Romney's Big Night - Again - And One More Thing

Regardless of whether or not Mitt Romney wins Ohio tonight, he will increase his delegate lead. He started the day with a 173 to 76. When the delegates are totaled after Super Tuesday, I believe his lead will increase his lead by 140 delegates or more, given the proportional representation in many of the states. (A little coaching from Karl Rove on that one.) He is running a national campaign that the other candidates cannot match.

Of interest is that Sarah Palin voted for Newt Gingrich. Wonder what some former fan girls think of that? (Do I mean you Sarah?) Is Sarah Palin secretly rooting for Romney?

In other news, Dennis Kucinich, lefty extraordinaire, lost in Ohio due to redistricting to another Democrat Rep, Marcy Kaptur. I have seen Kucinich on TV a number of times and almost always disagree with his inanity but can never bring myself to personally dislike him.

And One More Thing

The media portrays the race as Romney vs Santorum, but Gingrich is closer to Santorum than Santorum is to Romney in the count. From the RealClearPolitics delegate count site:

Romney - 404
Santorum - 161
Gingrich - 105
Paul - 61

Romney remains at 55% of the delegates available so far.

Quote of the Week

With Sarah Palin out, the theme of the last couple of weeks has been the weakness of the GOP field from the tea party perspective, commented upon previously. Over at Temple of Mut, the Mutnodjmet laments that her favorite, Sarah Palin is out of the race and offers this assessment of the field.

The rest of the GOP field is deeply flawed. Romney thinks man-made global warming is real and has Romneycare. Perry can’t debate effectively and just called reasoned citizens “heartless”. Cain presents as a radio talk show host, lacks depth on non-business issues, and besmirched Perry’s character falsely on a media constructed racial matter. Bachmann is a non-starter for her selection of Ed Rollins and the fact she is a Romney tool. Ron Paul is a no-go for his lack of sane messaging on important topics and foreign policy stances. Huntsman is an elite charlatan hack. Rick Santorum is too focused on social issues, and Gingrich is an beltway insider whose expiration date has passed (and who tried to usurp the tea party movement when it first arose).

She is left with Gary Johnson as the least objectionable candidate, a conclusion I have also reached. Read the whole piece here.


And to make sure you get your fill of Palin, because I won't likely be commenting on her much in the future, here is a video tribute to the former Governor of Alaska.

Palin Out, Front Runners Up

As I thought, Sarah Palin has said she won't run for President today. Her announcement was probably drown out by Steve Jobs' death, see previous post. I actually agree with her decision, because, as much as I admire her, I don't think that she had what it takes to be President. Leaving the Governor's mansion mid-term in Alaska was the final confirmation for me. I think she will continue to be effective in her role as community activist.

"I can be more effective and I can be more aggressive in this mission in a supportive role of getting the right people elected," she said. "I need to be able to say what I want to say and hold both sides of the aisle accountable."

Certainly her many fans will be disappointed, but her impressive media savvy will continue to make her a force to be reckoned with in American politics. I wish her well, she has a great message that I almost always agree with.

With Palin out of the race, Romney, Perry and Cain's odds have all improved, but Perry slightly more than the other two. According to today's Intrade, the odds for the Presidential nomination are:

Romney 57%
Perry 20%
Cain 7.5%
No one else clears 5%.

Temple of Mut is heartbroken. KT is plumping for Cain, and I can see why, given the distaste for Romney, and Perry's cronyism. I am really hoping Gary Johnson can break through. I think I am most impressed by his veto record as Governor of New Mexico. If there is anything that could help this country, it would be a halt to stupid new legislation and regulation.

Palin Not Running? Enthusiasm Gap for the Field

HotAir is speculating that Sarah Palin will not be running for President. They cite this clip during an interview with Greta Van Susteren as evidence.



After listening to what Sarah Palin says, I am inclined to agree. I also agree with Palin's seeming self-assessment that she can be more effective as an activist, although she didn't speak in the first person.

I am struck by who is not running in the Republican field, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Sarah Palin. It seems that each of these potential candidates has a cache of highly enthusiastic supporters that none of the current crop, Ron Paul excepted seems to bring to the race. The good news is that Republican voters tend to be grown-ups about these choices and are less likely to fall in love with a candidate who is all show and no dough like the incumbent. The bad news is that this will leave the tea party movement split, whose energy will be needed to unseat Obama. Further, since the eventual nominee is unlikely to please the tea party to the extent that Palin might have, the movement may suffer a loss of enthusiasm for participation in the political process. The other bit of bad news is that Republicans have shown a certain trend over the last 20 years. Two Bushes, McCain, and Dole all have that "I'm a conservative, but maybe not one to limit government growth and interference in the markets when it suits my purposes" quality. Right now my low bar is the nominee who will:

1. Beat Obama.


2. Sign the Obamacare repeal.


3. Deal with entitlements in a common sense manner.


4. Keep a lid on other spending.

I'd like to add secure the border and a bunch of other tests, but frankly we need to keep focused on the core issues of our coalition that are a threat to the nation.

This is why I think it is wise of the SCTRC to not endorse candidates. By influencing the course of the debate, we can shape the process better than through a cult of personality. Further, we need to keep in mind that the assault on the constitution by the progressive movement has been going on for over 100 years. To think that two years of effort will result in a permanent roll back is naive, and something I would expect out of leftist rank and file. (They are apparently disenchanted with Obama, but you know how they will vote.) We probably need over a generation's worth of effort to make significant in roads. I am personally in this for my as yet to be born grandkids, (here that boys?), so please don't take the 2012 election as the end of the road, regardless of the outcome.

Palin on Crony Capitalism - Daniels on the Red Menace

Two prominent Republicans who are not declared candidates for President are making their mark on the national debate. Sarah Palin has been highlighting the issue of crony capitalism of late and Mitch Daniels new book is a serious look at the mountain of debt he sees as a threat to the Republic.

Even before the recent Solyndra blow up, here was Sarah Palin diagnosing our current ills on September 4th in Iowa.

Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.

Palin attacks the key issue that unites ordinary individuals left, right and center, the use of government to further enrich the already rich and powerful. It is the challenge of our time to convince those on the left that it is constant government meddling in the economy and the immense regulatory regime, not free markets, which lead to this outcome. Probably better to start with those in the center, who might be more open to this line of argument. The GOP needs to go on the offensive against crony capitalism, unfortunately they have been guilty just as have the Democrats in purchasing favors for special interests. However, the time is ripe for this message. We could start by stripping out all of the special favors in the tax code. Starting over with a lower corporate tax rate, but no special exemptions would go a long way to restoring public belief in the party who proposed that plan.

While Palin attacks the most politically compelling issue, Daniels attacks on the debt, on which he is unusually well qualified. His book, Keeping the Republic, Saving America by Trusting Americans is brilliantly titled. The tagline, Change that believes in you cleverly turns Obama's promise on its head. I am really thrilled that he has adopted my ideas on means testing social security and medicare. (OK, probably not, but I feel vindicated since few other prominent Republicans have supported my position.) He also makes the point that the whole of the federal budget should be under consideration, including defense. This issue of defense spending is going to split Republicans, but it needs to be considered, since it comes in at $700 billion plus per year.

More important than any policy prescription offered by Daniels, is his understanding of the need to limit the scope of the federal government and return to a philosophy of self governance.

The coming debate is not really about something so mundane as tax policy or health care or energy choices. It is about things more fundamental: who is in charge, the people or those who supposedly serve at their sufferance?

Answering that it is the former, requires the people to be capable of managing their own affairs. They are in fact so capable. But we should remember that it is ingrained in the language of the left that all mankind's ills: sickness, poverty, old age, sloth, and gluttony are not solved by individuals or capitalist institutions, only by government. But a government powerful enough to solve such issues would be a fearful master indeed, and we would be subjects, not citizens. It is good of Daniels to remind us.

Article of the Week - The Failure of the Statist Elite

Walter Russell Mead expands on Stanley B. Greenberg's article Why Voters Tune Out the Democrats with some brilliant follow up. His understanding of the anger against an unelected ruling elite that has seized power for itself to rule our lives is brilliant. Please indulge of few extended quotes.

On the "promise" of the left.

The progressive, administrative regulatory state and more broadly the technocratic and professional intelligentsia who operate it sold themselves to the public as an honest umpire in charge of American life. . . . Instead, we would have government by philosopher kings, or at least by incorruptible credentialed bureaucrats. Alabaster towers of objectivity such as the FCC, the FDA, the EPA, the FEC and so many more would take politics out of government and replace it with disinterested administration. Honest professionals would administer fair laws without fear or favor, putting the general interest first, and keeping the special interests at arm’s length. The government would serve the middle class, and the middle class would thrive.

The reality.

For large numbers of voters the professional classes who staff the bureaucracies, foundations and policy institutes in and around government are themselves a special interest. It is not that evil plutocrats control innocent bureaucrats; many voters believe that the progressive administrative class is a social order that has its own special interests. Bureaucrats, think these voters, are like oil companies and Enron executives: they act only to protect their turf and fatten their purses. . . . The professionals and administrators who make up the progressive state are seen as a hostile power with an agenda of their own that they seek to impose on the nation.

The source of resentment.

The progressive state has never seen its job as simply to check the excesses of the rich. It has also sought to correct the vices of the poor and to uplift the masses. . . . But it’s impossible to grasp the crisis of the progressive enterprise unless one grasps the degree to which voters resent the condescension and arrogance of know-it-all progressive intellectuals and administrators. They don’t just distrust and fear the bureaucratic state because of its failure to live up to progressive ideals (thanks to the power of corporate special interests); they fear and resent upper middle class ideology.

The whole article is worth a read. When Obama tells us to "eat our peas," it is more of the same elitist crap of the left condescending to us and presuming to be our betters and know better than us what we should do.

It is a fight to break the power of a credentialed elite that believe themselves entitled by talent and hard work to a greater say in the nation’s affairs than people who scored lower on standardized tests and studied business administration in cheap colleges rather than political science in expensive ones. I think part of the anger the left feels towards Sarah Palin is that she is a living affront to their belief in the rightful ordering of society. How dare the former female jock take a position of leadership against our the shiboleths the statists hold dear? She graduated from the University of Idaho and participated in beauty pageants for crying out loud.

So take heart, tea partyers, the progressives have painted themselves into a corner. Their policies may be popular in theory, but Americans hate being ruled. We just need to keep up the pressure to restore an America of freedom.

Palin Running? Tea Party Torn

You would think so by the Drudge headline: IT'S ON: PALIN HITS TRAIL. But I am still not sure. I'll say this for Sarah Palin, she has learned how to manage her brand. Starting her bus tour by attending a motorcycle rally that serves as a reminder of our POW/MIAs and a patriotic rally is sure to play well to her base and generate enthusiasm for her brand. And I admit I like it a lot. But it doesn't answer the question of whether or not she is running, for reals, as it were. I am balways torn by her, she is so unapologetic for my so many of my core values that I can't help but smile when she zings the media, the left and Obama. But she doesn't inspire my confidence, in the same way that Obama didn't inspire confidence in the 2008 elections.

As much as our side disliked John McCain, I respected him for this, he could wade into a hostile town hall meeting, take tough questions, and provide answers without losing his cool. Neither Obama nor Palin seem able to do so. Obama still can't after two years on the job, and I frankly don't think he is very intelligent.

Meanwhile, Palin is certain to suck down the oxygen in the race for a while with the tour. Too bad. She needs to declare soon, so that we can get down to the nitty-gritty of examining positions, responses to current events and her record. Not finishing her term in Alaska is going to come back to haunt her if she runs. Further, she missed the opportunity to show what she could do as governor, in spite of opposition from her own party or the Democrats. After all, how will it be different as President?

Within the Tea Party movement, there will be no unanimity on Palin's candidacy. Even among the SLOBs here in San Diego, we are seeing wide diversity of opinion. But she sure makes the race more interesting.


Here is the official video for the Rolling Thunder rally.

