Palin, Perry, &…Buckley

Look, it’s no news to anyone that I’m a strong supporter of former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). If she enters the race, I will undoubtedly support her through the primaries for as long as she’s part of them. Nothing, politically speaking, would make me happier than a Palin Presidency.

And then there’s Governor Rick Perry (R-TX). Despite my lukewarm support for his candidacy, there’s no doubt that he offers much of what Palin brings to the table. In one way, at least, he surpasses it, having been governor of TX for almost 10 years. But he’s a strong conservative. He has good fiscal and social conservative credentials. It appears that he’ll likely be a fantastic fundraiser, and he’s willing to take the fight to President Barack Obama (D-USA).

Yes, there are some things he’s done in the last 10 years that I don’t agree with 100%. But that’s part of governing. The longer a record someone has, the more likely they are to have done something that you don’t like. You need to look at the overall record, not one or two things.

He doesn’t bring the “reformer” credentials that she has, and I think she’s a tad bit to his right, but possibly not much.

In a perfect world, Palin would not have been forced, due to left wing lunacy, to resign from her governorship, and would still be governor of AK, while considering this Presidential run. And she’d have two more years of AK’s record to run on. In that world, there’s no contest in my mind. Palin’s the better candidate, and the better future President.

But that’s not the world in which we live. We live in a world where the left has done everything possible to bring down this woman over the last 2 1/2 years. They managed to twist AK’s ethics laws to work in their favor against a woman who has done everything possible to remove corruption in politics in her state, on both sides of the aisle.

This has taken its toll on the once most popular & highly approved governor in America. She is a lightning rod for the left, and instead of introducing herself to independents, she will have to re-educate them. This will be an uphill climb. Not an impossible one, but difficult. She is no longer the woman that could ride the coat tails of her 80%+ approval rating into the White House.

In other words, we live in William F. Buckley’s world.

And, here in the Buckley world, the Buckley rule must be considered. “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.”

If Palin enters the race, she will have my support. However, if someone believes that she has electability issues and wants to invoke Buckley as their reason for supporting Perry, I can’t argue with that decision. In this case in particular, it is more than fair to consider Palin’s electability. I personally think that she’s still quite electable, but there’s no doubt that her road to the White House will be a rougher one than Perry’s.

Having said that, I think one mistake conservatives continuously make is invoking the Buckley rule too quickly. We’ve done it far too often in our history. And we end up with weak candidates because we assume that they are “electable”. If we’re going to turn this country around, it’s going to take strong conservative actions. And that requires electing strong conservatives. Which means we’re going to have to throw the dice sometimes and take a chance on the ones lower on the “electability” scale. This is true at all levels of politics, possibly even more so at the lower end than the upper.

And, it’s worth mentioning that there’s also the Limbaugh Rule.

GOP Debates: Round 3-Iowa

As always, the video of the entire debate is at the end.

Most of the GOP hopefuls squared off in Ames, IA last night for our third Presidential Primary debate. Like last time, the good news for many of these candidates is that very few people were likely watching. Because there wasn’t much good news in this debate other than that.

If you’re interested, you can find my thoughts on the first and second debates by following the links.

Last time I said that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was the “winner” but didn’t have the best performance. As the perceived front runner, he just has to look Presidential and not screw up. This time he was both the winner and had the best performance. His first three answers were fantastic, easily the best of the candidates. I felt that he started slipping a bit when asked about his record on taxes. Sometimes Romney reminds me of a used car salesman, and this inner voice in my head starts saying “I don’t believe what you’re saying”. That happened on that answer. And I think that answer was the tipping point for him. He was considerably less impressive after that, including flailing as usual on defending RomneyCare. And later in the debate he seemed to become the invisible man. Still, that’s a win for him. If he’s invisible it’s because no one is going after him. And if no one is going after him, he’s still going to be the front runner.

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) had his best debate by far, and at times really shone. I’ve said this now many times and it’s still true. When Santorum is good, he’s great. And when he’s not good, he’s terrible. As usual, we saw a little bit of both last night. The good news for Santorum is that for once we saw more of the good side than the bad side. I admire him for standing firm on his pro life credentials, but his no exceptions at all stance is not going to win him many votes. Still, if he’d been like this in the first two debates, the race might be a bit different. Now, though, it seems like too little too late. My big peeve with the Senator is that I believe he’s too thin skinned. And he allowed that to cause him to lose his patience with Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) and Fox News’ Chris Wallace last night.

Now, it gets tricky. Other than those two, I don’t think anyone did a very good job last night. Herman Cain (R-Godfather’s Pizza) was probably the next best, but still stumbled on foreign policy, particularly Afghanistan. Wallace went after him on Cain’s statements on Muslims, and I don’t think Cain helped himself any with his answers. He clearly showed that he’s not Presidential material. I should copy-paste that last sentence. I may use it often from here on out in this post.

I guess I’d have to go with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06) for the next best performance, but he bickered far too much with Chris Wallace, claiming that the debate questions were “gotcha” questions. I think they were questions these candidates are going to be asked many times over the next 15 months, and they better have good answers for them. His bit on calling Congress back to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, ObamaCare, Frank-Dodd, the Super Committee,  and a few others fell completely flat for me. And he mentioned it twice. The second time it more than fell flat, it annoyed me. Good ideas, but we need to be honest in these debates. Most of those proposals would struggle to exceed 40 votes in the Senate right now. You can forget about 60. I’ve said this before about Newt as well. He’s a great idea man. He’s the guy you want in your company to sit around and come up with new directions for the company. But you don’t want him running it. You need someone else to say “Good idea, Newt, but…no.”

