While I tend to not follow closely all the twists and turns of the primary season, I would present this analysis of the Republican primary race in advance of Wednesday’s candidate debate, aware that the picture might change quite a bit by the end of the week.

In looking at the field of prospective nominees, at this time I’m most comfortable with a Perry run as I don’t see any of the previously other declared candidates capable of beating Romney.

Pawlenty’s withdrawal says that low-key isn’t going to cut it this cycle. Cain and Bachman stir the heart, but Cain’s lack of governmental/executive experience (and Bachmann’s too) against an incumbent President is a huge negative. Obama only got away with it due to 2008 being an open race plus a worshiping press. Gingrich is appalling and damaged goods; Santorum cannot carry independents, especially once the campaign videos come forward (e.g. “Man on dog”) – nor even carry his home state of PA.

Huntsman is a most baffling entrant; given his negligible support among Republican voters, his motives for staying in lend themselves to a number of interpretations, some quite ominous. The debate next week should clarify whether he actually is still running for President or whether he is just running against certain other Republican candidates.

Bachmann’s support seems to be weakening, but I think that her staying in the race for some time yet will help to push the primary race fulcrum/conversation towards a more conservative point. I would add a proviso, similar to what I just said about Huntsman – that Bachmann is credible only so long as she is running for President and does not adopt a scorched-earth approach to the other candidates (especially her closest rival, Perry) in a desperate effort to pull out a victory. That would sink her ability to prevail in the general election even if she wins the nomination. We all lose if she goes nuclear.

A Romney nomination will totally demotivate the base and thereby most likely deliver the election to Obama. And if Romney decides on the 2008 playbook and tries to bribe the base with someone like Bachmann, his success will match that of McCain. I hope Bachmann is smart enough not to get into Palin’s 2008 shoes.

But even if Romney did win in 2012, nothing in his record or present behavior indicates that he has the depth of conservative convictions or the political tenacity to do more than slow the rising tide sweeping our nation to despotism via the accelerating expansion in the size and power of the Federal government that the election of Obama and a supermajority in Congress initiated. We can and must do better should the voters give Republicans another chance.

Which now brings us to Ron Paul. Rather than debate his policies at this time, I would move to raise two points that usually are not in the conversation. First, his record as legislator is marred by his inability to advance effectively his proposed legislation, indicating a serious difficulty in working with others. This trait does not bode well with his holding the highest executive office, given that the President needs skill to persuade legislators to support his programs.

My second concern is much of Ron Paul’s support base comes for conspiracy-minded elements and, more seriously, from groups whose historical roots date back to the nativist & isolationist movements of the first half of the 20 century, movements that historically have stained themselves with anti-Semitism and xenophobic excesses.

I do not want to stain with that brush those whose support for Ron Paul rests on his economic policies, but the fact that Ron Paul in his campaign reaches out to these unsavory elements in the American electorate (evidenced most recently by his agreeing to let Alex Jones interview him) is most disturbing. And that appeal is something which other supporters of Ron Paul do need to address if he is to be viewed as a credible candidate to the American electorate as a whole.

As for Sarah Palin, her present outfit (as mobilizer) suits here very well, and she’d be a fool to dress up in clothes that really aren’t cut for her. Her entry would turn the whole race into chopped liver, and the resultant smoke from the media firestorm can only help Romney’s chances. I hope she has the sense to stay on the sidelines and from there to utilize her unique assets to advance conservative interests.

Perry certainly has some apparent flaws in his conservative credentials, though I think that his greatest weakness – one that has led to the biggest missteps in his political career – looks to be a propensity towards cronyism. I wonder if this is an occupational hazard of Texas governors, as Bush also seemed prone to cronyism too

But given that an Obama win could well spell the end to representative democracy in our country, Perry represents an acceptable alternative – and he’s the best I see we’re going to be able to do this electoral cycle.

Nobody more “conservative” than Perry currently running (or under speculation) can articulate the case for conservatism and – equally importantly – sell it to enough voters to win the electoral college.

Conservative principles and policy are good, but (as the Bush administration proved) if you as a conservative can’t articulate your position and can’t successfully sell it to the American people, the media and Democrats will tear you limb-from-limb.

The next few weeks will determine whether Perry can successfully navigate the transition to the national stage and how well he holds up to the fusillade of opposition that is lining up from Democrats and the media – and from a fair number in the Republican establishment as well. His outspokenness and the Bush 2.0 meme will offer a vantage point to launch attacks. Perry certainly will have to push back, but with surgical skill.

A new plague has been descending upon RedState as the primary season becomes more serious. No, I’m not talking about the quadrennial invasion of the luaP noR locusts looking for fresh foliage.

Rather, its the entrance of the folks with the following screen names:

[candidate's name]4prez (or variations on the theme)

I seem to recall we earlier had the Sarah Palin variant, who was eventually escorted out the door. But hydra-like, we now have two more heads in the house, as evidenced by the thread to his post being thrown into chaos by the entrance of one of these folks:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/08/31/dana-milbank-perry-is-not-a-libertarian/#comment-9515

And then there’s the posts and comments by his rival

http://www.redstate.com/romney4prez/

Now certainly from my perspective, these folks do more damage to their opponent by their political equivalent of “friendly fire” that ten of their political opponents are able to inflict – as much by their cring-inducing defense of their candidate as by their over-the-top attacks on others.

Which might be viewed as just deserts, except that the candidates don’t deserve such treatment.

Worse, these exchanges distract from serious discussion of the strengths and weakness of the various candidates – not just distraction, but at times approaching fratricide. Meanwhile, the assessment of the candidates’ effectiveness against their Democratic opponents gets eclipsed.

And even worse still, conservatives/Republicans get needlessly pushed into shouting matches against each other, weakening our common resolve.

Consequently, the quality of discourse at RedState declines, and folks dropping by recoil at the level of conversation that they see.

