I cannot believe that the first big GOP race post-tea party is between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
I can't either. I can understand Romney's tied for first finish (I don't really care about the exact count) because many Republicans view him as the man most likely to beat Obama. Whether that is true or not, remains to be seen, but it is a position I can respect. Santorum appears to have gotten a big lift from evangelicals, who broke for him at the end. This is too bad, as I believe that the Christians, like all Americans, are best served by the limited government perspective espoused by Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Dueling Barstools provides an excellent critique of Santorum that is worth reading.
The good news is that Iowa is not very good at predicting the Republican nominee. This result probably gives Romney a huge boost, as I don't see Santorum having the organization to seriously challenge
I missed tonight's debate but saw a Youtube video, promoted by Drudge, of Perry fumbling around with figuring out the third agency of government he would shut down, and taking a full and embarrassing 53 seconds to do so. Additionally, I think the steady drumbeat of harassment allegations are going to eventually take down Herman Cain. That doesn't mean the accusations are true or fair, this is just my frank assessment, as his campaign isn't handling them well, falsely tying one accuser to Politico, for example.
Which leaves us Mittens, and whoever the next not-Mittens is. Mittens is up again on intrade to over 70% Funny thing about the whole not-the-front-runner thing, is that he usually loses. I am old enough to remember ABC, "Anybody But Carter" in the 1976 Democrat primaries, and "Anybody but Clinton" in the 1992 primaries. Mitt Romney is clearly not the right man we would want as the Republican nominee. Which brings me to this Milton Friedman quote.
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” (I believe this quote is slightly different than what Milton Friedman says on youtube above.)
What Friedman says about Congress is true for the Presidency as well. It is time to crank up the tea party energy again and re-establish the political climate that allowed such a sea change in 2010. Clear focus that every embarrassing example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare will be exposed and ridiculed and every effort to increase the size of the government will be unalterably opposed are the necessary ingredients to making an historic change in this next election cycle. At a time when government's ties to corporate cronyism are anathema to vast majorities, tying Obama to Solyndra and Wall Street seems like the clear path to victory.
I also heard on the news that the audience in today's debates gave a hearty boo to Maria Bartiromo when she asked about alleged sexual harassment and cheered when the debate returned to economic issues. I think that was a healthy expression of priorities. (BTW, I was not one of those Republicans who thought Clinton should be impeached, so I don't want to be hit up for hypocrisy here.) Time to change the terms of the debate, maybe even the venue.
Today's intrade graph for Romney to win the nomination:
The intrade odds for a Romney nomination zoomed to 55% today with Christie's announcement that he's not running. (Why did Christie need to make an announcement?) Tea partyers need to start thinking about our strategy. Perhaps its not too early to coalesce around the most viable not-Romney candidate who is acceptable. Right now, I would say that Gary Johnson and Herman Cain are most likely. I'm assuming that Sarah Palin won't run.
The reason this is important is that Romney needs to be pushed towards making more shrink the government promises if he is to beat Obama. He won't win as Democrat-light. He made a good start with his promise to direct the HHS Secretary to grant Obamacare waivers to all 57 50 states. But other tea partyers have noted that he hasn't promised to sign a repeal. I know that you can't trust the promises of politicians, but we have to get him to start making the right promises if we are to have any hope of carrying out some of them. Romney's demagoguery over Perry and Social Security is especially unhelpful.
Here is Romney's very pathetic Florida ad, which lays out no plan whatsoever.
Interestingly, Obama's odds are down slightly on the Christie announcement. Maybe the money is on Romney to beat Obama and Christie leaving clears the field. Your thoughts?
Mitt Romney got a couple things right after being hit up on the similarities of Obamacare to his plan. First, he said that if elected, he would direct the Secretary of HHS to grant waivers to all 50 states as his first act in office. He also called for the repeal of Obamacare. Unfortunately, he didn't really disown his prior position and I think it leaves him weak.
Rick Santorum made a donkey of himself by mis-characterizing the 10th amendment position of the other candidates in the segment on health care. For some reason, Santorum rubs me the wrong way, and it goes beyond mere policy.
Posts