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) probably comes next, but his performance, especially the first hour, was dismal. In fact, he lost my support. I was very impressed with him after the first debate, not so much after the second, and he’s fallen off the map now. He and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) went after each other with ferocity and bitterness. It wasn’t pretty on either side. People had differing impressions of who pulled down whom, but both came out of it looking awful. Not saying he couldn’t change my mind again, but right now, I’m in search of a candidate. And I’m not looking towards MN to find one. When he wasn’t bickering with Bachmann he looked ok, but not the guy I remember from the first debate. His best moments last night were like the guy he was in the second debate. Not good.

Next, former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT). All it says by having him sixth is that the other two below him were completely terrible. There’s nothing that Huntsman says that endears him to me or makes me want to vote for him. I’m sure he was a decent governor for Utah, but there’s no doubt that he’s a big government Republican, and I don’t think he’s ready for a larger stage. Not Presidential material.

I guess I’d put Ron Paul in seventh, but again, only because he wasn’t quite as bad as Bachmann. His foreign policy ideas are frankly scary. He’s a big L libertarian, and an isolationist. And last night he was even less solid than usual on domestic policy. I think when he expresses his ideas on a national stage it hurts the entire party. He either makes us look foolish, or he hands talking points to the left. Sometimes both. I’d honestly prefer it if he were not at any future debates.

Apparently winning these debates is not a good thing. I thought Pawlenty won the first, and looked bad in the second. I thought Bachmann was the clear winner of the second and looked horrible last night. In fact, I’d go as far to say that it was one of the worst debate performances I’ve ever seen. Her bickering and sniping with Pawlenty was not useful, and really her best moment was when answering an absolutely ridiculous question by Byron York on whether she’d submit to her husband as President. The question obviously caught her off guard (as I think it did to us all), but she kept her cool, responded, made some nice key points about love, marriage, family, and children, and generally made York look like a doofus for even asking it. Bachmann has been polling well, but I believe it’s more because the “anybody but Romney” crowd has jumped on her bandwagon, not because she has much strong support. I think when Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) enters the race, and if former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) enters, she disappears.

I’ve said both of the last two times that I thought Palin, assuming she runs, was hurt by not being there. Last night was the opposite. For both her and Perry, it was good to not be there last night. They didn’t get pulled down into the mud, and will get the stage to themselves for a while this weekend.

I think in general the candidates all made two significant mistakes. None of them really went after Romney. I keep hammering on this. He is the perceived front runner. If you don’t go after the front runner, he will remain the front runner. Second, there was almost no mention of President Barack Obama (D-USA). Obama needs to be center stage at all of these debates. In fact, they should add an extra empty podium just for him. He’s the person all of these people are running against. They need to show his faults and make clear distinctions between what he’s done and what they would do.

The bottom line? The only candidate that was there last night that can win the GOP nomination was Mitt Romney. The others are wasting their time and ours. Our GOP nominee will be one of Romney, Perry, or Palin, and you can bet the farm on that.

The Undefeated

As I mentioned in my last post, I saw two films yesterday. The second one was the documentary about former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), The Undefeated.

A few points need to be mentioned before I start. The fact that I’m an unabashed Palin supporter, and have been since even before she appeared on the national stage almost 3 years ago is common knowledge. She was the person I was hoping Senator John McCain (R-AZ) would pick as his running mate. I had researched her and was impressed with what I discovered. Also, the movie is based somewhat upon her first book, Going Rogue: An American Life, which I had read enthusiastically. Finally, in an attempt to generate buzz, the movie has been shown to various pundits and limited audience for the last couple months. There’s been plenty of information made public about the film for those willing to look.

So, given all that, you’d think that I would have been prepared for the film. You’d think that I would have nothing to learn from going to see it.

You’d be wrong. Stephen Bannon’s film is a masterpiece. He reminded me why I became a follower of Sarah Palin in the first place.

If you’ve been reading other reviews, you know that this is a documentary in 3 acts. I’m not going to hit much on the substance of the individual parts of the film. Others have done that already. See some reviews here, here, here, and here, if you’re interested. I will take umbrage with part of Ed Morrissey’s review. He said that he loved the material of the film, but thought the style was off and the music was too heavy-handed and overwhelming. I couldn’t disagree more. The music fits well, and directors have long known of the importance of adding music to a film to control pacing (hence the accolades constantly thrown at the master, John Williams). The music in this film works. It helps keep the movie flowing through what is, admittedly, a history book on film.

What the film does, is show why the left fears and hates Sarah Palin so much. Some of it is just who they are. The opening sequence is a montage of Palin-hate from the left. And it’s important to remember, that a lot of this was from the first few weeks after she’d been announced as McCain’s running mate. These people were telling us that she was the worst human being alive, despite knowing almost nothing about her. All they knew was that she was a pro life conservative woman, a governor, and quite obviously a happy wife and mother to 5. Just that little bit was enough to send the left into apoplexy.

But even that’s not the biggest problem with Palin from the left’s standpoint.

I have said this often, that the biggest difference between Palin and President Barack Obama (D-USA) isn’t their politics, it’s that Palin clearly gets America, and Obama, just as clearly, doesn’t. I realized during the film that I was understating the case. Not only does Palin get America, she gets Americans. When she gives a speech, she’s not just speaking to us, she’s speaking with us and for us.

That is quite different from any politician on the left, and most politicians on the right. And it scares the living daylights out of them. It also terrifies the media, because she is so capable of talking directly with us, without the need for media interpretation or amplification. She makes them unnecessary.

The sequencing of the film is no accident.  It deliberately shows Palin dealing with and conquering issues in AK that are very similar to the issues that we face as a nation today. The whole point of the film is not “Palin’s an effective leader”, but “Palin knows how to deal with the issues we’re facing and has dealt successfully with them before”. It’s also no accident that the film brings up Palin’s knowledge and successes at energy production and delivery, nor her successes in dealing with the energy barons. To those that just think they know Palin, and don’t actually know her, this part, Act 2, will be the most eye opening part of the film, as it was to Ben Howe of RedState.