So what then is my modest proposal? Simply this

When [candidate]4prez (or variants, including “senate” or “house” or “gov”) come into the view,

shoot first and ask questions later (metaphorically speaking).

Ah, the relief…

Moe has made a good start on explaining the California drama, but the story is quite a bit more complex and contains another case study in the Law of (Predictably) Unanticipated Consequences.

On one key point, though, I think Moe is not quite correct

As near as I can make out, the Republicans will not budge on tax hikes (which would require a special election to ratify) unless the same ballot has measures on spending caps and pension reform.

Actually, it’s much better than that – as I understand it, the Republicans are demanding that caps and pension reform be in the budget (as they only need a majority vote to be passed); they don’t have to go before the voters.

But let me run through the larger story in brief – and I trust our other California readers will chime in with clarifications and corrections

Past History

Prior to this year, passage of a budget required a 2/3rds vote, which meant that all the political drama was over the budget approval itself. Approval for years has required a (shrinking) handful of Republicans to vote for the budget (along with the Democratic majority).

Since the 2/3rds vote for passage itself provided a veto-proof majority, once the legislature approved the budget, the governor would not interfere at this point, and the drama would move to the next year.

Where the fun and games stated, though, was that the California Constitution had several other requirements regarding the budget:

a) The budget has to be balanced

b) The budget is required to be passed by June 15

c) New taxes require a 2/3rds vote of the legislature. (Existing taxes can be extended by majority vote.)

Furthermore, if the budget is not passed before the beginning of the fiscal year (i.e. by June 30th), the state cannot pay any more bills (except for those mandated by the Federal government or the courts).

You can see the public spectacle that this created

When tax revenues were high, then it was easy to balance the budget and the legislature could hand out candy and not build up a reserve.

In low revenue years, the legislature would end up in stalemate – the Democrats trying to raise taxes, the Republicans wanting to lower spending, and a handful of Republicans holding the balance of power. The budget would run late, sometimes spilling over to the next year, and the press would hammer the legislature as each party blamed the other.

In more intractable years, as time went on and the state has to resort to more extreme measures, stop paying bills and event issuing warrants, which did not exactly help its credit ratings or please debtors, pressure from creditors and the public would mount to pass a budget as the legislature took another body blow for not meeting deadlines.

Eventually, the leadership would find various “creative” measures to meet the Constitutional requirement for a balanced budget that they could sell to the caucus while hoping to kick the can down the road until tax revenues would rise again in the next wave. Such would include new taxes under the guise of fees, or small temporary increases in existing taxes.

Bringing us to…

November 2010 Election

We had three events last November that working together set the stage for this year’s change of script.

1) The voters passed Proposition 25, which changed reduced the vote requirement to pass a budget from 2/3rds to simple majority. This of course, dramatically changed the legislative process as it meant that no Republican votes were needed to pass a budget.

As a sweetener, this ballot measure also had the stick that if the budget was late, then starting on June 16 legislators would not receive any pay until they did pass a budget. Prior to then, there were no direct consequences to legislators if the budget was not on time.

2) The voters in the same election also passed Proposition 26, which tightened up the definition of new taxes to tamp down on the evasion tactic of calling new taxes “fees” because the latter only need a majority vote – thereby reducing wiggle room for legislators.

3) We had an election for governor, and the Democrat winner, Governor Brown unequivocally promised in campaign that he would not accept budget-as-usual but wanted a genuine budget – and that any tax increase approved by the legislature would also go before the voters for their vote before being put into effect.

The Script Changes

As a consequence, first of all we see the backfiring aspect (which was why I was quite amused that the Democrats were so eager to pass Prop 25), which is that the Democrats now have ownership of the budget because they no longer require Republican votes to pass the budget. They had pushed this initiative because of the bad press from past failures to pass budgets on time, and wanted to solve that problem, which they did, but at a cost because…

Meanwhile, new taxes still require a 2/3rds vote. This means that the Democrats can pass a budget on their own, but can’t guarantee new tax revenues to fund it without Republican votes. This we still had set up a stalemate between tax increases and spending cuts – except now the Democrats couldn’t argue that they didn’t have the votes to pass a budget.

This left the Democrats in a weaker than usual position, because they either a) had to come to agreement with the Republican caucus so that they share the responsibility (known as the TARP Stratagem), or b) come up with an all-cut budget on their own, which would outrage their voting base, or c) find some way to peel off the needed handful of Republicans to break with their caucus and agree to new taxes (which would be risky to their reelection)…

Or there was d) circumvent the legislative process entirely, which would be very risky because things would end up in court and/or an initiative+/-referendum that would unite Republicans and anti-tax groups. (In the case of a referendum, the tax measures would be suspended in the interim.) And since the California voters like programs but don’t like to vote for taxes to pay for them, these increases would likely go down.

That is, d) was not a credible threat (and an admission of desperation).

So now the vise tightens on the Democrats as two deadlines approach:

1) June 15 these poor legislators would lose their daily allowances (cue the violins). And indeed we are now hearing sob stories of financial ruin from Democrat legislators because of not getting paid, which says something about their household budgeting skills – and we elect these guys for the state budget?

But I digress…

2) On June 30th, two substantial temporary taxes are set to expire, which puts a major hole in the revenues side, meaning even more cuts are needed. This is what’s behind all the efforts to get Republicans to approve a “bridge tax” to continue these taxes, at least until the special election. Not to mention that the state loses its ability to pay new bills.

Coming now to the current situation, the Democrats in the legislature, thinking the script was still essentially the same, put together another smoke and mirrors budget (including new tax increases not-so-disguised as fees or extensions of existing taxes) assuming the governor would not interfere.

Surprise! (except to those listening all along)

First, of course, is that the governor is now relevant for the first time in many years, because he now has the effective power to veto a majority-only budget, unlike past 2/3rds-vote budgets. Which is what he did. Another evident consequence of Prop 25 that the Democrats ignored – it made the governor relevant again to the budget process.

So why did Gov. Brown veto the bill? I see at two basic reasons.

1) His entire credibility as governor rested on passing a real budget, credibility with voters, with legislators, especially with Republican legislators – and with the financial markets . To back down would have exposed him as all talk, not action.

2) Unlike Democrat legislators, Brown understands financial reality. The bond markets have already effectively shut down in California in terms of issuance of new debt (not happening) as warning. If Brown had let this budget go past, that would be an unmistakable signal that California was still not serious about budget/pension reform, which he recognized would be an utterly disastrous message to send to the financial markets.

Finally, to put icing on the cake, the Controller decided that Prop 25 did require him to withhold legislators’ pay and stuck to his guns – a rare example today of operating on principle – and an action that sends another favorable signal to the financial markets that he’s not going to play games.

As we approach June 30 and beyond, the Republicans are definitely holding the stronger cards. Whether they will hold fast or whether the Democrats can recruit enough defectors as the pressure mounts remains to be seen.

In all the discussion focusing on how the START treaty would affect our ability to build and deploy a missile defense system, very little has been mentioned to my knowledge about the strategic implications of this treaty.

And in brief, what this treaty does is to ratify Russia’s status as a hegemonic regional power, which follows upon our previous decisions under this administration to grant similar regional dominance by China in Asia and Iran in Central Asia – in conjunction with this administration’s ceding U.S. strategic interests in South America and Central America (or even an interest in defending our border with Mexico).

Now it may be comforting to those who still view the world through a Soviet-U.S. superpower rivalry to continue that Cold War era diplomacy through another arms control treaty, but that has little to do with present reality. Instead we are signaling a retreat in the face of Russian aggressiveness rooted in a resurgent nationalism and energy sales that would seem to consign Eastern Europe (and to a lesser degree Western Europe) to regional domination by Russia.

And in so doing, we are unmistakably making another statement that we no longer wish to wear the mantle of world leadership and beacon of hope for those seeking to emulate us to form their own forms of democratic governance (following upon our passivity in the face of Iranian citizens being ruthlessly suppressed when they protested the electoral fraud in their last election and looked to us for help).

Unfortunately, the last two years have seen the Republican opposition in Congress (and predominant discussion at RedState and elsewhere in the right blogosphere) focused almost entirely on domestic economic matters. Apart from a few lonely voices such as Sen. DeMint, the Obama Adminstration has been largely given a pass on its foreign policy through an absence of any significant debate on foreign policy decisions.

In any case, what I see at stake in this treaty is an acquiescence to America relegating itself to being just another country in the world – that is, the repudiation before the world of American Exceptionalism. And having surrendered such claim will make it far more difficult if not impossible to reclaim it in the future should our country decide to change its course and once again pursue our destiny.

And this is what our senators need to hear. My regret is that it has taken perhaps too long for me to speak out.

Tomorrow will be an historic day is our effort to save our nation, our shining light on its hill, from having its light extinguished and the world cast into a millennium of darkness.

As many have pointed out, we haven’t won anything yet, and we must be energetic in the next day to turn our current advantage in this battle into victory.

Recognizing that this is just the first step in what will be a lengthy and hard fought struggle against forces that have been working for over a hundred years to promote a hellish future for the world that is diametrically opposed to the principles behind the rule of law and other bedrock principles that affirm and defend our liberty.

Time for me to join other determined citizens to muster our forces to bring out the vote and to ensure the best we can that this vote be not marred by fraud and betrayal by high officials.

As a reminder to the future we seek to avert, let me reprint the poem below by Rudyard Kipling written in the aftermath of World War I that had snuffed out the lives of so many sons, including his own son.

A testimony of the consequences when people betray their marriage to truth and let themselves be lured away to commit adultery again with the lies that falsely promote an easier way.

The path that tragically our current leaders and so many fellow citizen seem determined to take, once more ignoring the lessons of history and the terrible abyss just ahead that is opening its jaws for our nation and indeed the whole world.

Let us, then, resolve that our nation and this world not pass this way again

————————————————–

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

————————————————–

As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

[from the diaries by haystack]

We all recognize that an honest voting process is the foundation of representative government, and thus that electoral fraud denies our rights as citizens and is a rapid path to tyranny.

This year we see evidence accumulating of organized and concerted efforts on the part of the Democratic Party and their principal allies, labor unions (especially SEIU), to undermine the votes in multiple races at a scale unprecedented in modern election history that could significantly affect the outcome of these races and even substantially alter the composition of our next Congress and also influence state races that will decide the next decadal reapportionment.

This is a new game; old understandings are obsolete. Your race could be one of the targets of this national effort at fraud.

But resources are limited; a campaign probably cannot cover all basie.

Keeping that in mind, here is a five-point program to maintain electoral honesty and defeat fraud, such that the outcomes on November 2nd truly represent the choices of the voters.

Read More →

Our local paper, the Oakland Tribune, came out with its endorsement for California Senate today.

Some excerpts

Generally, a three-term senator who has a leadership position in the majority party should be a relatively easy endorsement, especially if the opponent has never run for office before. However, that is not the case this year.

Boxer has been in the Senate for 18 years, yet her influence has been embarrassingly weak, particularly when compared to that of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

California needs a senator who can work across party lines, a skill that will become even more important if the GOP makes significant gains in the Senate. Boxer has demonstrated time and again that she does not work well with those who disagree with her.

We are troubled by Boxer’s negativity. The nation does not need even more polarization, especially on critical issues that need bipartisan cooperation for success.

We agree with many of Fiorina’s positions on economic policy

So who does the Tribune support, albeit “reluctantly”?

You guessed it – Barbara Boxer.

Why is this the case? Well the paper does spend a a few sentences criticizing Carly’s record:

Fiorina’s rise to the top at HP is impressive, but her controversial record and dismissal are not. Fiorina touts her business acumen as a major reason to vote for her to help the nation solve its economic woes. But the HP-Compaq merger she pushed was not a success, and HP’s stock value was cut in half under her leadership.

However, their true colors come out in the last two paragraphs, including an earlier quote above in its entirety:

While we agree with many of Fiorina’s positions on economic policy, we have problems with her backward positions on social issues… If Boxer were opposed by a more moderate Republican, such as Tom Campbell, whom Fiorina defeated in the June primary, we would have an easier choice. Unfortunately, that is not what voters face, forcing us to reluctantly recommend Boxer’s re-election.

Translation: Gay marriage and abortion trumps all, given that the most polar difference between Carly and Tom Campbell was on these two issues: Campbell is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage; Carly is pro-life and pro-family.

That is, it doesn’t matter that Barbara Boxer and her Democratic colleague want government to control and interfere every other aspect of our lives and drive our economy into the dumpster; it doesn’t matter that the editors agree with a candidate on important issues like the economy: the only thing that matters in the end is “social issues” – which is code for a two-issue litmus test as to whether a candidate’s has “backward positions” on gay marriage and abortion.

This folks is monomania. And California is infested with it.

The only silver lining here is that even in Barbara Boxer’s home turf – the Bay Area-she could only garner a “reluctant” endorsement from her hometown (Oakland) paper- while across the Bay, the San Francisco Chronicle issued an “extremely rare” (in their own words) no-endorsement on the race. If Boxer is so weak in her prirmary stronghold, this indicates that Carly does have a real shot.

But Carly’s main obstacle remains that sizable segment of voters with monomania californiensis on “social issues”.

The final irony: when the totalitarian left comes to power, the bedroom is one of the first objects of its control.

Amos 5:19 comes to mind here:

It will be as though a man fled from a lion and a bear met him! or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him!

There is none so blind as those who will not see…

[Update: 10/22/10 6:42 PM EDT: Rasmussen moves race from Solid Republican to Toss-up in just two weeks

More confirmatory evidence of that the Toomey-Sestak race is now essentially a dead-heat comes from Rasmussen today, showing an unfavorable trend line: an increase in support for Sestak while Toomey maintains the same level of support, indicating a break in undecideds towards Sestak. Toomey 48% Sestak 44%, 7% undecided. Polling taken last night (10/21, one night after first of two debates).

The stakes are thus very high going into tonight's second and last debate between the two candidates. Key sections from Rasmussen:

Republican Pat Toomey now holds just a four-point lead over Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak in the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania. It’s the closest the contest has been since May...

The race now moves from Solid Republican to a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings. Less than two weeks ago, Toomey held a 10-point lead, 49% to 39%. The tightening of the race comes from an increase in support for Sestak while Toomey’s support remains steady.

Thank you to Southpaw75 for the heads-up.

End Update]

I would normally discount Politico except that this excerpt is from an e-mail message sent out to an e-mail distribution list from this individual, who’s a significant PA Republican player.

I’ve seen Neil question the other polling agencies. Nonetheless, the Toomey camp must be getting rather anxious as Pat Toomey’s early lead has evaporated.

The Politico article indicates that the Democratic money and ad buys have turned this race into a very tight effort whose outcome will surely rest on GOTV. As we know, the Democrats have all sorts of dead voters and ACORN-type fraud in the urban areas as a cushion, so our side is going to have to work even harder to overcome this handicap.

Folks, this has become a serious contest and a major test of wills. PA is a bellweather state, so these are the races we need to win or we’ll hear all sorts of refrains about how conservative Republicans can’t win.

Again, GOTV will be vital.

E-mail message follows including links:

As expected the race is tightening as the Democrats attempt to smear Pat Toomey as a right wing radical extremist religious fanatic

Barnburner: Pa. Senate is latest dead heat – Dan Hirschhorn – POLITICO.com A Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday confirmed what Democrats have been arguing for months: The Keystone State’s Senate race is as competitive as any other in the country. For Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, the 1-point edge over Pat Toomey marks a stark turnaround — one that is echoed by internal polls from both parties — and further evidence that the Navy man twice considered dead in the water this year has again pulled himself back onto the boat.

See also Muhlenberg Poll Sestak 44 Toomey 41 with 15% undecided.

As come down the home stretch to the crucial election, the media would like to have everyone thinking the election is about witches or tea party rage or a twenty-year-old article or all the other tricks they are utilizing to distract the voters from the Achilles heel of the Democratic politburo – which is that the economy is still in the toilet while they continue to try to flush it down.

Curious how the media was all over the Bush administration 4-6% unemployment rate as a crisis of governance, but now placidly accept double or triple that rate as just a hiccup…well obviously not so curious.

After all, historically the state of the economy play a major or even a predominant role in electoral outcome. And the Democrats are definitely facing a strong headwind on their performance regarding the economy.

Let’s find a way to refocus the voters attention. But at this point in the game…not so much at the factual and statistical level when voter’s brains are on overload – but through their gut.

And particularly by asking questions rather than trying shout louder over the increasing din. Questions have a way of disarming listeners and bypassing defenses to stick like a burr when direct assertions will get their backs up and their ears closed.

“Are you better off today than you were two years ago?”
“Are you growing more hopeful or less hopeful about your future over the past two years?”
“Is it right to saddle our children with the increasing debt that Congress is putting them into?”
“Do you like how our President and Congress are strangling business growth that could create new job growth.

And so on. Questions, lots of questions. How about answering leading questions with questions of our own. Take a look at how Jesus handled his opponents most of the time – with well-phrased questions that trapped them with untenable choices of response.

Statements become piñatas for media commentators who can find all sorts of ways to rip them up. But questions – far, far harder for them to target successfully as it slips away from their sticks and sticks in the listeners’ craws as it starts to raise that cloud of doubt.

Time is getting short – let us let loose with a barrage of creatively awkward questions for Democratic candidates.

Here in Oakland, in addition to two high-visibility state-wide races for senator and governor, we also have a hotly contested three-way race for mayor (plus seven other also-ran candidates) in our first “instant run-off” election, which in turn is generating much speculation how this will upset the usual electoral calculus.

