightspeak)

Zogby’s polls are notoriously unreliable, but, for what it’s worth:

IBOPE Zogby Interactive 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

If the Republican primary for President were held today, for whom would you vote?

• Michele Bachmann 24% (2%)
  
• Mitt Romney 15% (9%)
• Herman Cain 15% (14%)
• Ron Paul 13% (10%)
• Tim Pawlenty 6% (4%)
• Rick Santorum 5% (2%)
• Gary Johnson 2% (1%)
• Newt Gingrich 2% (7%)
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Fred Karger 0%
• Other 4% (9%)
• Not Sure 13% (8%)

Interactive poll of 998 likely Republican primary voters was conducted June 17-21, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 6-9 are in parenthesis.

Herman Cain’s campaign is following in the footsteps of Newt Gingrich, it seems, as Cain loses his Iowa campaign director and Ames Straw Poll coordinator, who feel that Cain isn’t waging a “serious” campaign effort.  This now leaves Cain with no top staff in Iowa, and no staff whatsoever in New Hampshire.

The Johnson campaign has literally JUST produced this video:

The spot does an excellent job of highlighting Johnson’s concrete accomplishments as Governor. If he could just get the attention and recognition he deserves, his history could really impress voters.

A few years ago on the site, then Race42008.com, a couple of the writers periodically highlighted books related to politics and conservative political theory that were recommended to our readers for consideration.  I will resume that tradition of sorts with the suggestion of five books that our readers may find interesting and of some significance from both a historical and contemporary standpoint.  All are available from Amazon.com or from most libraries.

Suite 3505:  The Story of the Draft Goldwater Movement by F. Clifton White and William Gill.

This is the definitive history of the grass-roots “Draft Goldwater” effort that began in 1962-63 leading up to the epic 1964 GOP National Convention.  It is a must-read for anyone interested in how a grass-roots anti-Establishment presidential nominating campaign was conducted long before the Internet, social networking devices, and when the vast majority of national convention delegates were chosen by party caucuses, local and state conventions rather than by primary elections.  Author Cliff White was the principal organizer and leader of the draft movement, and his network of operatives around the country managed the Goldwater campaign and the delegate selection process at the state and local level.  White and his lieutenants were behind the last-minute “Draft Reagan” effort in the days before the 1968 Convention that nominated Richard Nixon.  Many (but not all) of that network played key roles in the 1976 Reagan campaign.  White, however, supported Ford that year.

With No Apologies by Barry Goldwater.

First published in early 1980 (the timing was not coincidental, I can assure you), this is essentially the personal-political memoirs of Senator Barry Goldwater that discusses the development and honing of his political philosophy, the ’64 campaign, Nixon, Watergate, and some very interesting revelations about Jimmy Carter and his history before being elected president.

Victory:  The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy that Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Peter Schweizer

A thoroughly researched and authoritatively sourced account of the Reagan strategy to unhinge the Soviet Union published in 1994. While researching and writing Victory, Schweizer, now a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute,  had access to the most senior Reagan advisors intimately involved in the formulation and execution of Reagan’s strategic efforts.  Most interestingly, though, he was given access to several Russian officials and to Soviet Russian archive material made available during the Yeltsin period before the window was slammed shut by Putin & company.  This book is particularly valuable for its description of the sound development and execution of foreign policy and national security strategy—something that has not always been common in US presidential administrations.

Symbolic Crusade:  Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement by Joseph R. Gusfield

This book has little to do with alcoholism but a lot to do with the sociology of “moralist” political movements and their underlying agendas.  As the author states, “Our aim in this work is to understand how one issue of moral reform, that of alcohol consumption, has operated in the context of American political and social conflict.”

Finally, with July 4th drawing near, I cannot pass up the opportunity to highlight one outstanding work by an Austrian economist:

The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich A. Hayek

Written some 15 years after his classic The Road to Serfdom, this other seminal work by Hayek was described by the late Henry Hazlitt as, ”One of the great political works of our time, . . . the twentieth-century successor to John Stuart Mill’s essay, ‘On Liberty.’”  Enough said.