Hint folks: there’s a reason why Rush Limbaugh, Tammy Bruce, and Mark Levin sing this woman’s praises constantly. And it’s not because they’re crushing on her (well, maybe Tammy a little bit ). These people do their research. They wouldn’t tell you that she’s the real deal if she wasn’t. She’s possibly the most “genuine” person in the American political arena today. Period.

Act 2 is terrific, there’s no doubt. It should be required viewing for those who want to “report” or “expound” on Sarah Palin. But to me, Act 3 was the most amazing part of the film. It’s here where we see Palin at her “coming out party” the Republican National Convention in 2008. We see the genesis of the Tea Party movement and her help in it. We see clips from several of her speeches at Tea Party events and at other venues. And what we see is a woman that’s a natural at giving a stump speech. I’d forgotten that. It’s amazing to watch. We have a President now that is so politically tone deaf, and she’s the exact opposite. And she doesn’t just speak what the crowd wants to hear. She speaks from her heart, which is what makes the message so powerful and dynamic. She will absolutely change the dynamic of the Presidential race if she enters it. Whether she will, and whether she can win the nomination, I don’t know. I’m not trying to guess at the moment.

The other thing that’s important in Act 3 is that Andrew Breitbart calls me out. I’m going to steal Ben Howe’s words here because he says them far better than I could.

As Breitbart points out in the film, the greatest shame is that while this woman was savaged to degrees you may not even realize yet, some of us sat back and let it happen. For me to buy into the media template and not defend someone who’s only offense was being a conservative, is the absolute antithesis of what I stand for, and something that I shall never allow to happen again.

I haven’t made that mistake with Palin. But, I’ve said often that the personal destruction politics used against Palin were just a test run for 2012. I’ve repeated that the GOP nominee will go through just as bad, if not worse. I’ve repeated that often, but I haven’t done anything about it. I owe a personal apology to the candidates, particularly Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) and to Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) who are already getting the Palin treatment. I’ve defended neither. That ends today.

John Nolte at BigHollywood is constantly reminding us that we need to fight back against not only the Democrats, but also (especially) the media, if we’re going to win. Palin has been terrific at this, but she can’t do it alone. Others, like Bachmann and Perry are still learning this. Breitbart and Nolte have reminded me that I have a voice in this effort also, and I will be using it.

I was also left with one other impression. It hit me in the final 10-15 minutes of the film. My wife and I are currently raising two wonderful daughters. My wife is a wonderful role model for them, and I salute her for that. But Palin’s story, this movie, is a remarkable exhibit of what one woman can do if she has guts and determination and sticks to her core beliefs. I found myself wishing that my daughters were just a bit older so I could show this to them. Maybe after her first term is over.

As I said at the top of this post, I saw two movies yesterday, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, and The Undefeated.

Harry Potter was terrific. The Undefeated was better.

And finally, if you don’t click through on any of the other links on this post (and I encourage you to read them all), please at least read the Ben Howe piece and listen to his interview with Stephen Bannon, the director of the film. It is definitely worth your time.

The Undefeated

Friday, I’ll be going to see this movie at the AMC on the south side of Indianapolis. If you have a chance, you should go see it as well.

The Undefeated Teaser Trailer from Dain Valverde on Vimeo.

Ok, MSM, I Give Up

You’re right. We can’t allow someone this stupid in the White House.

Mr. Pinko presents: The Ultimate SARAH PALIN is a MORON video.

 

 

(yes, I know…you’ve already seen it elsewhere…still, this deserves to be here).

A Point About Palin’s Potential Presidential Prospects

I’ve been thinking about writing this post for some time. Larry Sabato pushed me over the edge. I have nothing but respect for Mr. Sabato. He is the guru of election prognostication. But there’s been a common meme appearing about former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) lately, and I’ve always felt it’s nonsensical. Sabato repeated it in his last column, and it didn’t sound any better even coming from him.

Ultimately, we don’t believe she’s running for two reasons. She has more influence and a far higher income outside of elective politics than in it.

I’ll address the latter first, because it’s the easiest to destroy. The problem with that statement is that it’s essentially true for just about every single person in the field. You think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) can’t make more money outside of politics? Former CEO Herman Cain (R-GP)? Ridiculous. But this point is continuously brought up about Palin and only Palin. When I see this as a criticism, I know the analysis is unserious.

Now, regarding influence. This part of the statement also does not stand up under any serious scrutiny. Let’s look at some scenarios.

1. She runs, wins GOP nomination and takes out President Barack Obama (D-USA) in 2012. You think she’ll have less influence from the White House? You’ve got to be kidding me. So, first, this narrative about how much influence she’ll have presupposes that she’ll lose. Again, no other speculation about other potential candidates presupposes that they’ll lose.
2. She runs, wins GOP nomination and loses to Obama in 2012. Ok, here she’ll take a hit in influence, especially as there will be some that will say “if we’d nominated Romney, he would have won”. But it probably won’t be too much of a hit, as she will still be the de facto voice of the GOP for the next four years, by virtue of winning the GOP nomination. And she’ll still be able to attack Obama, and will likely still be the loudest voice for conservative principles. Certainly losing the White House bid in 2000 has done little to reduce former Vice President Al Gore’s (D-USA) influence within his party.
3. Someone else wins the GOP nomination and defeats Obama in 2012. Here her influence will certainly drop, but it will do so regardless of whether she runs or not. There will be a Republican in the White House. S/He will be the voice of the party. Also, she does best attacking the opposition. Can you imagine the Facebook posts, “I support President Z on Y”? Zzzzz. Occasionally, she’ll disagree and toss out another zinger, but those will be few and far between. So, yes, she’ll lose a ton of influence here, but again, as I said, the influence lost is because there’s a Republican in the White House, and would be lost whether she runs or not.
4. Someone else wins the GOP nomination and loses to Obama in 2012. I’m not sure how this one plays out. She would not be the de facto voice of the opposition, but she hasn’t been for the last three years either. That would be Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and that hasn’t slowed her down any. I really don’t see much of an influence level change here either, and again, it doesn’t seem to matter whether she runs or not.