Not to mention the almost smoking-gun evidence of a conspiracy by the local corrupt party* machine mayoral candidate, acting in concert with a supposedly-independent PAC to evade mutually-agreed upon campaign spending limits so as to spend the over half a million dollars extracted from all his “friends” from the unions and the other usual suspects, almost twice as much than his opponents combined.

So what is the daily political cartoon of the day that our local paper choose to reprint?

Well, we bring you this hot-breaking item from Delaware, via Missouri**…

Besides the ludicrous linking of O’Connell to Nixon’s denial of criminal activity, why two weeks later after the issue first was manufactured is O’Donnell still being pummeled in almost every media modality?

And why, of course, is there no cartoon with Coons in the middle saying “I am not a Marxist”?

[Hint, hint...turnabout is fair]

And why no discussion of Coons’ youth by the press beyond Coons curt dismissal? Because only Republicans are held responsible for everything they might have said from nursery school on? Do asses donkeys bray?

And why did our local paper see fit to publish this cartoon about a rather obscure race in Delaware (for Californians) that has previous attracted almost no attention besides a few AP briefs?

Though there is the silver lining is that 1) they aren’t attacking California Republicans for one day, and 2) they might actually help O’Donnell by drawing attention from California Republican donors. And it may well be that most readers will be scratching their heads in puzzlement.

And you’re going to tell me that there is no JournoList activity still going on?

Why that’s as ridiculous as telling me that mean Aunt Nancy also lied about Santa Claus…and that she forgot to tell me I was on the hook for all those neat presents Santa carries about on his sled. Next thing, she’ll be telling me is that God The Goddess is a Democrat.

*Democratic. Did you really have to ask?

**John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune, Missouri

In what appears to an increasing tide of Democratic incumbents running for reelection who are desperately trying to distance themselves from the Obama adminstration, an new level of disavowal was set by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA11) last Friday (10/1) when he deliberately kept secret the location and details of a local fundraising event for him featuring Vice President Joe Biden.

McNerney downplays Biden visit

Think about that: the Vice President of the United States comes to town to highlight a fundraiser for a Congressional candidate, and this event is kept hidden from the public and media, as though Biden had been placed in the Witness Protection Program. To further hide this event from scrutiny from voters in his district, this event was held miles away at a swanky Oakland resort.

A check of McNerney’s website also makes no mention of this fundraiser.

As Lisa Vorderbrueggen from the Bay Area News Group incredulously blogs (whose report was selected for inclusion in today’s print version of the Oakland Tribune and the Contra Costa Times):

[McNerney's] campaign spokeswoman Sarah Hersh told me last night that no details were being released because the event was not open to the press.

No offense, but when did open press equate to news value? And what possible down side could there be to news of McNerney having eggs and bacon with the Vice President of the United States?

Care to answer that question, Rep. (hopefully soon to be Ex-Rep.) McNerney?

McNerney’s November opponent, David Harmer, certainly lost no time in answering that question for Rep. McNernery. In a statement issued released by Harmer’s campaign (excerpted here):

Congressman Jerry McNerney has brought to California today one of the chief architects of the overspending in Washington – Vice President Joe Biden – who is helping raise money for the embattled Congressman’s re-election.

When a major national figure comes to town, campaigns typically announce it to the world. But details about today’s Biden event have been as elusive as a Jerry McNerney town-hall meeting. They just don’t exist anywhere in the public.

No press invites, no insider releases, nothing, nada. It must have been a real challenge for Biden to agree to secrecy, especially considering his talent for self promotion.

What will be the next step down for Obama and Biden: disguising themselves in public by wearing paper bags over their heads?

Reading kowalski’s recent diary,

People, It’s Time to Do Something Good

a descriptive term that came to mind as descriptive of what he experienced is a word with a long political pedigree: radicalized

Now the word “radical” literally means “root” – so radicalized means the process by one undergoes a root, or fundamental change.

In the political sphere, this word indicates a sharp turn from the mushy, comfortable, “moderate” middle ground towards a more extreme position that puts one out there in terms of advocating fundamental change in the political system.

Surely, this term would describe what is going on with many Americans in the run-up to this year’s elections – a growing realization that this country is heading in the wrong direction and a recognition that one can no longer rest in the middle but needs to go out there and actively yank us back to a country run on conservative principles.

However, the words “radical” and “radicalized” have been expropriated by the far-left (who also have worked on labeling conservatives and others opposed to their ideology “reactionaries”)

Thus we need to find a new word to describe what happening with the American people.

My modest proposal (if you’ve made it through this far) is that we call this process as folks being grizzly-ized.

Other suggestions welcomed in the comments. I’d call it a contest, except there are no judges and no prizes.

Open thread.

I wanted to alert our RedState community to the launch of a new interactive website that exposes us all more directly to the cost of our massive government spending.

The site, called MyGovCost.org, moves beyond simply clocking the aggregate deficit, and instead enables people to calculate the cost to themselves of various federal programs.

Quoting from an announcement of the site’s launch:

After a visitor to MyGovCost.org enters his or her age, income, and level of education, the website’s Government Cost Calculator estimates the person’s monthly and lifetime federal tax liability (in total or by federal program), along with the amount of money that he or she might have earned had those funds been invested in the stock market instead of going to pay for Uncle Sam’s spending habits.

The usefulness of this site as I see it is that by calculating on an individual basis the true cost of federal programs, we can see more graphically how much Congress and the President are wasting our money and our children’s money – a novel approach that drives home the message in a tangible way that talking about trillions of dollars of debt can’t do because the numbers are just too huge to comprehend.

This site would appear to be a powerful new tool in our efforts this November (and beyond) to get the American people to understand just how horrendous and costly has been the Democrats’ spending frenzy. And since this is a brand new site, I would hope that those here who find this site useful would help spread the word about it.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I’d also like to give a plug for the creators of this site, the Independent Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Oakland, CA with whom I have personal acquaintance at several levels (but not as an employee nor do I have any financial interests in their operation). I’ve been impressed by their level of scholarship (though I do have serious issues with their foreign policy bent), and my son participated in their Summer Seminar this past June.