Happy Independence Day!

Which Mike Huckabee Will Be President?

It looks like everybody wants to be Mike Huckabee these days, now that he has removed his own toque from the ring.   I find it a bit amusing.   Why would anybody want to imitate or compare themselves with somebody who didn’t win?  Actually, there are lots of reasons:

He is trusted by social conservatives, recently had great poll numbers, came from way behind to win the Iowa caucuses in 2008.  and attracts people to himself who like likeable candidates.

Here is the plotline of the new “Like Mike” movie:

“Some hitherto unknown candidate becomes President of the United States after playing a bass guitar with the faded initials “M.H.” inside.”

Notice the headlines below:
Is Michele Bachmann Just Another Mike Huckabee??

Pawlenty campaign draws parallel to Huckabee in 2007

Santorum sees a Huckabee path

Barbour could be next Huckabee

Herman Cain OK with being the ‘black Mike Huckabee

Mitt Romney, Tries Hard to Be Mike Huckabee

I mostly find it funny, because hardly anybody is asking, “Who’s the new John McCain?” even though he won the Republican nomination. I don’t know who the next Mike Huckabee might be. The whole thing ought to flatter the former Governor of Arkansas. (Nobody has ever asked who the next David Shedlock will be!)  Everyone wants to be the Mike Huckabee of 2012, except for one guy: Mike Huckabee.

Perhaps that is why the Huckabee shadow looms over the whole process and why his name keeps popping up.   Few candidates have inspired dedicated followers and shown an ability to reach out beyond the base.  Huckabee has done both.   Republican voters keep looking for the guy (or gal) wearing a white hat and riding in on a white horse to save the day.  Some conservatives have looked for a hero in Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Jon Huntsman, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and now, Governor Rick Perry of Texas.    But maybe, just maybe, the GOP will decide that it doesn’t need an imitation Mike Huckabee, it needs the real thing.

What might convince Governor Huckabee to change his mind and get in the race?

A Wave of Support:

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the race for the Republican presidential nomination once again sports a “Big 3,” at least according to the latest public opinion polls and the smart money on Intrade. But this ain’t your father’s “Big 3.” The once popular trio of Romney/Huckabee/Palin is now old and busted, only to be replaced by the current race between Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and potential candidate Rick Perry. These candidates are leading the field by leaps and bounds on Intrade, and it is my belief that Perry and Bachmann are filling the red-state void in the race that resulted from Huckabee’s decision not to run and Palin’s non-decision regarding the race. Given all of that, it’s time to start sizing up the field against the backdrop of a general election that will be won or lost in the Rust Belt, with the quintessential bellwether of Peoria, Illinois, being replaced by communities like Allentown, Pennsylvania.

I believe that Romney is currently winning the race for President of Pennsylvania with his focus on a community that serves as a microcosm for Main Street America. Romney’s attempts to shed light on Allentown’s continued economic malaise have been especially savvy given President Obama’s promises to turn things around in the Keystone State just a few years ago. The president’s inability to do so raises questions about whether Obama has ever possessed the necessary ideas and skill set to get the American economy moving again. Romney, of course, can deliver this critique of the president with a straight face given his business acumen and reputation as a problem solver. All of that combined with Romney’s relatively neutral cultural cues make him as good a bet as any Republican to flip Pennsylvania in 2012.

Rick Perry, I suspect, would run into a George W. Bush problem in a place like Allentown. This may be counterintuitive at first given that Perry seems to be the sort of fellow that a culturally conservative, lunch-bucket community like Allentown would far prefer to the professorial, aloof President Obama. But the same could be said, and often was said, about the Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry races in the 2000s, and look how those turned out. While on a superficial level, a blue collar community in Pennsylvania should be culturally and politically aligned quite well with a red state like Texas, the reality is that the cultural cues of both regions are quite disparate, meaning that the signals and rhetorical dog whistles used by a Texas Republican to prove that he’s a beer-drinkin’, brush-choppin’, God-fearin’ good old boy come across as foreign, fradulent and fear-inducing to Northerners.