So, that’s all the possible scenarios. Which ones did she lose a lot of influence that she would not have lost by staying out of the race? Yeah. None of them.

Now perhaps Mr. Sabato is not thinking long term but is instead thinking short term? That might be it, as I’ve also heard that Palin is better suited to being a kingmaker right now.

Well, she can certainly be a kingmaker. There’s no doubt about that. In fact, one would have to say that at this point, the three most sought after endorsements will be Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee. The three of them together have appeal strengths that map to pretty much the entire GOP base. However, will her endorsement mean any less if she enters the race, than if she stays out? The only way that her endorsement becomes relatively meaningless upon entering the race is if she blows up and is a total dud in the primaries. Of course, that would mean that she doesn’t really have any influence now, either. So, again, this argument doesn’t hold water.

Now, I believe she’s running. But, there certainly are reasons to speculate otherwise. It’s true that she hasn’t done much of the standard political moves necessary to start a national campaign. Frankly, that’s the biggest reason to speculate that she isn’t, not the junk analysis at the top of this post.

The GOP Candidates-The Bad

As promised, now the bad.

(No, I’m not going to do an Ugly, but if you look at this list, I’m sure you can find some ugly)

• Mitt Romney – Wow, where to begin. He’s the left most person in the field. He’s got RomneyCare hanging around his neck, supports ethanol subsidies and believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
• Newt Gingrich – I think he learned too much from President Bill Clinton (D-USA). He’s too much into this whole “national conversation” thing, and seems like he’s always triangulating lately. He also believes in AGW, and to be blunt, his campaign so far has been a disaster. As I have said previously, he’s a 20th century politician. I really don’t feel that he understands the Tea Party and the angst there.
• Tim Pawlenty – Definitely has some green roots and supported cap & trade while governor. He says he’s learned from that, but there are some other things he needs to have learned from as well. He hasn’t always been a small government politician. Right now he appears to be saying the right things, but is he just saying them to get elected, or because that’s what he feels? Call me cynical, but I worry.
• Herman Cain – His outsider status is going to be a problem in the general election. He clearly has issues with foreign policy as well. Also, I fear that the MSM will use his race in a subtle fashion to attack him and the GOP. I can just imagine someone saying, “Look, the GOP is trying to show they have a black man too. But there are so few in the GOP they couldn’t find one with actual political experience to run.” If you don’t think Chris Matthews is capable of saying something like this, you haven’t been paying attention. I really hope I’m wrong on that, but I fear I’m not.
• Michelle Bachman – I don’t believe in legislators as Presidents. I never have, and our current President sure hasn’t changed my mind. Also, she’s a firebrand. I think that works for her in the House, but not sure it’s a winning feature in the White House. Let her run for Governor of MN, learn to be a Chief Executive, and then I’m solidly behind her in 2016 or 2020, depending on 2012 outcome.
• Ron Paul – Well, he’s Ron Paul. He’s an isolationist, and he’s out there on a lot of things.
• Rick Perry – As I said on the good page, I just don’t know that much about him. I do remember in those articles over the last few years that I scanned, that I wasn’t always happy. I can’t name any specifics though. I’m not the best even keeping up with local politics even in my own state, much less someone else’s. Yes, I realize that sounds odd for someone who is so much for Federalism. I’d love to pay more attention to local politics, but our top heavy federal government doesn’t allow me to do so.
• Gary Johnson – His performance in the first debate was absolutely dismal. He didn’t give a single answer that I liked. So, I’m pretty much down on him on every single issue.
• Sarah Palin – As a candidate she has a lot to overcome. Also, while I admire her desire to run an unconventional campaign, I doubt the ability of such a campaign to succeed on a national level. She has an image that has been created by the MSM, and it is the image that most people see in their minds when they think of her. And, fair or unfair, the “quitter” label is going to be stuck with her for the rest of her life. Also, I think her adamant stand on the debt ceiling issue would come back to haunt her as a President. It has all the makings of a “Read my lips” moment.
• Jon Huntsman – I missed him on the Good, so I’ll have to go back and add something. But he’s well liked by the MSM, which is all conservatives should need to know about him. He’s a big government politician and pro choice.

That’s the bad. And, sadly, there’s a lot of it. I can probably support any of these people should they win the nomination, but it will be extremely difficult for me to pull the lever for Romney, Johnson, or Huntsman. I’ve previously said I’ll never do it for Romney, but our current President is slowly making me reconsider that position. I’m pretty worried about the future of our country should President Barack Obama (D-USA) be re-elected, so despite my significant misgivings about Romney, and what he means to the future of the USA and the GOP, I’ll probably have to support him.

The GOP Candidates-The Good

My Twitter timeline is full of statements good and bad about various GOPers these days, and I keep finding myself wanting to retweet with comment. Unfortunately, most of my comments would be 1) negative, and 2) comparative to former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I’m really trying not to be an “all Palin, all the time” sort of person, so I’ve been mostly resistant to tweeting.

However, my fingers are still twitchy, so I’m going to write a couple blog posts about what I like and dislike about the various mainstream candidates and speculative candidates.