This started as a comment to the comment thread on the diary titled

O’Donnell and Lying To Save Lives: Was Castle Right to Withhold His Endorsement?

before my comment got too long.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Just about everyone here has fallen in the trap that the diary author has set here

…excepting mom2oneson who instinctively gets what is going on.

This is a classic scenario from Situation Ethics which attacked and tried to discredit historical morality and particularly the concept of absolute values by posing thorny scenarios about hypothetical situations.

I seem to recall there was a book by that title some years ago which started this all up, which may well have been closer to the time that OConnell’s quote comes from.

The “What do you do if the Nazi’s came knocking on the door” was one of the classic scenarios, along with the “Whether to let the Nazi prison guard bonk you so that you can get yourself a ‘get our to jail free” card” scenario that mom2onesone referred to.

The purpose was to create situations designed to get the reader to decide that moral absolutes had to be bent to the situation – or at least to set up contentious debates that would have the same effect of dividing people of good faith.

And judging from the comment thread, this aim succeeded.

In most cases, these situations can be defused because essentially if you look more closely at the unstated premises, you will see that the scenario has been loaded to create controversy.

Or alternatively, the scenarios assumes that you have certainty about the content of the situation beyond what is plausible.

About the Nazi’s questioning you about hiding a Jewish child, a key fallacy is assuming (as the scenario implies) that your answer would be decisive in determining whether the Nazis would search you house.

In other words, there would be a strong likelihood it doesn’t matter what you say in terms of the Nazis’ subsequent behavior: you’re in an untenable position once they’ve come by – and that the lives of you and the child are both forfeit. For that matter, they quite likely would just force their way in without even asking in the first place.

Therefore, since lying is not really likely to save the child, and flat telling the truth is untenable and unacceptable, I would suggest something neutral like, “feel free to search the house if you like” (which is every likely to happen anyway) – and pray to God that the child is not discovered. There are multiple stories of miracles like this that the survivors have related. Or perhaps you will bluff the Nazis from searching – which is at least as plausible as thinking that lying will dissuade the Nazis from searching.

The real point here, though, is that this situation doesn’t at all impeach O’Donnell’s statement that it would be morally wrong to lie. And that if you creatively reply without lying, you very well could achieve the desired outcome without violating moral standards.

About the pregnant prisoner question, again if you examine more closely, again you have a loaded scenario. Why should Nazi’s promulgate such a policy and even more absurdly, why would they follow such a policy. Far more likely (and historically more accurate) is that would likely simply kill the child, and quite possibly kill the mother too rather then set the free. It’s not like the Nazis exactly had a high regard for the lives of prisoners – especially those like a pregnant mom who couldn’t work – or a newborn who was a total drain on supplies.

So if becoming the guard’s sex toy isn’t going to improve your fate – or more likely it will worsen your odds, not to mention the risk of getting gang-banged to death and/or sexually tortured or worse, given their lack of respect towards prisoners – why degrade yourself in pursuit of a delusion.

Also, on a different track, I remember an essay on this that I read years back that refuted this situation through a reductio ad absurdum (or perhaps an infinite regression, I’m not certain as to the correct techical term). The refutation runs something like this.

Continuing past the release, the woman and child are now on the road, and it being winter, they are about to freeze to death because they were only given rags to wear. They encounter a guy on this deserted area who offers to clother them…in return for sex.

So next, the find theyt have no food and at the point of passing our from hunger. they run into another guy who learning they are hungry, offers to feed them…in return for sex.

And as night approaches and they have no place to sleep to shield them from dropping temperatures and an impending blizzard, in which they will surely freeze, a trucker passing by stops and offers them a ride…in return for sex.

And so on, “all the way down”.

In other words, once you buy the argument to cross the line, you have no defense against further incursions until there’s nothing left to defend.

So as you can see from this brief (and rather hastily assembled) discussion, even the best thinkers have great difficulty unraveling the ball of thread around Situational Ethics. And much of this analysis almost surely was not something O’Donnell would have know about.

Thus, given the multiple land mines that these situational ethics problems create – and which are easy to blow oneself up on, the best defense is to hold to the absolutes, as O”Donnell did, because you do not gain by breaking them.

Instead, focus on being creative in the life situations you do encounter, while not crossing the line.

Regardless of what happens in Delaware today, the truth still remains that having a good and virtuous philosophy and program is one thing, but the ability to spread this message and to convince a sufficient percentage of our fellow citizens to take it as their own is constrained by the messengers they come in contact with.

Which then brings me to a military analogy: there are two great and opposite risks of battle/war when one’s side takes the advantage.

The first is to fail to vigorously pursue and wipe out the enemy when they have been broken and are heedlessly fleeing, thereby giving them a chance to regroup and counterattack.

The other, though, is to advance too far and too rapidly, outrunning supply lines and becoming overextended – thereby allowing the enemy to surround and capture these outposts, which raises their morale, blunts your progress, causes unnecessary losses to your forces, and could turn advantage into defeat. This occurs when you have put the enemy forces under pressure but have not broken through their defenses and scattered their forces into disarray.

The wisdom is to discern the difference – and what I see in the current political battlefield regarding the status of the collectivist left is that they are under substantial pressured but far from being broken. Let us not then get too giddy over our success so far this cycle (while acknowledge the remarkable accomplishments to date in overturning a dysfunctional status quo) – November remains a most critical test of arms.

So in terms of deciding upon who we select to be our candidates, our messengers, we need to discern what is intensifying pressure and what is a bridge too far – very difficult at times. Taking an accurate longer view is especially challenging during the heat of battle.

Since each of us have imperfect knowledge and differing character traits and temperments, we need to remember and thereby hope and trust that Republican voters, joined in voluntary association, will have better collective wisdom in selecting our messengers than what we in our individual punditry can read from the entrails, as it’s not a clearly black and white issue.

