« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Elephant in the Room

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 24th, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

He was the elephant in the room, so to speak, at the CNN Debate in Mesa, AZ. And this issue is why Campaign 2012 on the Republican side is so depressing.

The he is George W. Bush. And the issue is that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney spent most of the debate campaigning against George W. Bush without using his name.

They went after each other on earmarks, spending, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the debt ceiling, and on and on. Santorum apologized for some votes. He defended some votes. Mitt Romney had the temerity to suggest he would have opposed some or all of that legislation even though, at the time, he was quite supportive of it all — including raising the debt ceiling. All of these were George W. Bush approved, adding also TARP and the auto bailout. They are also issues about which many conservatives and conservative organizations sold their souls to the Republican Party in the name of team work, damn the principles at stake.

Relatedly, it was entirely laughable for Rick Santorum to claim courage as the word that describes him best when he then went on to say he cast his votes against his principles because he was a team player. Just listen to the audio right here. At least he did not do what Romney did and try to claim himself an advocate of school choice, which Mitt Romney did not support as Governor of Massachusetts. Santorum, at least, is willing to recount his political sins honestly.

And that is what is so awful about this election season for so many conservatives. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich are campaigning against major accomplishments of the Bush Administration that they, at the time, supported, and now have the audacity to lie to us — yes they are lying — and have us believe they would never have supported such big government programs.

For his part, Gingrich at least offered up a balanced budget when he was Speaker and real entitlement reform. Mitt Romney is out championing the progress nature of the American tax code. For that alone he should be driven from the race defeated. Santorum hides behind Jim DeMint to defend his fiscal sins on earmarks and has driven a mass of people who once opposed earmarks to claim that maybe they are not so bad because St. Santorum likes them. Note to this particular cult of personality: No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and Obamacare would not have passed if earmarks had been banned.

Here’s the long and the short of it — Super Tuesday approaches. I live in Georgia. And I am pretty sure I am voting for either Herman Cain or Rick Perry because I am just not sold on the final four.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • davesinsanantonio

    Obummer is even slimier. And, he is trying to destroy this country by “fundamentally transforming” it to look like a socialist gulag with healthier food.
    We must pick a candidate soon and then focus on getting the leftist-in-chief into “former” status and undoing what damage we can while trying to right the ship of state before she sinks.

  • greenpoint

    Rick- your analysis of the debate and the Republican “situation” is absolutely accurate. I’m not as sure about your decision to vote for Herman Cain or Rick Perry in the Georgia primary since one of the other 3 will likely be the nominee and youe vote will be helping Romney.

    By the way, your analysis rules out Jeb Bush as the winner of the deadlocked convention strategy as the elephant wouldn’t just be in the room with Jeb as the nominee, it would have crapped all over the room.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …you should abide by his input.

    This is what he said two days ago during a conference call [h/t marciamorrell@verizon.net]:

    Dr. Bob – had i known you wanted to listen I surely would have let you know. It was posted on fb on several of the Perry pages which are very active. There is Perry Fans for Newt, Anti-establishment Movement, and Perry Brokered convention. Quite a few active knowledgable people there. Next time if there is one I will remember to let you know. OK? It was really good to hear him and he truly was compelling in his endorsement. He said he has learned from Newt, the fact that Newt had balanced budgets was of utmost importance to him and then of course Newt’s interest i the 10th amendment. Perry said he has been talking to governors (and he named a few) and will continue this project. He also made quite a plea for folks to contribute to Newt so we can get him over the line.

    EVERYONE said he “won” the content of the debate, for good reason. Perhaps he should benefit from this achievement?

  • major

    It is apparent the progressives of the Republican party have duped us again, and a repeat of McCain re-visited is imminent .
    Please remind Allan West, his strength in leadership is required by his the people of the United States.
    And we must remember, ANYONE is far from perfect.
    If not West, then I will support Newt, because the rest are just wimps who fall for left wing media manipulation, and will do the same again and again.
    That is NOT leadership.

  • JSobieski

    Rick to his credit is remarkably honest about the past, although quite opportunistic in suggesting that he would now be courageous as President.

    Newt spins a lot, but Romney’s assertions are so close to just plain lies that it calls to question anything he says.

  • bobguzzardi

    Erick Erickson nailed it.

    I was interviewed by Reuters yesterday about Rick Santorum as was a colleague. Pennsylvania’s Toomey voters know Rick Santorum as arrogant, obnoxious and obsessed with power which is why he sold out his principles to be to Team GWBush Big Government. Rick Santorum cannot win Pennsylvania.

    Rick Perry remains the best candidate representing Constitutional Limited Government.

    Flawed as his record may be in certain ways, it is well to remember why we have Constitutional Checks and Balances and a blueprint for three independent branches of government should be decide to rebuild our country with that blueprint.

  • major

    If we could get him back….

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because if you don’t like Santorum/Romney, then following Perry’s advice would indeed yield supporting The Newt.

    “Following the leader”-logic can indeed be applied judiciously, particularly when it’s crunch-time; it’s hardly “problematic” to support the guy who is the better anti-Romney (now portrayed by EE as having self-immolated for having endorsed the progressive taxation system).

    EE [and Rush] are loathe to “Endorse” [Rush fell all over himself running pro-Newt debate-clips]…but rejecting alternatives to the non-”Conservative” Romney [Paul...then Santorum] yields only one active candidate, eh?

    Just look @ how The Newt promptly followed-up attacks on BHO [noting we should flip from apologizing to Karzai to requesting that he do so]; such an agile pivot can be confidently issued by a guy who has total familiarity with both the issues and his perspective thereupon.

    It’s time to bite-the-bullet, EE, and it will be fun to read a [delayed] “horserace” piece that has been informed by the last [unless a Lincoln-Douglas approach is resurrected, as per my Diary] debate.

  • major

    Make that Perry!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …so it’s mandatory to choose the man who is best matched to confront the Debater-in-Chief [stripped of his TOTUS].

  • mikelindell2

    So, EE, if you really like them, perhaps follow their shared insight. I liked both Perry and Cain, but for me my first choice was always Newt. We need someone who knows how to fix the things that ail the country today, the same things that Newt has tackled and fixed before. In terms of electability, Newt’s record is best to contrast with Obama’s. It can be an election of 4.2% unemployment vs 9% unemployment, balanced budgets vs trillion plus deficits, entitlement reform vs runaway entitlement programs, whining about gridlock in Washington vs actually getting things done even with a Dem president. Not to mention he is the best to frame each issue in a way most favorable to conservatives and will articulate the case for conservatism best.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …was their empowerment to push Federalism [Perry] and Tax/Economy/Jobs-related concerns [Cain].

  • Archer

    Frankly Medicare Part D was passed by the Bush administration deliberately lying to the more conservative members of the House about how much the program would really cost. It was widely covered in the media that shortly after passing the bill that the White House called in House members to tell them that they’d lowballed the cost of the program by one third and how members of Congress came out of the meeting looking green as if ill.

    And if No Child Left Behind is an “accomplishment”, the dictionary’s definition needs to be re-written. Being in a family with conservatives who are school teachers, the word “debacle” comes more readily to mind. I can go on at any length someone would care to get into from the negative effects to children in the classroom, to the negative effects on the teachers who are honestly trying their best to educate kids, to how the testing methodology doesn’t measure what the politicians are trying to use it for, and to how the testing methodology doesn’t measure what the test themselves say that they should.

    I’ll stand up for Bush when he’s right but I see no reason to support Bush at the times when he was wrong. I don’t think it should be the role of the republican party or republican candidates to preserve the legacy of past republican presidents on the times that they screwed up.

    These candidates may be late to the party but a lot of us conservatives were in there blogging against Bush on NCLB, Medicare Part D, against Karl Rove when he was pushing Kerry’s agenda through congress in August/September
    2004 in order to keep Kerry from having a platform to run upon, against Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, against Bush’s raising protective tariffs on steel….

    And I’m curious about the contention that “Obamacare would not have passed if earmarks had been banned”. To the best of my knowledge from following the political process as it was happening, Obamacare wasn’t pushed through any of the loopholes of used by people who inappropriately earmark.

    Instead by collecting ten years of taxes for six years of benefits and by passing the bill before it was fully scored on budgetary issues, the Obamacare supporters used a budget reconciliation loophole where if a budget bill reduces the deficit, the 60 vote threshold in the Senate to cut off debate is waived.

    Since Obamacare wasn’t the yearly budget and the taxes from Obamacare didn’t actually cover the expenses, the loophole shouldn’t have been usable. but it was used anyway because Republicans don’t have much of a way to stop democrats if the democrats want to deliberately ignore rules and the law. Much like Obama ignored bankruptcy law for the auto companies and made recess appointments when the Senate wasn’t in recess.

    Where would a ban on earmarks have made a difference?

    Or for Romney debate fans, where would Santorum being against Alan Specter have made a difference in whether Obamacare passed or not? After the democrats sleazed past the 60 vote threshold, one more conservative vote wouldn’t have made the difference in the final outcome. Not that I wouldn’t have like bouncing Specter to the curb on general principles but Scott Brown brought us to a point where a fillibuster should have stopped the process. The democrats changed the ground rules by ten votes in their favor. Plus one to our side from dumping Specter wouldn’t have offset that plus ten to their side.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …when, on CNN, he denied he’d made a deal to support SCOTUS-nominees who are conservatives.

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    Romney didn’t run for re election and Santorum lost by 18 points because of Bush. With anger at Bush because of Iraq at an all time high coupled with Bush demanding his own party spend like drunken sailors Republican Candidates in the Northeast were decimated in 2006.

  • jiminga

    only helps Romney. A caller on Boortz’s show yesterday suggested a Gingrich/West ticket which sounded pretty good to me. With the weakness of the field, the VP selection could really make the difference this time.

  • auh204l

    Who opposed every single piece of legislation that is noted in this article? Is he even running for president anymore? I can’t believe a smart man like Erick would just forget to mention this, given that it would be such an obvious error.

    What is actually laughable is that this site cannot bring itself to mention Ron Paul, even though on every single issue it agrees with Paul. The “Defense” stuff, is not a very big difference, as without Paul’s fiscal policies there will be an even smaller military than he wants.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …when you claim “The ?Defense? stuff, is not a very big difference.”

  • duanej

    After Rick Perry dutifully fell on his own sword, no doubt in no small part due to your heartfelt pleas from this Republican blog, you are considering throwing your vote away on either Herman Cain or Rick Perry? Seriously? That has all the look and feel of cowardice and capitulation I’ve come to expect from the left, but certainly not here in the hallowed halls of Red State.

    SHAME ON YOU SIR. SHAME ON YOU INDEED!!!

    A vote for anyone but Newt now is a vote for Romney and now that you have begged Perry out and Perry has put all his chips in behind Newt, to even consider voting any other way than Newt at this point is two faced and shallow. You would deserve another 4 years of Obama for that if none of the rest of us would. Grow a spine and defend the champion your hero now does.

  • snappy101

    I also vote on Super Tuesday (in Tennessee) and I will also vote for Rick Perry to protest these choices. I had considered the possibility of a write in but it is my understanding that write in votes aren’t counted unless the race is close. Since I supported Perry anyway, and since he’s already on the ballot, he’s getting my vote. I only wish more people sent this message rather than settling.

  • jaybird248

    You’re dreaming if you think the Bush years were an aberration.

    DC Republicans get there by pleasing their corporate and billionaire masters and will always act to their benefit, creating huge giveaways in tax breaks and porcine programs, the budget be damned. . Ideological Republicans, however, don’t have and will never have the resources to get elected, but in rare instances. And in those, they quickly learn the game once ensconced in the DC culture, “taking one for the team,” when required. Might as well be a Democrat. They’ve actually done some good. When you hit age 65, you’ll realize it if you don’t before then.

  • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

    Not a post on RedState. Let’s return to reality, please.

  • tngal

    Good for you Erick. I would prefer you chose Cain, but will not begrudge you a Perry vote. You will sleep well after making your choice.

    Although I’d like for GIngrich to win GA and a few other southern states, so he would hang around. Better shot at brokered with him still in the game.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …for supporting Ron Paul, as we remove those people on sight.

    As you’ve just noticed.

  • bobmark

    to buy the votes of the vulnerable democrats.

  • bs61

    I would have voted Santorum in AZ, after the debate, I do just see him as a big govt guy!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because “it’s time!”

    *

    Perry threatened the RINO’s and opposed ethanol-supports, yielding problems in Iowa [corroborated by conversations held in Des Moines when Guzzardi and I spoke as surrogates on his behalf].

    Perry’s low-polling was due to his having been ignored/mocked without being given recognition for post-”Oops” perfection.

    EE nudged Perry to split [remember all his posts regarding what he can't post?].

    Perry’s support helped The Newt win S.C.

    Perry has been a loyal supporter of The Newt.

    *

    EE doesn’t want to “endorse” for philosophical [and practical] reasons; again, yesterday, Rush repeated his fear that any endorsement could compromise subsequent support for another Republican in the fall.

    I feel this is an insufficient justification, at this late-date; if for no other reason, EE can share the name of the individual for whom he will vote on Super Tuesday in Georgia.

    He can always claim later, if The Newt doesn’t prevail, that he supports all Republicans against BHO, but was just emphasizing the one he thought met the Buckley Rule.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …for reasons aforementioned.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …by VOTING for [rather than merely praising] The Newt?

  • tngal

    Unfortunately the power players have pulled Newt so far down in the polls its ridiculous. If it were close yeah, I’d vote Newt. But when everyone is in the twenty somethings, its difficult to get close again when you are in single digits. Newt should fare better in GA.

    Our early voting is underway and I haven’t jumped in like I normally do. Waiting for the last minute polls to roll out. Cain had incredible support here and his endorsement of Newt might shake a few votes vote for the speaker. Hopefully, we’ll get good polls.

    Hey, if we can’t run on principles in the primary, when will we be given the chance? In my heart I know I will never get the electric fence, but a girl can dream can’t she?

  • mikelindell2

    He’s never been a small government guy. He’s a social issues conservative but never a fiscal one.