All comments are based upon what I know of these people right now, and are my opinion only. Remember, this post is only about the good things. The bad things are coming later.

• Mitt Romney – He’s probably more capable of winning the independent vote than any other candidate. And he understands economics better than just about anyone else in the field
• Newt Gingrich – An absolutely brilliant individual, capable of thinking outside the box, and a genuine font of knowledge when it concerns U.S. history, and the implications of the future. Also understands the need for getting the public on your side, having learned this the hard way from President Bill Clinton (D-USA)
• Tim Pawlenty – Showing some real strength so far in the campaign season, definitely trying to court the Tea Party movement.
• Herman Cain – Smart outsider who understands businesses and what makes them grow. He supports the FairTax and also is not afraid of calling out the President where he’s wrong.
• Michelle Bachmann – Definitely has staked out the Tea Party movement as her core constituency. Taking a principled stand where taxes and the size of government is concerned.
• Ron Paul – I like some of his libertarian views, particularly where he stands on marriage. I’m in total agreement with him. We need to get government out of the marriage business. Yes, I realize that’s not as easy as it sounds, but it’s the right solution. Oh, and I’m with him on the Federal Reserve. That would be the best thing about a Paul presidency, seeing him demanding the Fed turn over their books.
• Rick Perry – To be honest, I don’t know the Texas governor all that well. I remember glancing through several stories over the last few years with his name on them and being mostly pleased with what I saw, but I don’t remember any specifics. Will have to do more research if his candidacy appears more likely.
• Gary Johnson – Give me a minute. I’ll think of something. Oh yeah, I read that he supports the FairTax.
• Sarah Palin – Since her emergence in 2008, she has been on the right side of every issue, and she has an opinion on all of them and has voiced them loudly and clearly to anyone who’s bothered to listen. What I like most about Sarah Palin is that she recognizes the MSM as the enemy and treats them as such, going around them to get her message out, rather than through them. She also has been willing to attack President Barack Obama (D-USA) on his stances much more than any other political figure.
• Jon Huntsman – He has some nice foreign policy credentials as Ambassador to China, and he’s a strong proponent of real tax reform, something that’s a big issue to me personally, in case you haven’t noticed.

There are other candidates and speculated candidates listed here, but I honestly don’t believe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) or Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) are running. As for the others, I think only John Bolton has a chance of making any noise at all, and even his noisemaking potential appears minimal.

UPDATED: Added the bit about Ron Paul and the Fed.

UPDATE 2: Forgot Jon Huntsman. Added.

One Of The Many Reasons I Can’t EVER Support Mitt Romney

I’m fairly libertarian when it comes to personal rights, and conservative when it comes to most else. I’m a strong believer in the the Constitution and Bill of Rights, particularly amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. Ok, all of them.

Anyway, I’m not incredibly far to the right, although I’ve drifted farther there over the last few years. Having said all that, I’ve been able to vote in Presidential elections since 1988, and every single GOP Presidential candidate that I’ve gotten to vote for has been to the left of me. I’m tired of being forced to vote for people who don’t represent my views. After McCain I promised myself that I wouldn’t do it again. I realize that this is likely a promise that I’ll break someday, but it won’t be in 2012.

Also, I firmly believe that these centrist Republicans are destroying the party. The biggest reason that the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 wasn’t because they lost the independents, but because they lost the base. President George W. Bush (R-USA) did many things right, but he did many things wrong too, and people like me got tired of big government conservatism. Sometimes I still wonder if Senator John McCain (R-AZ) might have turned out to be a worse President than President Barack Obama (D-USA). At least with Obama in the White House, we generally have a pretty unified GOP fighting against him. McCain would have wanted to implement many of the same types of policies as Obama, and the GOP would’ve gone right along with their leader. And that would’ve dispirited the base even further.

Instead, what we got in 2010 was a fired up, energized, and angry base. A base that has had enough of big government and just wants it to STOP.

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) is far to the left of me. Everyone knows all about RomneyCare by now, which was the model for ObamaCare. But even if I could forgive him for that (I can’t), he showed off his big government credentials in Iowa again today.

Talking to an Iowa voter, Romney said, “I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”

Romney held the same position in 2008.

He also was evasive regarding Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI-01) plan.

Romney declined to say whether, if he were president, he would sign into law the GOP Medicare plan authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — something that a rival, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, said Thursday he would do.

“That’s the kind of speculation that is getting the cart ahead of the horse,” Romney told reporters. “I’m going to propose my own plan, and my plan will be somewhat different than what the Paul Ryan plan is, but I support the objectives of the Paul Ryan plan, which is keeping Medicare alive, keeping it solvent and keeping the nation solvent.”

I don’t know if he’s just avoiding sticking his neck out against political pressure, or if he’s not interested in a smaller cleaner government (I suspect both), but this kind of squishiness frustrates me. Yes, I know that it’s politically risky in Iowa to come out against ethanol subsidies. But that’s what leadership is all about. Making the risky choices and standing behind them. The country is in dire shape. This is a moment of truth. We can’t afford leaders who won’t lead. At the risk of over using a quote from President Ronald Reagan (R-USA):

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Romney is a pale pastel. I’ve been outspoken in my support for former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) precisely because she raises that banner of bold colors. I’m perfectly aware of all of the issues with a Palin candidacy. I will gladly support someone else if that person is willing to step to the front as she has, and be outspoken on issues, and attack Obama where he’s obviously wrong. Romney either can’t or won’t do that, and thus he is not qualified to lead our party or our country.