And hopefully we will learn from our victories and profit from our defeats in this primary cycle as we move forward to the November elections and afterwards as we then prepare for the equally or more important 2012 election cycle.

I read today this Fox news story about a ROTC instructor in Worcester MA
who’s being threatened with termination on June 15th if he doesn’t pay a $500
union agency fee by June 15.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/marine-refuses-pay-teacher-union-dues-faces-termination/

His name is Stephen Godin, and he’s a Retired U.S. Marine Major.

The red flag in the article is this section:

Godin, who retired from the Marines in 1994 after logging more than 2,000-plus hours flying F-4 Phantoms and five overseas deployments, said he has not hired an attorney.

“That would cost me money, too,” he said.

If he doesn’t get a lawyer, that will cost him his job, you can be
certain…

I contacted the legal department of the National Right to Work Legal
foundation who specialize in these kinds of cases and provide free legal
assistance – the receptionist (once they transferred me) say they were aware
of the case, affirmed my concern that he would be railroaded if he didn’t
get legal counsel, and said they were trying to track him down.

http://www.nrtw.org/en/legal.htm

The NRWF 800 hotline number (ask for transfer to legal defense group) is
(800) 336-3600.

So if anyone reading this has connections or otherwise can find this guy and
get him in contact with NRWF legal, you’ve got your marching orders.

I received a phone call identifying itself as coming from Rasmussen conducting an automated poll that focused on the California Senate race. First time I’ve received such a call from Rasmussen. (I thank RedState for informing me of their reputation or I might not have participated.)

After general job performance questions on Obama and on Arnold (one each), the poll had three head-to-head votes between Boxer and each of the three Republican candidates, followed by asking attitude towards each of the four individually (very favorable to very unfavorable). The poll also contained the expected demographic questions (political party, self-identification scale from very liberal to very conservative, age, income, ethnicity, sex) and a question as to voting frequency.

(I chose the Republican all three times in the head-to-head, but in the attitudes, Chuck got a very favorable; Carly got a somewhat unfavorable; Tom and Babs got a very unfavorable).

In the middle of the demographic questions, some interesting attitude questions appeared, if I recall correctly – business tax cuts vs. gov’t spending to help the economy, whether the Federal budget can be balanced without tax cuts, whether our elected officials have become a special interest group, whether I thought business and government were often in cahoots [my paraphrase]. The questions apparently were trying to gauge anti-government sentiment without pushing the hot buttons.

The question I struggled the most with, because it was too broad and vague, was whether I favored a “tax cut for all Americans” – to which I found myself reluctantly answering “no” because I don’t assess this as an effective approach: targeting cuts to businesses is what we need to improve our economy. Fortunately they followed that poor question with the question about cutting taxes on business vs. increasing government spending, where the choice was clear.

Overall, with the one exception above, the questions seemed well-designed to try define key voter attitudes that would impact voting and to correlate candidate support with these attitudes. I’m not sure whether my earlier answers affected the later attitude questions that were asked. That is, if (perish the thought!) I had identified myself as a Boxer supporter, I wonder whether the attitude questions would have differed – or whether the lead-ins would have differed.

Quite refreshing to be involved in a poll conducted by a reputable national company, as opposed to phony push polls or just bad design.

It will be interesting to see how the results come up – especially as to the Republican voter attitudes towards the three primary candidates and how DeVore is shaping up at this point in the trail blazed by Demon Sheep.

Fox News reports this evening that the Senate broke a three-month Republican hold over the nominee for the Labor Department solicitor:

The Senate has voted to move forward with the nomination of New York’s state labor commissioner for the No. 3 post at the Labor Department despite GOP complaints about her qualifications. The 60-32 vote on Monday allows lawmakers to begin debate on the confirmation of Patricia Smith to become solicitor of the agency. Republicans have held up a vote on Smith for more than three months. They claim she misled lawmakers about her role in creating a New York program that allows labor unions to help uncover wage-and-hour violations. The hold meant 60 votes were needed to move her nomination to a full floor vote.

I was willing to give the Republican Senate leadership a pass on the debt reduction as political theater, but this is allowing the Democrats in the Senate to poke the Republican in the eye and allowing an action that clearly will harm our country. This was a significant vote.

As I recall past stories on Patricia Smith, this program was an egregious effort to intimidate employers from opposing union organizing efforts by inviting complaints that would provoke state investigations against the company, tilting the playing field.

And now this labor partisan is going to be a top official in the department that oversee labor relations, the person in charge of issuing legal opinions for the department (representing the Federal government) – which means an open door to intimidating companies nationwide, especially smaller companies that don’t have the money and legal resources to fight the unlimited resources of the Federal government.

And this motion was passed by 60 votes.

So why are the Republicans laying down on the road without a peep while Democrats run them over instead of demanding that Sen. Brown be seated?

It’s two weeks since his opponent conceded the election. Why hasn’t Sen. Brown been sworn in yet?

When we’ve seen the partisan railroading of the Democratic Senate for this past year, why are the Republicans not derailing this train. They should have been demanding a least a week ago with dramatic effects that the Massachusetts citizens get to be represented by the man they’ve elected – and every day have a another protest in front of cameras until something gets done.

What mischief will the Democrats do next while the window remains open? Do we really want to know. Sen. DeMint, where is your voice?

Then the angel said…”Fear not: for behod I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord” – Luke 2:10-11

On this Christmas eve, let us remember our soldiers who are living away from family and friends, many in far off places defending our freedom and freedom for the peoples of the nations in which they are serving.

Merry Christmas to my RedState family!

-civil truth

Should the Senate maintain their 60 votes through this week and pass the current health care bill, we will have seen an historic event presaging the very end of the American experiment in a Constitutional federal republic comparable to the repeal of the 17th Amendment and other events that opened a hole in the Constitution to allow the growth of an all-powerful central government.