    If you need any more evidence:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWQC62LSsWM

  • znjs

    No one owns EE’s or anyone else’s vote, by giving it to someone he can get behind he is pushing that candidate, even if it’s just a protest vote. It does not get added to any other candidate’s total, and the candidate you think deserves his vote has to earn it rather then be entitled to it.

  • Kyle-MI

    All of their voting and governing history stinks. Everyone is arguing over minor details of this history. Either they are pointing to a few good things the candidate did ignoring the rest of the record, or in most cases they are arguing over the lousy track record of their competitors again ignoring their own short comings. And their advocates are all hanging on the same details. There is nothing that distinguishes any of the three over the others.

    Which is one of the reasons I tune out a lot of the advocacy. You can point to something about my candidate and I can point to something about yours.

    They are all mediocre at a time when we can’t afford mediocre.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    for the record

    and hey Doc, long time no converse

    ps
    I just put these comments here to refute EE because I like to put comments beneath other comments and not stand alone for future reference purposes…inside baseball

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    its silly
    I also supported Perry. He failed.

  • bs61

    I used to be a Dem!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    before earmarks

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt

  • Bob_Frazier

    What this proves more than anything is the disaster that was George W. Bush. We made too many excuses for him until finally revolting over the Harriet Miers pick and his amnesty plan.. The good news is I don’t believe the average republican/conservative would let the next republican president and repubican congress get away with new entitlement programs or increased spending..

    I think Rich Santorum and Newt get it. Times have changed.

    As disappointed as I was with George W. Bush, and concerns with all of our candidates, none compare to the disaster to this country that is Barack Hussein Ubama and his legislature. Taking the house in 2010 stopped some of the damage. We have to take the Senate and presidency in 2012 to not just stop, but to reverse the damage.

    Ubamacare has to be voided. More than anything else, this affects the future of this country. A country of freedom versus a country of serfdom and dependence on the government. The only republican candidate could not support is any who will not completely VOID Ubamacare.

  • littlehouse18

    Santorum just didn’t realize it at the time. Neither did I. I still accept Santorum’s rationale. At this point I trust him more than Benedict Specter.

  • joeydavis

    You guys are really entertaining. have any of you actually worked in the real world ever?

    Comparing what Santorum would do as leader based on what he did do as a follower is just silly.

    He’s absolutely right and he told the gospel truth. All you political virgins need to understand that.

    1. Politics is a team sport. No man accomplishes anything on his own.

    2. Your President is the boss. In business, you do what your boss says do. He was elected President on HIS agenda.

    3. Loyalty is a valued trait in ANY business. Rick Santorum supported Arlen Specter because Arlen Specter had been very very good to Rick Santorum for a very long period of time, his entire political career in fact. That doesn’t need justifying.

    I play on two softball teams. I play (call me Senator) on the men’s team. I coach (call me President) the coed team. On the men’s team I bat leadoff. On the coed team I bat 7th. We have different coaching philosophies. The same is true is politicians.

    Bush had his priorities and Santorum has his. As a Senator and a member of the leadership it was Santorum’s job to move Bush’s agenda. As President, he gets to set the agenda. You all need to understand the difference.

  • Bill S

    So you might as well go elsewhere to post your silliness. I’m sure you won’t mind advertising for the RNC, so I’ll just update your signature for you…

  • salemst

    I’m an across the board pro spending cutting. pro private sector jobs creating, pro strong defense, pro traditional Judeo-Christian values, anti Illegal/anti Amnesty conservative Romney supporter.

    Look, every candidate is flawed. I can give 10 good reasons to support or not support every candidate that was once in the race this year–by the way, Perry was not flawless. IMO Romney is by far the most conservative electable candidate we have and his debate performances demonstrate he’s the guy with the campaign organization, money, ruthlessness, intelligence, discipline, and dexterity on his feet to hammer Obama in the debates.

    What drives my vote is we need private sector jobs creation and cutting government spending cause if we don’t do both, we’re bankrupt. Romney is the best guy at understanding the dynamics effecting needed solutions. We need an economic environment created, policy wise, giving financial incentive for companies to create private sector jobs in the US, not overseas.

    Mitt understands the dynamics–he’s a conservative based on hat I saw iving in Massachusetts most of my life and observing Romney’s governance. What Romney says on the campaign is what we get, or more conservatively.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …for a pork-laden legislative record that has ever appeared on RS [in my memory].

    Attempt to justify the litany of deviations that Guzzardi compiled [The Liberty Blog] and the excepts therefrom @ my Diary.

    And, when you can’t, consider applying some self-discipline before hitting the “POST COMMENT” button!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …square with your philosophy?

  • mikelindell2

    campaigned on being pro-choice, campaigned on being pro-gun control, campaigned on being a “moderate whose views are progressive.” Is that what you got? And if so, how is that a conservative?
    Also, you say he understands how to create jobs but as governor Massachusetts was essentially dead last in job creation.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …to encourage him to support the guy he interviewed yesterday on his radio-show.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Remember all those special state-level deals?

    [Great to interact with you again!]

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html

    [ ?Cornhusker Kickback...Louisiana Purchase" ]

  • noogan

    Why do you insiders ignore Santorum’s history of corruption? Having done just a small amount of research, it’s clear to me that Rick Santorum has a big problem with the truth, and with ethics. He borders on criminality if you ask me–but then I cannot be complacent about Santorum’s blatant corruption: It’s not just what “they” say; it’s what Santorum has said and done.

    In 2006, Santorum was named the ?Most Corrupt Politician? by a political watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported that Santorum took the most cash from corporate lobbyists of any other politician in Washington, adding that Santorum ?has a black belt in hypocrisy?
    (10/22/2006).

    In 2006, Santorum faced difficulties in his quest for a third term. Corruption allegations dogged him everywhere he went. He trailed his Democrat opponent by double digits for most of the campaign. To try to siphon votes away from Santorum?s opponent, many of his supporters helped finance a Green Party candidate. There were suspicions that Santorum?s campaign may have violated some federal election laws. Ultimately, the Green Party candidate was denied access to the ballot and Santorum lost his seat in the Senate. The Democrat won with 59% of the vote to Santorum?s 41%. It was the biggest margin of loss for an incumbent Republican senator in US history.

    Santorum supported the invasion of Iraq. In 2006, he announced that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq ? a claim later proven false.

    Santorum?s interest in weather services wasn?t limited to penalizing Americans who didn?t obey the federal weatherman. Just two days before he introduced a bill that benefited private weather services, he was paid thousands of dollars from? a private weather service.

    Among other legislative favors, Santorum was given six thousand dollars from Miller Brewing just half a year after Santorum introduced legislation to cut taxes on large brewing companies. He received three thousand dollars from US Tobacco Corp. the day after he voted against a tobacco regulation bill. The list of favors to his campaign contributors goes on and on. Taking money from corporations and then voting for legislation that favors them is called corruption.

    Rick Santorum: The ultimate Insider, Senate Liaison to The K-Street Project, and Corrupt Lobbyist

    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/santorum-lobbyist-meetings-part-of-insider-history-he-rejects

    The K-Street Project: Grover Norquist, Tom Delay, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project

    The Gang of Four: Starring Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q7l70tmxWg

  • clowngirl

    To stay in the race, Newt needs to win Georgia.

    So whether or not you are “sold” on Newt — voting for him would be consistent with voting for the outcome you’ve stated you want.

    And it makes no sense to vote for somebody you publicly encouraged to drop out of the race and endorse Gingrich.

    Both Rick Perry and Herman Cain fullthroatedly endorsed and now are out campaigning for Newt Gingrich. I’m sure they’d both prefer you voted for him in a crucial state than waste your vote on them.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    -nt.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …this is insufficient justification when compared with the known-strengths exuded by Toomey [then and now]…particularly in such a close race.

  • annplato

    that a “protest vote” against your own party, given to anyone other than the nominee of your party, is a vote down the toilet , increasing the margin points for the opposition. Ergo, a vote for someon who is NOT in the race is a vote for the opposition!

  • Archer

    to deliberately persecute someone who is expressing an honest opinion.

    I don’t agree with his sentiments totally but most republicans who are vaguely conservative (or just more conservative than the democrat in the race) rather than ideological conservatives, leave the conservative reservation on a frequent basis. Drives me up the wall and produces bad results for the country. Its one of the reasons we have places like redstate for conservatives to gather rather than relying solely on the Republican Party to do the right thing.

    If you, Bill S, are wanting to support conservatism, perhaps it would be more appropriate to change jaybird’s signature to donate to GOPAC rather than the GOP?

  • znjs

    If Newt was acceptable to EE, he’d vote for him. Again, it comes down to is Newt entitled to EE’s vote, or does he have to earn it? If Newt doesn’t earn it, then he doesn’t deserve it. EE appears to be saying that he’s opposed to Newt winning. His vote for Cain or Perry is no more a vote for Romney then it is a vote for Newt – both sides could say “Since you don’t support that candidate, not voting for mine is essentially voting for the other candidate.”

  • Archer

    I didn’t really consider the Cornhusker Kickback and the like to be earmarks since it was deliberately written into the legislation as it was being debated rather added as an afterthought. But now I see exactly where he was coming from.

    Thanks.

  • levtannen

    Mr.Erickson. Your analysis is excellent, but voting for Mr.Perry means voting for Mr.Romney. Is that what you want?
    By the way nobody have noticed what answer Mr.Romney gave to the question about Syria? This answer alone should disqualify him as a candidate.
    Just suggestions to ask Turkey to help us against Assad shows how dangerously low is his understanding of Middle East. Hope Daniel Greenfield or Barry Rubin will take him on that answer.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …the common parlance ["so-and-so WON"] is impacted by both the numerator and the denominator.

  • rogsterling63

    these politicians will say and do anything to get your vote at any particular time? Why I never!

    Careful with a Rick Perry vote. Given he was a Democrat in Texas throughout the 1980′s, it would appear he too falls into this category

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …to impose a no-fly [and no military-action] zone.

    *

    http://stopturkey.blogspot.com/2011/09/barry-rubin-on-turkey-israel-break.html

    “Stop Turkey
    This blog is a campaign against Turkish accession to the European Union. Through original articles, and links to relevant sources of information, it aims to demonstrate why Turkish EU membership would be a disaster for Europe and for Western civilisation.”

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Do we really have to revisit the history of his support for the conservative-D, Gore?

  • tankertodd

    Perhaps you need to give Ron Paul another look – on these matters he’s solid.

  • clowngirl

    So it wouldn’t just be “following the leader” for Erick to vote for Newt himself. It would be consistent with what he passionately wrote here on RedState just over a month ago.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …particularly if he is collaborating with Mitt.

  • mikinzla

    Give it up??!!!!!!!!!! HE CANNOT WILL NOT win// GRow the F**K up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • znjs

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare it to the posture of people who actually have a chance of being the next President rather then someone who couldn’t make it even 3 states into the process?

  • Finrod

    Criticism of Santorum from a hard-left outfit like CREW is only to be expected– I’ll bet they have just as nasty things to say about all our candidates, and everything they say needs to be carefully scrutinized since they’re known to simply make up stuff when they can’t find what they want. And support of the war in Iraq? That’s not a way to drum up anti-Santorum support here either. (BTW, the WMDs in Iraq were shipped out to Syria just before the invasion, where they were later bombed by Israel.)

    You make some good points, such as Santorum trying to hamstring the National Weather Service in favor of a private Pennsylvania company (IMHO the federal government has only ever done three things well: the military, the interstate highway system, and the National Weather Service), you just need to prune out the other stuff.

  • nuthinfancy

    According to Karl Rove’s delegate arithmetic in Feb 23 WSJ editorial, a brokered convention is very unlikely due to the jumbled-up nature of the rules governing delegate allegiances, etc., all of which means, in Rove’s estimation, that a candidate must be “In It” in order to “Win It”.

    Sorta like sports — a) you gotta play the games, and b) the actual plays are going to be made by the players actually on the field, and not by players who are not on the field.

    So, in spite of all of the commentary on this website, we will most likely be required to support a seriously-flawed GOP candidate from the current field of candidates against a fatally-flawed DEM candidate, and we will most likely not have the luxury of a brokered convention, wherein less-odious candidates might be restored to the ticket.

    It would seem that time, attention, and civic effort are better applied to issues that are actually in play today, such as a) Israel-Iran, and b) DEM-supported vote fraud in the USA.

  • rogsterling63

    If the issue is being consistent on policy (or not), then Rick Perry is as ridiculously inconsistent as Gingrich, Romney and Santorum

  • Finrod

    .

  • jeffreywturner

    Toomey barely won the general election (51%-49%) in 2010, which was a banner year for the GOP. Do you really think he would have won in 2004?

  • Archer

    but have never agreed with it.

    I’ve thought it was the voter’s job to elect someone who has definite political principles then for that lawmaker to stand for those principles. Then the voters decide whether the lawmaker is living up to his responsibilities.

    If a president wants your vote, it should happen because he’s doing something worthwhile, not because he happens to hold an office. Your comments remind me strongly of a controversy in my state where the party was pressuring lawmakers to pledge to vote for the current leadership each time whether that person was a good and effective leader or not.

    We could do things like that. And the first time we elect a closet communist or whatever, we can turn the keys over to him and destroy the country in the name of party loyalty. I’ll avoid pointing out what happened to the over-used funny looking German man with the mustache a few decades back. Or maybe I won’t avoid it. Either way.

    If senators were supposed to be mindless automatons following what the president or party leader wants, there’d be no need for senators in the first place. Its clear the framers of the constitution, at least, had something vastly different in mind when they created the office.

  • JSobieski

    did during his term as a “team player”

    Supporting someone because they are endorsed by someone else is not a practice that I would endorse.

  • steeltube

    EE made quite a point of urging Perry to drop out and to (paraphrasing here) “do the right thing” and endorse Gingrich. And it was just a little over a month ago.

    Perhaps EE would share with us what Gingrich did in the last 30 days that changed his feelings?

  • JSobieski

    is a thin rationale for supporting someone, and it almost aways comes back to bite you.

    People should support candidates based on their assessments of the candidates, not the assessments of others.

  • steeltube

    Those same powers are about to make West a one-term and done Congressman. I refer you to the redistricting in Fla that virtually guarantees his fate.

  • jon11

    He’s the only serious person in the race so it was an easy choice.

    if i couldn’t have voted for him id have taken gingrich, then paul, then santorum, who i think is a whiner and would be a horrific general election candidate.

    All the candidates are being held to absurd standards. They all took republican votes but now all of a sudden there is a purging going on…a real puritain ‘trial by ordeal’ that none of them can survive because they are all traitors to the (new) cause.

    Santorum blew it in the debate. Mitts going to win michigan and arizona which will hopefully help him on super tuesday.

    Conservatives have recently woken up from a 40 year nap and thats good. but nowthey want to reverse the steady, 40 year gains of liberalism in america in 1 or 2 election cycles, which isn’t going to happen.

    we didn’t lose this country overnight and we’re not going to get it back overnight either.

    republicans need to win a few elections and prove to the american people that they can govern more effectively than the dems.Right now very few people are convinced of that.

    the firey rhetoric is great, but action is whats needed.

  • kcdude

    Iraq – Not something folks normally just have lying around. I am not a Santorum supporter unless he gets the nod. fwiw.

  • cbartlett

    Check out this article (with video) about Mitt supporting elimination of the charitable contribution and mortgage deduction for “the 1%”. Nobody was asking for this – why does he keep sticking his foot in his mouth? Clueless?

    http://markamerica.com/2012/02/23/occupy-wall-streets-newest-member-mitt-romney-video/

  • krish

    In spite of all their baggage, Newt & Rick are still considered as conservatives! We should get one of them in the ballot in the general election. With Romney as the choice, there will be lot more people who will be in the same boat as EE – without enthusiasm & mad at the establishment – low turn out among conservatives & tea partyers! Dole, McCain….add to the list! Battleground states are leaning towards Obama!

    Go Rick or Go Newt!

  • annie54

    we have but one recourse. Vote for Santorum. Isn’t that our main objective?

    I questioned rsklzroff (diary) when he suggested a few weeks ago that Gingrich and Santorum create a union. Now I’m beginning to think that is the best plan. Rsklzrpff was just ahead of us. Apparently Romney and Paul are merging into a tag team. Gingrich and Santorum would, by far, have amore productive union than Paul and Romney.

  • bobguzzardi

    Yes, the grassroots was juiced. Without Specter Santorum blurring the message and distorting the Toomey message, there is a very good likelihood Toomey would have won.

    Joe Sestak was a much tougher candidate because he was an Admiral and had served our country.

  • krish

    Tanker, I cannot believe that you are still backing Ron Paul – after he basically trashed all of you (his supporters) by aligning himself with the most liberal (MA moderate = liberal everywhere in the country) primary candidate!

  • Whacker77

    Karl Rove is for Romney and has been for Romney since 2005. He’ll say and do anything that helps Romney.

  • bobguzzardi

    excellent recapitulation of Rick Santorum’s and Newt Gingrich’s status as ultimate insiders enabling the growth of government. It started long before GWBush by Santorum-Gingrich with Tom DeLay and their network.

    Grover Norquist was closely allied with Jack Abramoff.

  • joeydavis

    Honesty and Loyalty are among the highest virtues. They don’t need defending.

    Quite honestly I didn’t like George W. Bush in 2000. I really wanted a conservative nominee then. I was sick and tired of the left wing establishment part of the Republican party trying to tell me what a conservative was. But nobody (more conservative) challenged him and I was stuck.

    He had a party platform built around No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug coverage for Seniors (by the way I’m certainly not opposed to that). He won the election on those specific issues. It would have been political treason and the death knell for the Republican party to have opposed those pieces of legislation.

    Hindsight is 20/20. Reality shows us that 91 senators of 100 supported NCLB and Part D passed by a convincing margin as well.

    Santorum had a seat at the table. He cast a vote, we know where he stood then. Ron Paul had a seat at the table. He cast a vote and we know where he stood then. Gov. Romney and Rep Gingrich did not. They can say whatever the heck the want to say after the fact, but the reality as we ALL know is that with a 95+% probability BOTH would have done exactly what Santorum did.

  • bobguzzardi

    dr. bob and I disagree intensely on this.’

    watch this video

    The Gang of Four: Starring Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q7l70tmxWg

    Research Newt Gingrich and Earmarks

    Research Rick Santorum and Earmarks

    Gingrich-Santorum Big Government Republicans predated GWBush and set the stage for the downfall of the Republican by abandoning fiscal common sense and Constitutional Limited Government principles.

    I have met Rick Santorum and he is consumed with need for power.

  • gwbramhall

    I too was not impressed by Santorum’s comment about going along
    with the party rather than his convistions. He did much better in
    other parts of the debate, but when you look like the baby in the
    room you have to show a little starch to counter these perceptions.

    One thing I learned from the debate that was most interesting is
    what an Earmark really is. It is telling the executive that at least a
    certain part of the appropriated money must be spent in a certain way
    rather than letting him decide on his own. It does not add money to the
    bill but allocates the money in some way. One can see how this might
    lead to problems, but it is just as likely, a President like Obama, might
    spend this money much differently than a Republican congress would
    want if he was not given specific direction. I’m not sure this takes all
    the bad out of the term, Earmark, but it does give one something to
    consider on the plus side.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    who are voting “Not Romney” to counter your vote. So far, most of them are committed to voting Newt or Santorum.

  • isaiah61

    Agreed- the convention will see the Bush presence in two forms. The large pile of dung known as Romney, and a widespread bowel spray that seeps into every state delegation under the name of “jeb” .

    Also, Eric’s choice to hide behind the names of Cain or Perry is a gutless protest vote. Our ignorance of the real nature of a takeover of D.C. by the City of London and global bankers has paralyzed the aging remnants of the Reagan revolution.

  • Whacker77

    Unfortunately, it still seems likely Romney will be our nominee. Polls conducted since the debate show he’s taken the lead. If he does win Michigan, regardless of margin, the press will portray it as a major boost for his campaign. Depending on the margin, it could help him to a big win in Ohio on Super Tuesday and that could be it for the race.

    While it’s probable Romney is going to be the nominee, I’m less inclined to support him today than I was just a month ago. More over, I’m less inclined to support anyone in this embarrassing field. What we saw in the debate the other night was an embarrassment to the party and our chances in the Fall.

    By the time the primary rolls around to my state, Kentucky, this race will likely be over. While that may be so, I’ve decided not to vote because I’m disgusted with the options. In the 2008 primary, I voted for Paul as a way to protest the ineptness of McCain’s campaign. This time I want no part of any of it.

    I firmly believe we have no chance to win in the Fall with any of these candidates. In fact, I believe all of them will drag down the party in House and Senate races. The only way we can prevent this is with a contested convention that produces a white knight. There for, we must vote tactically in these primaries.

    We must ensure Romney can’t gain the momentum and in Michigan that means we must vote for Santorum. In other states, Newt might be the better option, but right now we’ve got to get Santorum to a win or a near tie in Michigan.

  • mikeymike143

    quite possibly the worst republican president of the modern era. of course he is still WAY better than carter or obama.

  • joeydavis

    But it’s not.

    I’m not suggesting senators be “mindless automations”. I’m saying Presidents are elected on National platforms. I’m saying the people who elected this President on this platform did so with the expectation that his party would follow through and deliver exactly that. It is THE principled argument.

    The time to oppose the platform was BEFORE he was the nominee.

    This is my Pro Choice argument against abortion. Every woman gets to be pro choice. She chooses whether or not to have sex with the man. Once she makes that choice she deals with the consequence.

    We nominated George Bush and NCLB was a central theme of his campaign. We accepted that. We should also accept the consequences and expect our elected leaders in the senate and the house to follow through on that promise.

    If NCLB was something Bush pulled up out of the wild blue after the election, then by all means a member of the leadership would have every right, maybe even an olbligation, to say “wait a minute Mr. President…” But he did not. As such, he should expect the support of his partisans.

  • SteveM

    We seem to have forgotten in our conservative beauty pageant that we’re electing somebody to be President. There’s only 1 guy left in the race that’s got the right qualifications – that’s Romney. All the others should have been weeded out before.

    And you nailed it: Rhetoric is awesome. Everybody needs red meat for the base. But we need much more than that.

  • paco12348

    Newt was excoriated by the GOPS after he surged ahead early on. The GOP Overseers pushed Romney early on and will absolutely decimate anyone getting in his way. The election has already been bought and paid for by Romney and the GOP. Want to see a low turn out in this critical time America faces? I fear we will because the GOP has treated the base as mindless nitwits to dumb to vote on their own, JUST LIKE THE DEMS TREAT THEIR BASE.
    I want Newt for the very reason the GOP OVERSEERS do not. Newt will shake the tree BOTH Parties live in and rule from. Newt sees the larger picture and it is MORE than just the economy and jobs. It is the Federal Judges giving the Left everything they want. It is the indoctrination of the children in the Union/Socialist led Dept. O ED. It is the assault on the Constitution and Religion. It is the corruption of our Government from the SC to the Executive and Legislative Branch. They no longer follow the Constitution, that’s why Obama has the freedom to destroy America.
    People, Romney may be good for the economy and job and a good man but he will NOT shake the tree and let the nuts fall out. It will be the same ol’ thing while he’s there and after he leaves. This is the only chance we have to actually have someone that both Parties FEAR because he will change the status quo.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and it again illustrates why many find Mitt’s oral-incrementalism so nauseating…when answers abound.

  • JSobieski

    For example, W was quite clear on 5 criteria that CFR would need to satisfy. The bill he signed was in violation of his promise. It was not a fulfillment of his promise.

    The violation was a bit less direct on NCLB, but NCLB was supposed to have expanded school choice in addition to what ultimately passed.

    I do not expect Senators to vote for something because of the overarching label. That is how Obamacare was passed.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …when so many urgent problems exist…that are far more revelatory about an individual’s philosophy/performance.

  • acat

    of those things we’ve done well … started out of the Dept. of Defense.

    The Eisenhower Interstate System started to move men and materiel quickly around our country.

    The National Weather Service started as an armed services resource as well.

    Not sure I’ve posted it here, but .. my “proposal to end the department of transportation” involves moving the responsibilities for non-redundant components of interstate pipelines, railroads, interstate highways, and FAA responsibilities back to the Armed Services…. since they mostly either originated there in the first place, or have sufficient overlap…

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    I don’t see a lot of evidence of “understanding the dynamics” of anything, much less a willingness to take bold action.

    Romney seems to be running a very SQ election for someone who is not an incumbant.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    {;-)}

  • Common_Cents

    You can help in GA tremendously to make that happen and you aren’t tied down in your endorsement. Give a one state endorsement like Palin did.

  • isaiah61

    My hat’s off to Eric for turning away from the Gingrich brand of Koolaid. Living in Georgia gives him an additional sense of the deceipt and boundless imagination of a dangerous politician in a corrupted system. Whatever falls into the pot, Newt’s magic tongue has entranced a small segment of the naive Americans who never learn.
    By the way, Buddy Roemer is out of the GOP and running Independent w/ the “Reform Party” . Any thoughts on that as a protest vote, Eric?

  • nuthinfancy

    Your comment seems to be that the simple fact that Rove is for Romney in an all-out political fashion somehow disqualifies the accuracy of Rove’s delineation of the delegate procurement process.

    It seems unlikely (to me) that Rove would use the WSJ as a forum within which to present a deliberately inaccurate or misleading portrayal of the delegate procurement process governing the GOP convention delegates, if for no other reason but that any such inaccuracies or misleading portrayals could be easily and very publicly refuted, to Rove’s substantial embarassment, all of which suggests that, regardless whether Rove is for Romney, Rove’s description of the delegate procurement process seems unlikely to be defective in any material fashion. Yes/No?

  • JSobieski

    until he wasn’t.

    Your test for consistency is riculous.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …we must deal with the hand that has been dealt and partially-played.

    Romney = Dole [etc.]

    {even were he to pick an exciting veep-candidate, we can recall the limits of such a gambit by citing Sarah’s limited impact}

    “Newtorum” would combine best of both remaining [relatively conservative] candidates.

  • levtannen

    Guys,
    You live on the moon. According to your criteria live Ronald Reagan would never get nomination.

    You have a candidate, who really did something to decrease the size of government(Newt), a candidate who did nothing to decrease the size of government, but generally a good guy (Santorum) and a candidate who actually increased the size of government and in addition poisoned the primary with flood of negative adds (Romney). And you do not know whom to prefer! OK. Dream about Reagan and live with Obama.

  • annie54

    There isn’t going to be a White Knight. Anyone who has been in politics long enough to merit a run for the presidency, has some baggage. That’s all there is to it.

    We’ve got to back one of our 4 candidates now or we’re going to end up with another Bush or Christie – unvetted.

  • macbookben

    …they are just the godheads for the eventual Republican nominee. Each candidate is infinitely more qualified than BHO. We are quibbling over personal biases here, pretty much along the lines of promoting the candidate whom we feel has the least offensive-smelling excrement. Any candidate that impugns another on such a basis is, well, full of it. I have grown tired of all the campaign BS I am being exposed to, from candidate radio spots and MSNBC’s political commentary to some of the posts here at RS.

    Look, we will all have to hold our noses on 11/6/2012, just as we did in ’08, because we will feel like we didn’t get the right candidate (kind of goes w/o saying). Hopefully the smell won’t be so bad as we will have from the end of August through the first of November to get used to it. But unlike ’08, BHO is a known quantity, a president who has an indefensible record who must fabricate a non-issue (contraception) in order to appear to look competitive. And he will have the same sycophant media plowing the road to his re-election. It is my hope that we do not feel like we’re holding our noses again, rather, we will be able to let bygones be bygones and proceed to the general as a unified Republican majority. If BHO wins, it will be due to those forces that divide us, and that would be a damned shame.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …particularly after having watched the lame anti-Santorum ads placed by Mitt’s crew that are airing on FNC [saturation].

  • chuckludd

    I am not one to usually say a protest vote is a wasted vote — I think protest votes can be useful. I live in a heavily Democratic state and I regularly vote for the Libertarian when the GOP puts up liberals who have no chance of winning.

    BUT, on Super Tuesday, a vote for Cain or Perry is a wasted vote. The goal now is to have an open convention and I think conservatives should vote strategically to get that rather than voting for an individual.

    So that means….
    in Michigan — a vote for Santorum
    in Georgia and Tennessee — a vote for Gingrich
    in Virginia — a vote for Paul

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and this is ordinarily the posture adopted by Guzzardi, as well.

    [work in progress]

    “the Bob” likes to shake-up a stodgy Establishment; The Newt consistently fits the bill.

    It’s amazing how he’s discounted by the pundits, who now claim he is so good because he doesn’t care…because he “knows” he can’t be nominated.

  • tyman

    nt

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …particularly because Mitt should not be rewarded for having run such a damaging-to-the-GOP campaign.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Which is why choosing The Newt will maximize the chance that the “issue” in the campaign will be BHO.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …although I’d really have to push to support Paul.

  • chuckludd

    He may not be the perfect candidate, but he is the guy to stop Romney from getting a majority of delegates. Especially for conservatives who live in the South, it is important to vote strategically for Newt in March.

    I, too, strongly encourage Erick to endorse Newt ASAP. He can qualify it as a strategic vote and that is fine — conservatives must understand that it is essential to get an open convention and let the delegates get to a second vote with freedom to vote for a new man or woman.

  • lapert

    What did Newt do to decrease the size of government?

  • chuckludd

    I understand people’s reluctance to vote for Paul, but in Virginia this seems like a no-brainer to me. It is a bit like Santorum in Missouri. In Virginia is Romney versus the non-Romney — if Paul could win Virginia, I think it guarantees an open convention. I also hope that Santorum and Newt can find a way right before Virginia to message their supporters to vote for the non-Romney.

  • annie54

    When I think of the Boards I have been on and voted on certain issues and people 10 – 20 years ago, I cringe with the revelation that I wouldn’t vote that way today.

    Santorum and Gingrich are our best bets and unless we stop our dreaming about someone who has proven himself, we’re going to lose. It’s easy to replay the game the day after.

    (this is my 3rd day with this awful virus/flu that is going around and I’m making typos like crazy – my apologies.)

  • sharrondeer

    n/t

  • mikeymike143

    as a republican i say ”no thank you” to my party endorsing the type of cancer that loon paul spreads.

  • ihateliberals

    It seems ridiculous that most all of the debates are driven by Liberals. Where is the fairness in that. What happened to the Daughters of the Revolution sponsoring the debates and selecting impartial moderators. When the Democrats have their debates the Republicans don’t get to run them. why is that? who has let this practice advance to the point there are no debates anymore. A debate should be the candidate answering the question not attacking someone else in that answer. The biggest problem is that the American people are falling for this format and are being lead down the primrose path to destruction.

    In an election year that the Republicans should have already won and it should just be a case of who is going to run we have fallen into a trap that will most likely lead to the re-election of the worst President this country has ever endured. I pray that we can endure 4 more years of this guy and still be able to recover when he is gone if he ever will be.

  • sharrondeer

    And if it weren’t Obama, you’d be applauding the president letting some states fulfill it according to the needs of the state’s citizens.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but this would be viewed as an isolated phenomenon.

  • sharrondeer

    He wasn’t liberal: he was a one-of-a-kind who nearly destroyed our economy. Nearly all of his policies were financial disastesr. Not to mention infringing on personal liberties, etc.

    A key question that doesn’t get asked is which of Bush’s policies they would continue. Obama continued many of them, which is major reason the debt has been rising. Of course, it’s never asked because no one wants to mention his name.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because such deals demean the process and, ultimately, the outcome.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    It wasn’t Obama, it was Harry Reid who authored The Louisianna Purchase and The Cornhusker Kickback.” And also, the Stupak airports weren’t in the stimulus package either. Just thought I’d pass that along…

  • sharrondeer

    People shouldn’t vote by party. They should vote by a person’s record and character.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …when the endorser is the candidate whom the individual had supported.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …sentiments overlap sufficiently to motivate accordingly.

  • sharrondeer

    Romney lies all the time. Except when he slips. He just let the cat out of the bag when he said that cutting spending would hurt the economy.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because, actually, his reticence [he has written] is predicated on his general reluctance to endorse.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …to avoid this fate.

  • tnguy

    …and not “protest vote(ing)” is what put Obama in office and has ensured that we haven’t had a conservative president in a quarter century, and almost certainly will not now.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    [or perry?]

  • JSobieski

    Of secondary importance is the rationale for someone’s support of a candidate, because at least that is something that can be subject ot reason.

    The fact of an endorsement should be given little weight. People endorse for all sorts of reasons—many of them not indicative of the candidate.

    Endorsements are a lazy-man’s excuse for persuasive argument. I have never been a fan of argument by proxy, or argument by authority.

    A great example of where that can lead is Ann Coulter. She endorses Romney. Who cares?

    The irrelevance of the endorsement is confirmed by the hollow rationale.

    Newt has never been particularly vocla supporter the 10th Amendment (ironically, that is something that Dole talked about alot, although his actions would never suggest it). Perry’s support of Newt on the basis and Newt’s recent embrace of both is something that should be given only incremental weight in my view.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    t

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    but we know that EE favors Newt and that Rush favors Santorum. GC is with Rush, but Newt would be my 2nd choice. See my archived columns for why…smile…but seriously

  • JSobieski

    So it all becomes a bit misleading.

    For example, Ann Coulter cites O’Donnell’s endorsement of Romney as evidence that Romney is neither establishment nor moderate since O’Donnell had tea party support.

    The game of someone is X because that is supported by someone else who is X is exactly why our primaries in 2012 are so confusing.

    Each of the candidates is supported by some quality conservatives. In terms of raw numbers, Romney probably has the most even though Romney probably has a lower percentage of the “conservative” vote.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    no earmark…just an apple

  • johnnyqb

    What are you thinking Eric? The two you say you may vote for, (Cain or Perry) have wholeheartedly endorsed Gingrich, and also, these two understand something about political strategy as well……. No, it is not too late to rally for Gingrich.

    Do you not see that as a Nation, Obama has our backs to the wall and this is a do or die election? Where is you prespective and context? You clearly do not see the big, scary picture.

    Drinking the CNN kool-aid never tasted so good, right Eric?…..America needs your vote/endorsement to help America. Quit playing around like it’s just another election….

    Gingrich is the best candidate to turn the Nation around. This should be obvious to you!…..

    Wake up! We have a Nation to save and anybody is better than Obama, but NOT just anybody can turn the ship around!………NEWT 2012

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …we all must listen.

    [In this instance, Guzzardi has been aggressively pro-Toomey for almost a decade.]

  • macbookben

    …how did you know?

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    One of the two is going to have to give up their pursuit of elected office and support the other.

    However, we need to hear the voice of the voters in the upcoming primaries as to which needs to yield.

    Conventional wisdom favors Newt as non-Romney choice in terms of record and public persona; Rick’s window is closing to make a clean enough break with his past and to come across as an attractive personality.