Thus, he will never get my vote, not even if he’s the GOP nominee. You can say that’s wrong, that I’m forgetting the important goal, of getting Obama out of the White House, but my response is that you’re missing the important goal, saving this country. That’s only going to happen with an energetic and enthusiastic conservative base. President Romney will not make that happen. I believe that with him in office, 2014 & 2016 will look like 2006 and 2008, only worse. We can’t let that happen. I’m more willing to see four more years of Obama than I am willing to see that.

As an aside, I will say that former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) seems to get the idea, but I’m not ready to jump on his bandwagon just yet.

The One Nation Bus Tour Video

Since I’ve been posting candidate vids lately, this seems appropriate:

 

Surprisingly, Byron York at the Washington Examiner reports today that most of the GOP field still doesn’t think she’s running.

"The bottom line is Sarah Palin is not going to run for president," says a Republican adviser close to front-runner Mitt Romney. "She's making money, she's moved on, she's kind of an entertainer rather than a politician. She still has some sway with the grass roots, but she is not going to run."

"I don't think she's going to run," says a Republican close to Tim Pawlenty. "She has faded a lot in the last few months. I look at what she's doing now and say that she's found a way to get back in the story."

Wishful thinking. It doesn’t take a psychic to read the “Tea” leaves lately. It’s now a matter of when, not if. And I expect the when to be in the next 30 days. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a bit longer than that.

I Did Say She’s Running, Didn’t I?

Tuesday we heard about her biopic premiering in Iowa, of all places, and this morning, we heard on CBS that:

Scott Conroy, a reporter at RealClearPolitics.com and co-author of "Sarah from Alaska," got a sneak peek at the documentary and said on "The Early Show" Thursday he's heard from "several reliable sources" that, over the next couple of days, another "major indicator" is going to surface that she's ready to run in 2012.

And later today, we found out what he was most likely talking about.

She’s going on a bus tour of United States historical sites, starting along the eastern seaboard.

Surprisingly, there’s still no change in her status with Fox News:

“We are not changing Sarah Palin’s status,” said Bill Shine, the executive vice president of programming at Fox News, in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.

Of course, they never got rid of former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) either. I guess the difference is that neither Huck nor former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) have launched “exploratory committees”. And I don’t think Palin will. She’ll just enter the race when she’s ready. And she will. I no longer have any doubts about that.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air agrees with me and thinks the question of “will she” has been answered:

It seems pretty clear that Palin wants to raise her national profile, and she wants to do so simultaneously in key early-primary states and in the media centers of Atlantic seaboard.  One doesn’t do that in a presidential primary season without having a specific goal in mind.  If Palin was interested in growing the grassroots for down-ticket Republicans in Congressional races, summer 2011 would be too early to help in that way.

So let’s consider the when of the candidacy.  National Journal reports that the formal entry could come as late as October, when Utah requires candidates to register, and Palin’s reach and name recognition means that she can wait longer to jump into the race.  I’d still expect it sooner rather than later, because Palin will want to use the momentum from the bus tour and the documentary to maximize the impact of her announcement.  She could go as long as Labor Day if the film does boffo box office, but given the usual success of political films, I’d look for something sooner — perhaps as soon as Independence Day.

Independence Day sounds like a good idea on the surface, but that’s the weekend she resigned from the Governorship of Alaska, also. I’m not sure she wants to bring attention to that while she’s announcing, so I’d expect sooner than that.

The bus tour starts this weekend joining Rolling Thunder, the motorcycle rally in D.C. honoring POW/MIA’s.

In perfect timing, Gallup, released a poll today showing her and former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) leading the GOP pack.

Mitt Romney (17%) and Sarah Palin (15%) now lead a smaller field of potential Republican presidential candidates in rank-and-file Republicans‘ preferences for the party’s 2012 nominee.

That’s fine by me. I will walk barefoot over hot coals to prevent Romney from getting the nomination. I’ll crawl naked over those same coals to keep him out of the White House. I do believe that he will be worse for the country than President Barack Obama (D-USA). Perhaps someday I’ll modify my opinion on that, but don’t hold out hope.

And, other news is lining up that’s helping out Mrs. Palin. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) has hit a rough patch. She had a failed money bomb yesterday, and skipped an Iowa GOP dinner today, where she was scheduled to speak. Her Presidential aspirations may be fading. I like Bachmann, but she’s a firebrand, and I think the House suits her right now. I don’t like the idea of her in the White House. I’ll vote for her, if she’s the nominee, but I don’t think I’d be too happy about it. I’ve always thought legislators make poor Presidential material, and the last 2 1/2 years certainly haven’t changed my mind.

After a dull winter and spring, it looks like the summer is going to be an entertaining one for conservative political junkies. The GOP race is finally heating up.

The Obligatory ‘Daniels Is Out’ Post

Well, I talked about Pawlenty and Cain. You didn’t think I was going to skip Mitch did you?

Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) made it official this weekend. He’s not running for President. From his statement:

The answer is that I will not be a candidate. What could have been a complicated decision was in the end very simple: on matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.

I am deeply concerned, for the first time in my life, about the future of our Republic. In the next few years Americans will decide two basic sets of questions: Who’s in charge here? Should the public sector protect and promote the private sector or dominate and direct it? Does the government work for the people or vice versa?

I was never a fan of Daniels as a Presidential candidate. I documented some of the reasons in an earlier post. But I also think that the MSM would have tied him to President George W. Bush (R-USA) (Dems still like to run against Bush—they plan on doing it again in 2012), and would have pointed out that his record as a fiscal hawk is severely tarnished by his tenure at the OMB under Bush.

And, there’s the marriage, divorce, re-marriage issue. No, I’m not going to go into the details. If you’ve been following, you know. If not, find out someplace else. This isn’t a gossip blog.