Back during the race for 2008, I often pointed out that my support for Rudy Giuliani for president was due in part to my belief that Rudy, as a New Yorker, would be far more culturally familiar to voters in places like Pennsylvania than would yet another Southern-fried nominee. Indeed, it was always my plan to package Rudy as “Pennsylvania Red,” which is quite distinct from “Texas Red.” For example, if you want to show that you’re pro-Second Amendment in a place like Pennsylvania, a photo op that results in the candidate hunting for varmints dressed like Elmer Fudd is probably not the way to go. The takeaway message to Keystone State voters won’t be that this fellow is pro-gun, but that this particular candidate is a bit of a rube. Instead, a much better photo op would involve the candidate at a firing range practicing using a handgun along with local law enforcement. That’s something that Main Street Northerners can relate to.

It is my belief that, were Perry to run, he would come out with guns almost literally blazing, in a way that makes sense in Texas politics but not anywhere north of the Ohio River. Northerners find “J.R. Ewing” charming as a television character, but not as their president. Further, Perry is used to publicly discussing his evangelical faith early and often, in a way that involves quoting Scripture and making reference to specific theological points, things that will be seen as hokey and perhaps even frightening in Pennsylvania. Again, this seems not to make sense. A place like Allentown, after all, is highly traditional if it’s anything. But that sort of thinking misses the point. Northern culture is different from Southern culture, and while Southern politicians are often rewarded for competing to see who can be the biggest, baddest evangelical in the room, religion in the North is more of a private matter. Even Allentown’s devout may find Perry to be demonstrating a lack of propriety with his public references to all things religious, while the community’s many Christmas-and-Easter Catholics and Mainline Protestants will suspect that Perry is George W. Bush on steroids.

Finally, there’s Michele Bachmann. The Minnesota congresswoman certainly comes from the appropriate region to understand what will and will not play in Pennsylvania. But I believe that over the course of a campaign, Bachmann will be easily morphed into a candidate who is erratic and unhinged, and that will be a death knell in Allentown and pretty much everywhere else. There are just too many odd incidents on her record, from her charter school’s refusal to show the movie, Aladdin, due to its focus on “magic,” to the bizarre culmination of one of her town hall events, that resulted in Bachmann fleeing the facility in tears. Are these just isolated incidents being trumped up by unfriendly media? It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that these sorts of anecdotes, along with her voluminous number of gaffes to date, will yield a political death by a thousand cuts, as Bachmann is presented to the general electorate as certifiable, with the men in the white coats all but pulling her from the podium as she makes her concession speech after losing 40 states.

The naysayer will suggest that none of this will matter given the state of the economy. I disagree. Americans simply won’t vote for a candidate they view as loopy, erratic, or, for lack of a better word, “strange.” That’s why the ridiculously unpopular Harry Reid was able to best Sharron Angle during a midterm election that was largely a referendum on his leadership, and that’s why no one will ever utter the words: Senator Christine O’Donnell (R-DE). Is there a bit of sexism present? Probably. It does seem that female candidates are held to a higher standard than their male counterparts, almost as if they have to prove that they are “capable” of being in a leadership position. Is this fair? Of course not. But life isn’t fair, and neither is politics.

As such, if the race really does become one between Romney, Perry, and Bachmann, I am most confident, and quite frankly, only confident about Republican prospects in the fall of 2012 should Mitt Romney win the nomination. Of the three, Romney is the only candidate with the ability to make inroads into the heart of a state like Pennsylvania, an economically depressed region that selected Hillary over Obama during the 2008 primaries and that never wanted to vote for the president in the first place. It seems that nominating a candidate who can compete in this region is a no-brainer as the GOP attempts to deny the president re-election.

So reports the Daily Caller.

The NRSC (the National Republican Senatorial Committee) has released this web-ad throwing Obama’s own words back at him: