Memo to Santorum

Winning proportional representation primaries and losing winner take all primaries is not a path to victory.

My Support for Romney

Among tea party supporters, much has been made of Mitt Romney's various faults. The latest is a 2009 Op-Ed piece for USA today regarding health care. The offending language? Mr. Romney, in describing what was good about his Massachusetts plan:

First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar.

For the record, I deeply disagree with that approach. Those who don't get health insurance should be allowed to make a rational choice for their situation, but held accountable when they end up in an emergency room. But I digress.

The real issue is who is the best candidate to defeat Barack Obama and as a result repeal the damage he has done through Obamacare. That end requires two results, the first of which is Obama's defeat. One might argue that Romney won't repeal Obamacare if he is elected, but we know this for certain; if Obama is re-elected the PPACA won't be repealed.

Neither Santorum, Gingrich nor Paul appear to be as electable as Romney to me. They all have serious deficits, but are to be admired for their perseverance and presenting their alternatives to the President's policies. I have said before that there are other candidates that I wished had run, but they did not. At a time when the country is in crisis and needed its best to step forward, regardless of their personal calculus, they chose to remain on the sidelines.

Mitt Romney is by all accounts a decent and honorable man. Please see Word Warrior of So Cal's article, we could certainly do worse. Running for President is grueling and difficult and not for the faint of heart. I am supporting Mitt Romney because he is the best remaining serious candidate. Faint praise perhaps, but I consider the President's policies so dreadful, that Romney is a shining exemplar of constitutional rectitude by comparison.

And One More Thing About Romney's Victory

Hot Air is reporting that exit polling is showing that Romney won among Republican voters 47% to 37% among Republicans. Since the exit polling was within a point or two of the actual results, we can assume that Santorum seriously underperformed among Republicans. Not sure how this can be spun as Romney being a weak Republican candidate.

Romney's Big Night

Whether or not Mitt Romney wins Michigan tonight, this is a good night for him. Romney started the night with a 99 delegates to Santorum's 47, a lead of 52. When the night is over his lead will grow to approximately 143 to 62, a lead of 81. Further, he will have amassed 55% of the delegates available to date. Romney is competing in every state, but no one else is. He will get the nomination because he is better organized. On Super Tuesday, his advantages will become clear, and he will build an even bigger lead. He starts that day with about a 49 delegate lead, as neither Santorum nor Gingrich will be on the ballot in Virginia. It's hard to see why their is so much breathless drama on the TV about all this.

Delegate information from RealClearPolitics.

Yes, I am supporting Mitt Romney. I might have preferred other candidates, but they didn't run. Running for President isn't for the faint of heart. We shouldn't count it against Romeny that he is making a serious run for a second time.

Republican Sioux City Iowa Debate

I watched most of the last Iowa debate tonight and was impressed with the Republican candidates. Practice, if it doesn't make perfect, gets you pretty far down the road to it. Some observations.

• I saw some passion from Romney. This was his best performance. I loved his defense of his time at Bain Capital. He cut some jobs, but he also created jobs. Then he makes a very sly move and compares it to when "Obama ran General Motors." Killer move, because he isn't criticizing the take over, but it is so unpopular, that reminding voters of it is toxic to Obama.
• Rick Perry had one of the more memorable lines, comparing himself to Tim Tebow, as an underdog candidate. Also very sly, given the current controversy and the make up of Republican voters in Iowa. I think that if Perry can get a ground game going in Iowa and South Carolina, he may still have a chance.
  
• Gingrich had a great performance, except in explaining the nature of his services to Freddie Mac. As popular as it was, I wasn't happy about the whole judges testifying before Congress part. Another example of a seemingly brilliant, "out of the box idea," that didn't get the vetting needed.
  
• Bachmann looked bad, because, even if she damaged Gingrich, she looks a bit unethical in making baseless charges about Gingrich's work at Freddie Mac. I found her attack distasteful, as she suggested it was somehow unethical, with zero evidence to back up her claim.
• The discussion on Iran did no one any favors. Ron Paul sounded weird and defensive, and couldn't make the sale, but the rest of the gang sounded trigger happy. My belief is that the clandestine war that we are already conducting is the best approach. But if they get a nuke, its not the game changer everyone thinks. A nuke is eventually going to be used in the region; better it come from the devil we know, to give BMD a chance, than from a surprise source that we aren't prepared for. Now what to say in public about it? That's the tough question.
  
• Romney also responded to the flip-flop question with facts and sincerity. When you look at the fact that he governed Massachusetts as a Republican with huge Democrat majorities, you are looking at a guy who made some compromises to get things done. He touted his veto record as governor, but didn't mention how many were overridden.
  
• Santorum did a good job too, I just have a hard time being objective. It's a personal gut reaction thing for me, I just don't like him.
• Jon Huntsman was at the debate and sounded intelligent as well.
  

I saw a tweet that Gary Johnson is going to run as a Libertarian. This is bad news, if true. After the debate Ron Paul made it pretty clear that he isn't running as a third party candidate, even though he didn't rise to Sean Hannity's challenge to offer an absolute pledge. I get the feeling that Ron Paul finds Obama so distasteful that he wouldn't want to facilitate his re-election. But Gary Johnson might pull in enough tea party types angry over their choices to hurt the Republican nominee's chances. Hard to say if the desire to see Obama off would overcome the loathing of the current field as more of the same establishment Republican types.

All told, when I think through Obama's baggage, the bad economy, everything Holder does, Solyndra, Fast and Furious and ongoing bailouts, I believe he can be beaten. But he is the President, sitting on a mountain of cash, so we should remember that he will be looking to whack his opponent, figuratively, of course.

Tough Times for the tea party

We should admit that the present political situation is a difficult one for the tea party movement. Achievement of some measure of power does that to any popular movement. We are now in a difficult situation where mere protest and indignation against the train of abuses is an insufficient rallying cry to our cause. We expected to propose real solutions, since we are perceived as having some power in the seat of government and, inevitably, concrete solutions will have elements that are objectionable to some constituencies. This also saps popularity.

Some additional elements have made our situation even more difficult. First, the occupy movement, despite its problems, has captured significant attention. It has focused on some of our issues, like crony capitalism, but overall has had such a diffuse focus that a discussion of actual issues has been avoided. Its narrative is filled with stories of the suffering of art history majors who are only qualified to wait tables, but have huge student loans.

Second, despite our fondest hopes, no natural Presidential candidate has emerged who embodies tea party hopes. We seem to be waiting for Reagan's heir, and so far she has not emerged. It would be good to remember that Reagan's first brush with fame came in 1964 with his nominating speech for Barry Goldwater, followed by two terms as governor of California, where he did some liberal things, a failed bid for the Presidency in 1976 before becoming President. We are reduced to arguing which candidate is least objectionable and writing attack pieces about the various Republican potential successors to Barack Obama. (I am guilty as well.)

Third, there are the dangers of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare*, which I discussed yesterday.

Finally, our insistence on changing the direction of the federal government has made us vulnerable to charges of obstructionism. The super-committee will likely fail and the tea party might get some of the fall out.

My answer to all of this is, tough. To quote some famous Americans whom we hope to emulate:

"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Who said that reversing a century of effort by progressives was going to be easy or accomplished in two years. Keeping a focus on our principles is the only path to long term success. We know what works. We see the blue states sputtering with high taxes and business exiting. We see quasi-socialist stimulus policies failing to end the recession. We see Obamacare failing to deliver on any of its promises of lower insurance rates, keeping your insurance, or helping the economy.

We will make tactical changes to respond to circumstances. The occupiers have focused the attention of the nation on crony capitalism, to some extent. The tea party should be reminding the whole public that we were protesting the wall street bailouts and corporate welfare from the beginning. This is an example of a tactical shift that stays true to one's principles.

Further, we should be developing a strong bench. Keeping an eye on local races to develop a new generation of office holders who genuinely believe in limited government is important, but not exciting work. Finally, we must continue to change the climate so that even bad men are persuaded to do the right thing, because it is politically profitable.

Reagan wasn't elected to the Presidency until 1980, but he made this speech in 1964. Think about the difference between him and Barack Obama, who made a well received speech at the Democratic convention in 2004 and was then elected in 2008, with little of the experience that Reagan developed. Which man will have the more lasting positive legacy for the nation and his party?




*In yesterday's comments, liberal friend Calivancouver thinks the next round of health care reform will result in single payer. I disagree and liberated my comment here.

Too much to debate why I think single payer will bankrupt those countries who are trying it. Consider this. The best parts of the medical industry from both reports and personal experience are vision correction and cosmetic surgery. There are no waits, prices keep declining, and quality keeps improving. They also have in common that most consumers pay their own way with no insurance or government involvement. The free market is achieving the purported goals of government health care, declining price and increasing quality. Yet we seem loathe to try for more free market solutions with any other part of health care.

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.

The Republican Presidential Field

I had the opportunity to talk to a Republican political consultant at dinner tonight at the Boathouse in Isle of Palms, SC. He is the cousin of a colleague, but I didn't plan to recount our conversation until later, so I don't have permission to use his name. Let's just call him Matt. Matt was pretty jazzed about the New York 09 election and its implications on the chance to beat Obama next year. He felt a little discouraged, however, because he felt that the leftist take over of the school system and colleges had brain-washed a generation of Americans. I disagreed; I think Americans are still capable of thinking for themselves and break free of liberal shibboleths as they get older. However, given this exchange between Obama and students in neighboring North Carolina, I can see his point.

He was also discouraged by the amount of damage he thought that Obama had done in his first two years in office. He felt that the country was going to have to kowtow to China because we owed them so much money. I responded with some of my previous discussion on China.

But the thing that really struck me was his lack of enthusiasm for the Republican field of Presidential candidates. He asked me who I liked, as if to see if I had any enthusiasm myself. My response was that none of the candidates really excited me, but Ron Paul was closest to my positions. I hastened to add that even though I voted for Paul in 1988, I didn't think he was electable and I thought he often comes across as a crank. Matt agreed, but also said he didn't like Paul's foreign policy positions. I also mentioned that Gary Johnson couldn't break through to get in the debates. Matt hadn't really heard of him. Matt offered that even though Rick Perry had the lead, he was making too many mistakes and was unlikely to win the nomination as a result. Matt asked me if I knew anything about McCotter; I did not. He comes across as too much about Texas. He mentioned how Perry in some ways reminded him of Bush, which Obama will use. He had come to see Perry announce his candidacy in Charleston. Matt felt like he was going to have to hold his nose and vote for Romney. It was pretty good dinner conversation, and I was glad to meet him.

Later, on the ride back, another dinner companion said he had listened to Perry when he visited San Diego. (Most of us at dinner were from SD.) His take was that Perry was all sound bite and swagger, and he wasn't impressed. It seemed the general consensus that Herman Cain was the most likeable candidate of the bunch, who had the best lines. But no one was supporting him on the basis of one-liners and a sense of humor. They just like the way he smacked down race-baiters.

Overall, it looks like this race is still wide open. With Republicans looking for a candidate to light the fire of enthusiasm. They may be disappointed. Maybe Gary Johnson can get some traction and start looking more serious.

Dinner was great, chipotle crab-stuffed tilapia and a decent Carolina beer, Highland Cattail Peak Wheat.

Why I Now Oppose Social Security Privatization

I have read of some Republican Presidential candidates (Romney and Gingrich) advocating social security privatization, which George W. Bush failed to sell in his second term, thank goodness for that, even though I supported it at the time. These candidates have not thought it through. Social Security has never really been a fiscally sound proposition, hence Rick Perry's ponzi scheme comment. It depends on an ever increasing number of workers to stay solvent. Further, its benefits are not guaranteed, which rubs people the wrong way. (H/T Daily Caller) Despite the impressive sounding name, "social security retirement account," try searching for that term on the official ssa.gov website and see the result above. That's because such a thing is non-existent. Don't believe me? Here is what the government itself says about the matter on the Social Security Agency website, discussing Fleming v. Nestor.

More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

And from the previously linked Supreme Court decision.

2. A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 363 U. S. 608-611.
(a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 363 U. S. 608-610.
(b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility . . .

A key tea party principle is adherence to keeping the federal government within the limits set by the constitution, applying the plain meaning of the document. Expanding the scope of social security to include private accounts has constitutional and other problems.

• Current participation is constitutional only under the general power to tax granted Congress. A private account would not fit that definition.
• If private accounts were added, the only constitutional provision under which to compel participation is under the taxing authority. But that would give the government the authority to seize the proceeds for whatever purpose it saw fit.
• Is it a stretch of the imagination for the government, as a "shareholder" to require firms who receive investment dollars to promote social welfare and environmentally friendly policies. The scope for abuse is so great that I am surprised the left hasn't embraced this idea as their own.
• How can we argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional, while turning around and advocating participation in another social welfare scheme, just because an individual is employed?
• What will compel the government to pay up, when the bill comes due. See Fleming v. Nestor above.

What's a proper tea party view of social security, which is clearly headed towards insolvency? We should start with the concept that the nature of the program codifies an inherent contradiction; namely that its purpose is to alleviate poverty in old age, but its structure is an entitlement to all income groups. The contradiction has now landed in the accounts payable column; against an account that lacks sufficient funds. The only reasonable approach is to gradually reduce the scope of social security to its original intended purpose. (If you doubt that it was the original purpose, read Helvering v. Davis.) Social Security should not be a part of the calculation used by the middle class to determine their ability to retire; national policy needs to wean them from that notion so that they realistically invest in their own future. To this end, I propose saving social security for its intended purpose by reducing its scope, to include changing the definition of "old age" to conform with modern realities. Here a few ideas, some of them from my article on John Stossel's federal budget.

• Reduce Social Security outlays as follows:
  

- Price index initial benefits (the current CPI overstates inflation, increasing pay outs unnecessarily)
- Raise the normal retirement age
- Cut Social Security disability program by 10%

• Means test social security
  

- I would explicitly use the internal revenue code on means testing to return these taxes to the social security trust fund. From a big picture accounting view, this makes no difference, but it would send the message that we are saving social security for those Americans who need it most.

I think we should ask Republican candidates for President how they square their constitutional opposition to Obamacare with a desire to privatize social security.

One In, One Out

I am pretty pleased with Rick Perry entering the Republican race and Tim Pawlenty leaving. I thought Pawlenty's attacks on Michele Bachmann were uncalled for, and it made him seem desperate. He also seemed a bit like a Republican version of Al Gore, no spontaneity and even some "cap and trade" baggage to weigh him down.

Rick Perry enters the race with strong credentials on keeping taxes and regulation low, and creating jobs in Texas. The fact that Axelrod felt it necessary to immediately attack Perry is an indicator that the White House is worried about his candidacy. He doesn't need to polish any "social conservative" credentials, so he brings a broader coalition than Gary Johnson, and certainly Mitt Romney. But I have my concerns.

First, he needs to emphasize the issues that will beat Obama, spending, jobs, and regulation, which are all intertwined. If he gets off the reservation and pushes issues like gay marriage, I am going to be an unhappy camper, because it scares off potential members of the coalition to reduce the size of government. He has already made his position known on a number of these issues. With regards to the gay marriage issue, he need merely state that his position is the same as Obama's, that he supports the federal law on the issue the defense of marriage act, and drop it. If Obama tries to pursue the issue, he knows it might be a loser for him in some swing states.

Second, he needs to apologize or at least recant any talk of secession that was previously associated with him. See my previous post. Secession can be seen by some as code for racism, and there is reasonable historical precedent for that view. Mr. Perry is certainly not racist, so I would expect him to put some distance from that.

With Obama's job approval on the downward trend again, the chances for a Republican victory in the Presidential race look at least 50-50 to me. Intrade odds below seem to confirm.


The spike in May is after Osama bin Laden's death.

Interestingly the odds makers put Perry ahead of Romney (36% vs 30%) as of this writing to win the Republican nomination for President. Michele Bachmann, in spite of winning the Ames straw poll sits at 7% to be nominated.

None of this really matters, because its a long time between now and November 2012. However, the fundamentals of the economy don't look good for Obama. Since he keeps doubling down on stupidity like fast trains and slow energy, and his regulatory minions can't seem to help themselves from killing jobs (EPA on CO2, NLRB on Boeing to name two) we can't expect the economy to improve on his watch. Further the gang of 12 super-Congress is going to end in a stalemate that will provoke more backlash. I actually worry that it will succeed in some compromise that results in increasing marginal tax rates.

But the campaign has officially kicked off. I know of tea party types supporting Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, not so much.

UPDATE

Fellow tea partyer W.C. Varones alerted me to a third issue for Rick Perry, crony capitalism. I take that issue seriously, so felt I had to add this link and quote.

The Emerging Technology Fund was created at Mr. Perry's behest in 2005 to act as a kind of public-sector venture capital firm, largely to provide funding for tech start-ups in Texas. Since then, the fund has committed nearly $200 million of taxpayer money to fund 133 companies. Mr. Perry told a group of CEOs in May that the fund's "strategic investments are what's helping us keep groundbreaking innovations in the state." The governor, together with the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the Texas House, enjoys ultimate decision-making power over the fund's investments.

I don't need to read another word of the article to know that there were or will be accusations of favoritism and that favored companies donated to Perry or fellow Texas Republicans. That is a powerful counterargument the left will use, because the collusion of big government with big business, especially Wall Street, is a favored theme. It is also a real problem that we in the tea party want to attack, by removing government's power to pass out favors. The left's answer is to try and limit free speech and campaign contributions, known losers. But if Republicans nominate crony capitalists, its going to hurt. Perry needs to back away from this one, but I doubt that he will.

Michele Beats Sarah on the Draw

Michele Bachmann has announced her candidacy for President, as you have no doubt heard, before Sarah Palin, if Palin ever announces. Certainly the comparisons with Palin are inevitable. Both are attractive female conservative favorites with strong followings in the Tea Party. From the AP report:

Her popularity with tea party activists and her credentials as a social conservative make her a credible threat to other candidates courting conservatives who make up the core of the Republican Party. Her impact may be felt most in Iowa, the first stop in the nomination battle and where Christian evangelicals dominate.

I will confess to knowing little about Bachmann to this point. She hasn't seemed to have made a big impact in the House of Representatives; in fact few candidates have ever made the leap from the House to the White House. Perusing her blog, it appears to be standard fare that even Ron Paul would like, excepting strong support for Israel I suppose and strong opposition to gay marriage at all levels. However, I am disturbed by the lack of mention of any meaningful entitlement reform. Her official web site is still under construction, so she might have more to say later.

Honestly, I am looking for more governors to be in the Republican race. Governors have the best track records for becoming President, because the office is the most similar and provides them with the requisite training and political skills for success. Rick Perry would be a great addition to the field, and I wish Mitch Daniels would reconsider, although that appears unlikely. As much as I dislike Romney, and Pawlenty's speaking skills seem lackluster, at least they both have gubernatorial experience; the same can be said for Gary Johnson. Sarah Palin made a huge mistake, if she was ever serious about Presidential ambition by resigning as Governor of Alaska, I don't think that some voters would ever vote for her because of that.

I note that it was Michele Bachmann who called out the egregious nature of the self funding mechanisms inside the Obamacare bill. Her hard work in this area deserves recognition.

Meanwhile, HotAir doesn't think she can win, but is in it to make the Tea Party voice heard in this election. Really? Certainly Ron Paul and Gary Johnson carry much of the Tea Party message. And since when is gay marriage a big priority for the Tea Party? Further, I think that the Tea Party is going to go with the candidate who will repeal Obamacare and tackle entitlements, at least that is my hope. Oh, and cut off ethanol subsidies, because they are proof of stupidity.

From the AP, probably a little slanted, but I am trying to get a measure of the candidate:

Gary Johnson

Before I was afflicted with some medical issues, I was posting about the Republican presidential field. I felt that I had given Gary Johnson short shrift, just like the rest of the media. In the comments of my last post, Sarah Bond pointed to Johnson's shortcomings of persona that cause her to question his viability as a candidate. Just as Ron Paul comes off as a crank, even when he is factually correct, Gary Johnson seems a bit the oddball. However, his exclusion from CNN's New Hampshire debate seems shameful. He is a successful former two term Republican governor of a state that often votes Democrat. New Mexico has more people than Alaska; can you imagine the uproar if Sarah Palin were excluded should she announce her candidacy.

Just like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson's ideas need to be included in the Republican debate. He has far less to apologize for than the reputed front runner, Mitt Romney, whose recent endorsement of ethanol subsidies only confirmed his unfitness for high office. (By the way, almost every dis-qualifier that I have tagged to potential Republican nominees almost always applies double to Barack Obama, whose fitness for office remains in doubt.)

Some more on Johnson's policies statements that I found interesting.

Foreign policy:

• Maintaining a strong national defense is the most basic of the federal government’s responsibilities. However, building schools, roads, and hospitals in other countries are not among those basic obligations. Yet that is exactly what we have been doing for much of the past 10 years.

Civil Liberties:

• The PATRIOT Act should be allowed to expire, which would restore proper judicial oversight to federal investigations and again require federal investigators to prove probable cause prior to executing a search.
• Habeus corpus should be respected entirely, requiring the government to either charge incarcerated individuals with a crime or be released.
• The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.
• The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners. Screeners outside of government can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures.

These are great points. I don't know why the Republicans presidential candidates aren't pillorying the Obama approach to airport security.

On spending and taxes:

• Revise the terms of entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation's future.
• Eliminate the costly and ineffective military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; limit defense spending to actions that truly protect the United States.
• Stop spending on the fiscal stimulus, transportation, energy, housing, and all other special interests. The U.S. must restrain spending across the board.
• Eliminate punitive taxation of savings and investment.
• Simplify the tax code; stop using it to reward special interests and control behavior.
• Eliminate the corporate income tax so that America will once again be a great place to start a business.

More great stuff. Of course, eliminating corporate income taxes will be billed as Republicans are the party of millionaires.

Here's the part that I agree with, but many of my Tea Party friends do not, Drug Policy:

Despite our best efforts at enforcement, education and interdiction, people continue to use and abuse illegal drugs.

The parallels between drug policy today and Prohibition in the 1920’s are obvious, as are the lessons our nation learned. Prohibition was repealed because it made matters worse. Today, no one is trying to sell our kids bathtub gin in the schoolyard and micro-breweries aren’t protecting their turf with machine guns. It’s time to apply that thinking to marijuana.

Is that too much of a stumbling block to get the nomination? I should hope not. First, he's right on the issue. The rise of the big government police state has been aided by the war on drugs. If we truly believe in limited government, then we should fear the power of the police state. (Sarah, this is not an indictment of the police per se, just the fact that too many agencies have the power to break down your door for too many vague crimes.)

Gary Johnson is a very appealing candidate, in my opinion, even if he might not be the best candidate to beat Barack Obama. Please support his efforts to get into the New Hampshire debate next Tuesday.

Gary Johnson on Entitlements

I promised some thoughts on Gary Johnson's campaign. I have given him some grief for placing the drug war so high on his list on priorities. However, I am in agreement with those positions, I just don't think that it should be the Tea Party's number one concern. I still think that the war on drugs is inconsistent with Tea Party positions. Most interesting to me is how the candidates are approaching the entitlement spending crisis. From Gary Johnson's web site:

MOST PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON SEEM TO THINK that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is lunacy.

• Identify and implement common-sense cost savings to place Medicare on a path toward long-term solvency.
• Block grant Medicare and Medicaid funds to the states, allowing them to innovate, find efficiencies and provide better service at lower cost.
• Repeal ObamaCare, as well as the failed Medicare prescription drug benefit.
• Fix Social Security by changing the escalator from being based on wage growth to inflation. It's time for Social Security to reflect today's realities without breaking trust with retirees.