I did think that he would likely have been the de facto frontrunner had he entered, as I mentioned earlier. Right now, I think that role falls to Pawlenty, who clearly has some momentum. Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) can still shake up the race, but I think the window is starting to close on that. Pawlenty and Cain and others are starting to hit their stride in the campaign now. Palin, even with her rabid supporters, will have to play catch up, if she doesn’t officially enter soon. I figure she has until the end of June to make it official. After that, she moves to a spoiler role.

She’s Going To Run

And by “she”, you know who I mean. Premiering in Iowa next month, “Undefeated”, a movie produced by former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) which tells her story. It will tell about her rise in AK politics, her governorship, her run with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and her surprise resignation.

After Iowa?

Bannon intends to premiere the film in Iowa late next month before expanding the release to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. After the initial rollout in the four early voting states, the filmmaker will eventually release it to somewhere between 50 and 100 markets nationwide.

Wow, the first four primary states. What a coincidence.

There’s home video footage, interviews with associates, interviews with noted conservatives, and video of the Governor herself.

Divided into three acts, the film makes the case that despite the now cliched label, Palin was indeed a maverick who confronted the powerful forces lined up against her to achieve wide-ranging success in a short period of time. The second part of the film's message is just as clear, if more subjective: that Sarah Palin is the only conservative leader who can both build on the legacy of the Reagan Revolution and bring the ideals of the tea party movement to the Oval Office.

[…]

The film's third act puts a positive spin on Palin's 2008 vice presidential run, reminding viewers of her initially valuable impact on the McCain campaign by showing the Gallup poll trend lines that had the Republican ticket taking its first lead over the Democrats before the collapse of Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15.

It also gives an extended treatment to Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., her finest hour politically.

You don’t work to get a movie like this made, and then premiere it in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, unless you’re running for President.

In the words of Mrs. Palin, “Game On!”

The Obligatory ‘Huck Is Out’ Post

Watch here:

Official statement here.

Who benefits? Not Romney. Probably (in order), Daniels, Palin, and Pawlenty. Daniels, if he enters now becomes the de facto front runner. Romney may be listed as the front runner for a while yet, but after his disastrous defense of RomneyCare he’s not getting the nomination. His candidacy is over. The best “anti-Mitt” will win the day. If Daniels enters, that looks like him, as he’ll also win over the “anti-Palin” crowd from the old guard GOP who fears her. If Daniels stays out, then Sarah likely becomes the prohibitive favorite, should she enter. If both stay out, I think we can start talking about Pawlenty’s general election chances.

One thing that might benefit Palin, even if Daniels enters, is that she’ll likely be better at courting Huckabee and his supporters than Daniels. But that may not be enough, as Daniels is going to be a money machine, from the whales at least.

GOP Nomination Process Begins Today

It begins. The circus we call the nomination process.

Today we will have the first of countless GOP debates between the candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Who’s going to be there?

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, businessman Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will face off in Greenville, S.C., in the Fox News-sponsored debate that begins at 9 p.m.

All names that are on everyone’s short list, I’m sure.

Many people have opined on why most of the major names are not here (Romney, Gingrich), and also on why so many expected candidates (Palin, Daniels) have not even thrown their names in the ring yet. I have no opinion on why, but I do think that it’s about time to get this party started. I think a candidate who has not made an official declaration by mid-summer will likely be in trouble. Time will tell.

Anyway, since this is the start, it’s worth taking a look at something I wrote over 2 years ago:

At this point, a 2-term Presidency for Mr. Barack Obama (D-USA) seems a near certainty.

[…]

What’s the #1 question in voter’s minds when they go to the polls to re-elect an incumbent or vote in a new President?

“Am I better or worse off now than I was 4 years ago?”

It’s hard to see how most people will answer that as “worse”. I certainly hope that most people won’t. That would mean that we really are in a “depression” and not a “recession”. Because otherwise, because of or in spite of Mr. Obama, the economy should have recovered to some degree by then.

Well, we seem to have missed the “depression” many were worried about, but I’m not sure too many people will say that they’re better off then they were in 2008 at this point. We are still at nearly 9% unemployment, and the only reason it’s even that low is because so many people have given up looking for work. Gas prices are through the roof. Inflation is digging deeper into people’s pockets, people that haven’t gotten any raises in three years. The housing market is still in free fall. And people are again talking “recession”. Add all that up, and it’s ugly.

Still, the election is 18 months away from tomorrow. Quite a bit of recovery could occur between now and then. It would be foolish to expect it, based on the recovery we’ve seen so far. But, you never know.

So, tonight the five men listed above will bring up some of these facts, and tell us how they’re going to fix them, and how stupid the other four men are. Be sure to tune in. 9 pm EDT on FNC.

Have We Hit The Real Debt Ceiling Already?

Forget that debt ceiling vote coming up in Congress. The problems are worse.

As Megan McArdle points out:

In response, during a recent summit, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS) announced that they want to trade between themselves in their own currencies. This comes amid a growing chorus in China pushing for a limit of dollar reserves to $1.3 trillion. At present, China, whose economy the IMF says will outpace that of the US by 2016, has $3.04 trillion in dollar reserves. What's going to happen to the dollar when China sells off $1.74 trillion? And who, besides the Federal Reserve, is going to buy our bonds?

If anything, I think this understates the problem.  The real issue starts, not when China starts selling our bonds, but when China stops buying our bonds. As soon as that happens, we're in big trouble.

Exactly. China is the biggest purchaser of our debt (with one recent exception, which I’ll cover in a moment). If they stop buying, what will we do then? You think Japan is going to buy more, with their problems? Not a chance. Egypt, India, France? Yeah, right.