Tea Partying in Delaware

I have to admit that I was with W.C. on the candidacy of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, even though he later changed course. Michelle Malkin got me thinking that maybe we should wait and see what the voters decide and that rewarding Democrat lite-types with further high office might not be in our best interests. In his retraction, W.C. nails it, saying that this year's contests are not Republican vs Democrat but Ruling Class vs the people. Further, you have to ask yourself, would having Mike Castle in the Senate have really helped? Knowing he will probably vote with the Dems on cap and trade and his history of supporting porkulus is hardly helpful. Might as well have your enemies out in the open and identified.

With Christine O'Donnell winning the Republican primary in Delaware, I think we are seeing the rise of disgust with the ruling class. As of this writing, O'Donnell was ahead of Castle 53% to 47%. It also shows what a political powerhouse Sarah Palin has become. I admit that she makes me nervous, but boy can she energize the grass roots.

Sorry I have been away from blogging for a while, work has been too much.

One more thing about the O'Donnell win. Everyone is writing off O'Donnell, but given the rising tide of disgust against the ruling class, O'Donnell could very well win. Under such a rising tide, wouldn't we want a true conservative in the Senate to give us some spine to start repealing Obamacare and stopping cap and trade?

As If We Needed More Proof

... that lefty MSM is out of touch and suffering from PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome). Here is Hank Stuever at the WaPo mocking some items that most Americans would take pride in:

I dunno, but hush: The mother of the dead Marine is talking about the day a naval destroyer was named after her son. The millionaire is about to give away millions to send underprivileged minority kids to college for free. The loyal service dog is going to help the sweet little boy walk again. A woman is about the save a man from a burning tanker truck. Toby Keith is singing about patriotic veterans. Flags are billowing. A piano is playing.

What is it about Palin that so offends the left? I admit to being a big fan, but not believing I would contribute to a future Presidential run by her. I mostly like watching her unhinge the left.

Supposedly she is subversive, and I guess she is.

Part of the liberal hatred (or fear) of Palin lies in her ability to draw passionate crowds that are impassioned by the wrong kind of politics. Although American elites are not inherently suspicious of crowds, they are, quite naturally, fearful of those that are ungovernable. And since Palin’s crowds—many of whom are adherents of the Tea Party movement—do not respond to the slogans and shibboleths of the liberal elite, the latter views them as alien (ergo, ungovernable).

She is also the only politician to lay a glove on Obama during the campaign. But I don't think the subversive explanation quite covers the whole story. Maybe there is a little misogyny and racism on the left as well. Ever notice how the worst vitriol is reserved for women and blacks. Think of not only Palin, but Michelle Bachmann and Michelle Malkin. And blacks who are conservative are made to suffer mightily as well, I think of Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele when he ran for Lt Gov in Maryland. It is an affront to the self-proclaimed champions of women and minorities when they say no thanks, you don't really represent my interests.

The other thing is that she is self confidently sure of herself and her beliefs. She pays not the slightest obeisance the ruling intellectual orthodoxy, and does not even acknowledge its authority in any way. That she has been so successful after not attending the right schools, nor living the right lifestyle set the left on edge.

Finally, the fact that she seems so happy with her traditional life style with a large family, hunky husband, and that she is good looking to boot, just crushes the lefties. She is the woman who is "having it all" in a way that modern feminists can only dream of, and for that she is reviled.

Latest Sarah Palin Lies

I subscribe to a Democrat email newsletter from barackobama.com. Yesterday Mitch Stewart alerted me to the "dangerous" activities of Sarah Palin. He also said this:

On Tuesday, Palin went on Rush Limbaugh's radio show where she outrageously -- and falsely -- suggested that Americans could "face jail time as punishment" if they don't buy insurance.

So here is what does Nancy Pelosi say about the matter, certainly she is rebutting this outrageous lie. Judge for yourself:



Also, from an ABC News article:

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If they refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

And from the House bill itself:

(1) IN GENERAL. If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c). (2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN. Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.

Note the that the penalty is imposed as part of the individual's tax return, and guess what happens if you don't pay your income taxes?

Actor Wesley Snipes, center, leaves the federal courthouse in Ocala after posting a $1 million bond Dec. 8 in his federal tax fraud case.