Amen to that brother. However, I think he fudges just a tad on the Medicare issue. People are going to continue to live longer. There are no common-sense cost savings that will reduce Medicare spending unless we turn it into a block grant plan directly to consumers. However, I like his courage in not shrinking from the entitlement issue.

Clearly, we need this man's voice in the debate. Am I all in? No way. Still more research to do. I will also comment more on Johnson later.

Presidential Handicapping - Libertarian Republicans

I have been reviewing the potential Republican candidate for President of late. An angry and anonymous commenter took me to task for ignoring Ron Paul. Further, fellow SLOB, Dueling Barstools, has been supporting Gary Johnon, former governor of New Mexico. I am not enamored of either candidate, but I agree with their positions more closely than any of the other candidates. My reasons are partly due to style and partly due to some heartfelt differences over policy.

Ron Paul is on his third run for President. It is not widely remembered that he was the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988. (On a local note, it is interesting that long time San Diego taxpayer hero, Richard Rider is leaving the LP to register as a Republican.) It is important for the political health of the country that there be a strong libertarian wing in the Republican party, and Ron Paul is certainly the acknowledge leader of that wing. Looking over his positions there is little with which I disagree. A small sample:

• Taxes: [Paul] supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
• Free Trade: [Paul] is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”
• Border Security: A nation without borders is no nation at all. . . . We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
• Health Care: There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.
  

However, I am troubled by two issues. First, with respect to the recent killing of Osama bin Laden, Ron Paul said that he wouldn't have given the order to do so. This is a big deal to most Americans. They expect the President to take seriously the fight against Islamist terrorists. Does this mean that our commitment in Afghanistan should be unending? Of course not, but we have the right to wage war on those who have waged war against our country.

Second, Ron Paul comes off like a crank. He is on the right side of the argument on the Federal Reserve, for example, but he always does a bad job making the case. He is so reflexively anti-war that he never acknowledges our need to defend our own interests. He often sees conspiracies all around, which is a frightening mindset in a President. Even in the discussion about health care, he makes the following accusation.

These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.

This sort of thing goes to temperament and ability to lead. At the end of the day I am looking for someone who seems more ready to lead than Ron Paul. Would I vote for him over Obama? Of course. In fact, I would be excited that libertarian ideas had taken such a firm foothold. But I would fear that a Ron Paul presidency would be the disaster for libertarianism that Obama's has been for leftism.

Time precludes me from diving into Gary Johnson's candidacy, however, the prominence of the drug issue is a distraction. I need more research to properly evaluate his candidacy.

Back to Ron Paul, I urge fellow Tea Party members and others to explain your concerns with Mr. Paul, as I have heard many of you discuss your misgivings.

Rick Perry to Enter the Republican Mix? My Tea Party Perspective

As most of my readers have already read on HotAir and elsewhere, then Rick Perry is considering entering the Presidential race. What would his entry mean from a Tea Party perspective? My first thought is great, more candidates piling in would mean that there is a sense of Obama's vulnerability. As to Perry himself, Erin McPike and Scott Conroy at RealClearPolitics claim that Rick Perry has always been a Tea Party type, even before there was a Tea Party, but is it true?

With regard to taxes, Perry seems to have made the right enemies in Texas, Jason Embry in the Austin Statesman writes:

The economic downturn isn't helping the shortfall, but it's not driving it, either. The driving factor is a decision by Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature in 2006 to reduce property taxes by $14 billion every two years and raise only about $9 billion to replace that money. In other words, the Legislature committed $5 billion every two years to holding down property taxes instead of spending that money on education, public safety or other priorities.

More Tea Party love is showered on the governor by the Dallas Morning News. .

The options are few when it comes to finding $25 billion in the state's budget. Texas already ranks 50th nationally in per-capita state spending, so big cuts will have to come from essential services.

But at the same time, Texas has been an economic powerhouse compared to California and the rest of the nation. According to the Business Journals,

The inventory of private-sector jobs in Texas increased by 732,800 between April 2001 and the same month this year, according to an On Numbers analysis of new federal employment data.

No other state registered an increase of more than 100,000 private-sector jobs during the decade. Only 19 states and the District of Columbia posted any gains at all.

The creation of jobs while state spending to the lowest per person in the nation is the perfect antidote to Obama. OK, I'm starting to think, what's not to like? Maybe this?



In my view, his loose talk of secession is damaging to his potential candidacy. First, this is a settled issue, so it just makes him look like a kook. Second, historically, secession was the chosen instrument used to perpetuate the institution of slavery and the term is tainted with the poison of racism. I firmly believe that the meaning of this nation was reforged in the crucible of the Civil War. We affirmed that the intent of the Founders was to extend the blessings of liberty to all citizens, including those who were then slaves. I am not accusing Governor Perry of racism, but to reopen this debate in any form is a repudiation of a tenet to central to our nation's meaning. If you listen to Rick Perry's other speeches you will hear a man who consistently is standing up against the overreach of the federal government as it encroaches on our liberty. I applaud him for that. He must carefully choose the means he proposes to fight back.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Tea Party are dedicated to preserving freedoms that are being crushed under an omnipresent federal government. It is our fervent desire to restore that government to its rightful sphere. It has often been a guarantor of freedom in this country and throughout the world. Talk of secession has no place in our movement. I call on Governor Perry to retract his words, so that he can enter the race for President, because his record is exceptional.

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.

Back in Business - Tea Party Presidential Handicapping

Liberator readers, my apologies for the lack of punditry for the last couple days. I have had a challenging business trip to Charleston, SC with little time to blog. I did sample the local beer tonight, so I look forward to hearing from Dean and Max.

While I was gone, fellow SLOBs Dean and Leslie weighed in on the rapidly changing Republican field, and get out in front of some of my favorite discussion items. First from Dean, is he really warming up to Tim Pawlenty (aka T-Paw) with an article titled Ticking off all the right people? Indeed, Mr. Pawlenty is winning my heart by arguing against ethanol in Iowa, which, as I have lamented before, this is a rare piece of political bravery, and he tops it with pointing out the need for Social Security reform in Florida. From Dean:

We're heartened that Pawlenty is making these kind of statements especially in the territories he is doing so. The timing of them, being the first significant policy statements by any of the prospective GOP field, helps to shape and drive the debate. Energy subsidies and entitlement reform are important topics that we can ill-afford to leave unaddressed.

Temple of Mut points out that there is no "Tea Party" presidential pick, including Palin, I might add and that the Republicans in Congress aren't acting on their promises. If what was reported about Boehner is true, then I may have to rethink my support to date. Debt limit ceiling vote will be a crucial test. She also implores us to take another look at Palin and warns that giving to Bachmann's PAC may not be wise. In the same article, I am also scooped on the Grand Jury report that reached the same conclusion as I did that the new City Hall project was hyped.

Meanwhile, the top headline on Google news is that the top issue in New York 26 special congressional district election that went Democrat is medicare. Left Coast Rebel gives the lie to this tomfoolery. The Democrat winner got 47% of the vote, the Republican 42% and the so-called Tea Party candidate 9%. Hardly a ringing endorsement of liberalism, if you ask me. The Republican party needs candidates who can excite the Tea Party and their base. This didn't appear to be the case. In this climate, I give Pawlenty even more points for pushing on entitlements.

Mitch Daniels Out - Leaves a Void

Just heard the news that Mitch Daniels announced he is not running. A 1:00 a.m. Sunday announcement is about as deep as you can try to bury the story. Nice try.

I am more upset than I anticipated. I agree with Indianapolis Star:

Daniels was the one potential candidate from either major party who appeared ready to lead a serious conversation about the immense dangers created by a $14.3 trillion, and still rapidly climbing, national debt.
. . .
Other Republican candidates so far have been too afraid of the possible political fallout [from discussing Social Security and Medicare] to engage in that much-needed discussion. President Obama, for his part, has done virtually nothing to shore up the major entitlement programs, despite prompting from his own debt commission.

The country is the worse off for not having a candidate in the race who has both the guts to discuss the issue of entitlements sensibly AND the proven executive experience dealing with a state budget.

2012 won't be 2010. The public will want proven experience, having been burned by hopey-changey empty-suited rhetoric. Where is that experience going to come from?