Right now, when Treasury goes to sell new bonds, it enters a fairly robust market, with not just the Fed but a bunch of fairly price-inelastic Asian central banks who are willing to take on our bonds at whatever the market offers.  If China exits the market, we will either need to borrow less, or attract new lenders by offering higher interest rates.  Even a noticeable decrease in volume would force us to pay more for our deficits.

And since we can’t afford our deficit, we’d have to sell yet more bonds, increasing our debt even further and further increasing the pressure on the dollar and pressure on our buyers.

It won’t matter how high we raise our debt ceiling, if we can’t get anyone to buy our debt.

As Ed Morrissey says:

We are rapidly approaching a moment of truth.  While we debate the finer points of raising debt limits and calculating just how many hundreds of billions of dollars in annual deficits we’ll tolerate, the truth is that the money to fund any deficit spending may soon run out.  Fiscal sanity may wind up being imposed on us if we don’t choose that path willingly.

However, Morrissey may be optimistic. We may be already there.

I mentioned earlier that China has not been the largest purchaser of U.S. bonds lately. It’s been someone else.

From Mark Steyn:

My weekend column is about “the debt ceiling” and how, even as the Treasury issues more and more debt, there are fewer and fewer people willing to buy it. I forgot to mention the really startling number. Pimco (which has now dumped US Treasuries) estimated last month that, under QE2, 70 per cent of the US Government’s debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve.

Ah yes, QE2 rears it’s ugly head again.

We’ve been buying our debt because no one else is willing to buy it. QE2 ends in June. What happens then? Someone asked this earlier.

And if it doesn’t work, what do we do then? Print even more money? What’s the end game here? Where will all this money printing on an unprecedented scale take us? Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually – inevitably – no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?

And, as I pointed out at the time and almost two years ago:

So the problem is the debt-to-GDP ratio. There are exactly four ways to reduce it. I suspect that we’ll have to do at least two of them.

1) Grow the economy

2) Cut spending

3) Increase taxes

4) Print money

I’m no Nobel Laureate, but if there’s another way, I sure don’t know about it.

Let’s assume that we’re not going to buy our way out of this by printing obscene amounts of money. You get double and triple digit inflation that way and destroy the economy. Generally, that’s a last resort. And usually fails in any event.

Everything Obama has tried has failed at #1. He’s utterly opposed to #2, and the economic situation and the new Congress makes #3 out of the question. We’re now left with #4, the one that I assumed at the time we’d not be stupid enough to attempt.

If no one will buy our debt, #1 & #3 won’t work anyway. Don’t solve the problem fast enough. We could do #2, but we’d have to do it harshly, completely ending programs, not just reforming them. Again, all we’re left with is #4.

Repeating that someone’s words, for emphasis:

Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually – inevitably – no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?

We may find out the answer to that question very soon. And it won’t be pretty. November, 2012 may be too far away to solve our problems. We may not make it until November, 2011.

Yes, my posts have been incredibly pessimistic lately. I admit it. Hope and change? I’ve lost hope. And I don’t think change can come soon enough.

Down the Memory Hole Again

Well, as I predicted yesterday, the offensive post from Wonkette has disappeared.

You may recall me mentioning that I had screencaps of that too. I guess I’m self-elected as the screen grabber for Wonkette.

 

 

 

 

Wonkette, you can hide your past, but you can’t make it go away.

Stalking–Peaceful Green Hippie Style

Well, isn’t this just terrific?

Sarah Palin has obtained a new restraining order against the stalker who's been terrorizing her family  -- after the man allegedly made several disturbing threats ... including raping Sarah's daughter.

It's unclear which daughter Sarah was referring to in the legal docs -- but she later mentions that the stalker targeted Willow in his threats and it "bothered [her] tremendously."

It doesn't end there either -- according to the docs, Shawn phoned Sarah's house calling her a "slut or whore" ... and Sarah's dad claims the family was so spooked they "made sure we armed ourselves."

I’m so glad the enlightened left is there to show me the true way to inner peace and contentment.

Ok, I was wrong. Partly.

And people like Tammy Bruce and Erick Erickson were more right than I was giving them credit for.

I said that while the budget deal was a crap sandwich, it was the best crap sandwich we were likely to get. As more details are exposed, the deal looks even crappier.

However, I stand behind my other points, being a shutdown favors the Democrats, and that we’re not going to get anything but crap sandwiches as long as this President is in the White House. As I said earlier, we’re going to have to fight for every penny, and when we’ve gotten all the pennies we’re likely to get, it’s time to move on to the next battle.

Forcing Harry Reid to agree to an up or down vote in the Senate on ObamaCare funding and Planned Parenthood funding are big wins, and will be important next November.

I am not walking back on anything I said when I described how the Tea Party can win.

So, I was wrong in calling the budget deal a win. Mea culpa. I foolishly took Speaker Boehner (R-OH-08) at his word. I won’t make that mistake again.

He should have gotten more pennies. But he should not have shut the government down over it.

Next battle is still the debt ceiling, then budget for FY2012. I’m still cautiously optimistic about both of those, but considerably less so than I was on Sunday.

Oh, and Sarah Palin was one of the people that was right. I should know better than to trust my instincts vs. hers. Say what you will about the lady, but to deny her political savvy is to deny reality.

Peaceful Green Hippie Gets Probation

A Wisconsin man was sentenced Monday to probation for a November 2010 incident in which he became so enraged that Bristol Palin remained on "Dancing With The Stars" he shot his TV, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

Steven Cowan, 68, claimed Palin's success on the show was a political conspiracy before he blasted his set with a shotgun and began a 15-hour standoff with cops at his home in Black Earth, Wis., 19 miles (30 kilometers) west of Madison.

Shooting your TV because the daughter of someone you dislike is doing well in a reality show. This is a man who seriously needs to unplug.