Here is what is unprecedented:

1) Both houses of Congress have voted that to annex from states and individuals responsibility for and control of the provision of health care to every American citizen. This is a breathtaking expansion of the Federal government’s claims over the citizens and individuals that will irreversibly alter the balance of power between the Federal government and the states or people, putting a nail into the coffin of limited central government. Having reached a critical mass of power, there will be no limit to future expansions of federal power.

In other words, Congress (in conjunction with the Executive Branch) have now laid claim to health care as its exclusive province.

And as history demonstrates time and time again, once the Federal government accrues and arrogates power unto itself, it does not willingly surrender it back to the people (or states). The flow of power almost always runs towards greater centralization at an accelerating rate.

Essentially we have now essentially rewritten the 10th Amendment to state all rights reside in the Federal government, except for those (ever diminishing) areas that the Federal government expressly deigns to not exercise at this time but leave in the hands of states or individuals – and they reserve the right to take control of those areas at any time.

2) Regarding health insurance, these votes mark a seismic shift in the center of gravity in health care decision-making and allocation of resources – taking them out of the hands of states and individuals and the free market and henceforth making all such decisions political decisions of the Federal government. Having now moved the center of gravity to Washington and decreeing that all decisions relating to health care find their origin as political decisions of the Federal government, there will be no way to shift this control out of the Federal government’s grip.

And that is because all the health institutions (e.g. health care providers, hospitals and other health facilities, insurers and other third-party reimbursement agents, drugs companies and equipment manufacturers and medical supply manufacturers, research and development, corporate and non-corporate) will be reoriented to revolve around the Federal government, as their continued existence and level of viability will rest on the political and administrative decisions of the Federal government and its agencies – which means that all their administrative structures will be transformed to interact with and conform to government direction rather than market forces, scientific advances, or consumer demand.

3) What that means is that there will be no way to go back to a pre-national health care system, because all these transformed institutions will create an inertia for a national health care approach that will make impossible attempts to go back. In other words, as with most of the New Deal or Great Society programs like Medicare, once we have substantial numbers of voters and institutions dependent upon Federal largess and regulation, the relationship becomes mutually parasitic and inseparable.

That is, all the institutions that resisted the Federalization efforts – and that could only be overcome by corruption and co-option and self-delusion – will now line up to protect the new status quo.

Instead, just as we’ve seen with Social Security and Medicare (even among many “conservative” Republicans), the debate no longer is around whether or not these institutions will continue (remember the radioactive response to efforts to privatize part of the Social Security program) – rather, when problems arise, the debate centers around how to reform or improve the system. That is, when the multitude of problems and failings of current legislation become evident, the debate will be to figure out some (probably incremental) fix the system rather than scrap it – especially since these flaws will come up piecemeal and there will be woefully insufficient force to undo a national system. This is even more certain to happen given the clever timeline for implementation of the bill’s provisions.

(And this realization is the most likely reason that the left will work to ensure passage once they realize that time will be on their side to go the rest of the way – they just have to be willing to be patient enough.)

4) The glue to this irreversibility will be the lobbying money that this health care nationalizing will draw to Washington, as the various interest compete to dominate the political process behind health care decisions. (This by the way is what puts the lie to assertions that government-run programs will save money through low administrative costs – instead these expenditures are moved off-books and or shifted to lobbying and regulatory process expenses)

And as this money and whole new lobbying industries spring up to meet this need – and at a scale that will dwarf even existing structures – our legislators will be further insulated from responsiveness to the voters and even more dependent on their donors to cover the costs of winning reelection. Worse, challengers facing a growing mountain of campaigning costs will have to fight fire with fire and depend upon alternative lobbying interests who have been the losers in previous rounds. Not to mention that as the economy deteriorates, ordinary citizens will have increasingly less money to spend on election donations as their income and savings are bled dry by the new taxes and higher costs of the new health care programs, among other sources of exsanguination – and increasingly look for government to rescue them (forgetting that government can only do so by cannibalizing). A classic vicious cycle.

5) In brief, the scale and sheer size of this capture threatens to make this action the threshold to a runaway Federal government that will subvert – and ultimately scrap – Constitutional constraints. I see some interesting analogies to the end of the Roman republic, most notably the corruption of the Senate members and the willingness of factions to sacrifice foundational rules and procedures for short-term advantage that opened the door to despotism.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

So why am I writing this as we see impending Senate passage rather than wait to see if the bill will get through Congress in the end? Here are several key reasons:

1) On the tactical side, the dynamics of Conference is totally different than getting the House and Senate to pass bills. Before passage, there is always the chance of significant amendment and/or the bills not passing for lack of sufficient support.

But once both have passed a bill, this indicates that a majority of both houses have given their stamp of approval to the concept behind the bill. There is a real prospect that the House will pass the Senate bill intact and end the legislative process. But even if the House does not accede to the Senate bill, the momentum and pressure of the Conference process will be to finds a way to find something acceptable. Sharp lines will be blurred and legislators will be pressured to sacrifice their objections to the greater good.

Not to mention that the minority will be under pressure to throw in the towel and try to cut the best deal rather than to stand firm. If that dynamic develops, all it lost.

As the old story goes, once you’ve established that you can be bought, you can no longer convincingly maintain your purity – the discussion shifts strictly to price.

Similarly, once the House and Senate have established that they can be bought to support national health care, the whole debate moves to finding the right price for the act, not whether they are willing to turn a trick.

2) Even if by some miracle, we are able to prevent final passage, nonetheless, we still face the changed landscape that the precedent has been set – that our representatives in Congress consider health care to fall under their purview, and that will affect the course of future legislation and discussion.

That is, even if they don’t get the whole enchilada, future debates will still start from the starting point that health care is ultimately the business of the Federal government. Which means that Congress will increasingly involve itself in directing health care matters going forward, though perhaps in a more incremental fashion as various component aspects of this bill get reshaped and advanced as future legislation.

And this is the genie that you can’t stuff back into the bottle, regardless of what happens to this particular bill.