    But I favor either over the Romney+Paul tag team. Indeed that pairing degrades both as being political opportunists who put power over principle.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    He instead re-affirmed his (actually our) right, as a representative of the leaseholders, to moderate this site.

    Please direct all further complaints, concerns, and/or unsolicited observations about moderation policy to the site directors via the Contact link below.

  • remalimo

    “Here, Here”

  • discisit

    I wanted to tell Erickson he needs to man up, stop sucking his thumb and step into reality. Your response to his nonsense is exactly what I felt as I read his piece.

    Bottom line: we are all hypocrites, even the eventual choice made by the elites at a brokered convention, we will all support a hypocrite in the end.
    Reality says, use your knowledge and discernment to determine who will be the best choice, declare your favorite hypocrite and defend your reasoning while seeking truth and clarity on the issues.

    Your reasoning for supporting Newt is right on as far as I am concerned. Another thing that excites me about Newt is that the elites hate him most! He is the best chance, among the candidates, to turn the ship around. Santorum and Romney are good but Newt is the best choice for the reasons you stated.

    By the way Erickson, I love you and respect you and will continue to listen to you on the radio and read your articles and posts. I thank God for you. Keep up the good work.

  • tngal

    Very easy to understand and explains how the delegate counters are getting it wrong at this point in time.

    3 scenarios, and all three plausible.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/three-ways-somebody-new-could-grab-gop-nod/393046

  • jacobite

    The short list of Bush’s worst policies only demonstrates again that choosing the lesser of two evils is still wrong. Bush’s namby-pamby coddling of Mohammedan jihadists completely cancelled any positives he might get for bothering to attack a select few of our Mohammedan enemies. Can you imagine constant fireside chats by FDR reminding us that most Germans and Japanese weren’t Nazis or militarists, and didn’t even hate the US? Consider this before you vote: Romney will not repeal O’bamaCare; he will not attack O’bama as he did Newt, Rick, or Herman (see, histroy of Sr. Juan McCain campaign); he won’t cut taxes (see, Bob Dole, tax-collector for the welfare state). Also, Romney’s not an honest man — if Rick Santorum is such a Washington insider, how come 95% of the Washington insiders support Mitt?

  • lave

    Why Mitt and Ron Paul never attack each other? I believe it’s because they have made a deal that if Mitt does get the nomination Ron Paul or his son Rand Paul will be his running mate. think about it, I think it’s the only thing that makes sense. Why else would Ron and Mitt double team Rick

  • Finrod

    ..

  • Scope

    The IN election officials have ruled that Santorum in fact does have the required signatures, and will be placed on the IN ballot.

  • Finrod

    .. that we had a balanced budget under his leadership as Speaker.

    Got any other stupid comments?

  • texasref

    you know, the one who has an actual chance at winning the nomination?

    Unless you would prefer either of them to get back into the race, of course.

    Or were you holding out for an establishment pick at the convention like Christie or Daniels?

    Come on! A rare whiff by E.E.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    The supporters of each should vote for the other without their preferred candidate on the ticket. Very little gain in terms of votes.

    On the other hand, the pair will not attract swing voters over just one of them, and in fact may drive folks away who were turned off by the Republican primary spectacle. And the two just do not mesh with each other.

    So I see no upside and plenty of downside.

    I disagree about Sarah, she was poised to be the first VP pick in the past century (if not ever) to swing the election until McCain shot himself in the heart over TARP and then threw Sarah to the wolves.

    The Truth HBO?s ?Game Change? Hides: Palin Carried McCain Until He Changed the Game

    History may record that Hank Paulson threw the election to Barack Obama

  • acat

    Now I’ll need to find another scratching post.

    Mew

  • remalimo

    that does not represent what Santorum espoused “go along to get along” mentality.
    Mr. Speaker stepped on many legislature toes and is paying the price now. R Congressionals do not want Newt because he will complete the job he started in 1994: get a balance budget const. amend; actually balance the budget; pt a conservative on the Supreme: and make Congress act: and improve the Executive branch to be Constitutional.

    What is it that you’all want? OJT On Job Training by the other would be presidents. We need Newt now and get our economy under control and improving before all of our businesses move to a foreign country.

    Question. Why was Santorum not re-elected in PN? Why, if Romney was such a great leader not get re-elected in MA? You say Why didn’t Newt not continue to serve in the House and make a difference? He was beseiged by the D’s and RHINO’s he would have been uneffective.

    Newt is curently being endorsed by two people that worked with him during the Reagan years Art Laffer, and Sen. Thompson.

  • texasref

    I will find you two positive comments or clips he made about Gingrich.

    Rush firstly wants someone who can beat Romney (I think).

    He secondly wants someone who can beat Obama (I am sure).

    That is prioritized chronologically, not by importance.

    I can’t claim to know (as you do–”we know that…”) who EE and Rush favor, but I can make a very educated guess that they both prefer Gingrich over the Nanny Stater.

  • lapert

    The balanced budgets were not because of a shrinkage in government spending – under his leadership as speaker government spending grew.

    But under his leadership as Speaker he did allow taxes to rise to their highest share of GDP since WWII.

    Any other stupid comments?

  • macbookben

    …but, more unfortunately, plausible.

  • texasref

    is if you are in Virginia, then have at it.

    Right?

  • texasref

    he DID already share the name of the individual for whom he will vote–he narrowed it down to Perry or Cain.

    We don’t have to like it (and we certainly don’t), but at least he’s not voting for Romney, Santorum, or Paul!

    And there’s still time for him to change his mind about his vote.

    And possibly, just possibly change his mind about endorsing the former Representative from Georgia.

  • texasref

    correction

    Only a vote for Mitt is a vote for Mitt.

  • texasref

    so you can imagine he will be pulling some heavy numbers from Santorum in the wake of the debate. Keep an eye out!

    Of course Rasmussen hurried up and polled before the debate, hoping it would show Newt not in 1st place.

  • texasref

    LOL —

    NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

  • texasref

    Vote Decline Manager 2012!

  • texasref

    so I dont give a rat’s ass if WMD was found or not, Saddam had to go!

    You don’t get to use WMD and get away with it simply because you got rid of it before the telegraphed-well-in-advance invasion takes place!

    Bush was right on Iraq from beginning to end.

    It’s his big nanny state domestic spending that Santorum was such a courageous team player (LOL /snark) that I have a problem with.

  • texasref

    Well spoken clowngirl!

    I know Erick reads these so good job!

  • texasref

    is if we are

    A) residents of Virginia (never gonna happen for me personally), or

    B) it’s either him or Romney for the nomination (Gingrich and Santorum lay a much better claim to being the Not Romney given the results so far) (Gingrich kinda sorta WON the state that no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning).

  • texasref

    Karl Rove is one helluva dirty dealer–notice how he always claims neutrality then knives you without you even knowing you just got knived.

    No wonder he was the architect. He is good at what he does.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    agreed

  • texasref

    who said that the vice presidency “isn’t worth a pitcher of warm piss.”

    And I had grown up being told he said “spit.”

    I didn’t appreciate being lied to about Santa Claus, either!

    Santorum can have the pitcher and go off on his crusade against contraceptions and gays being gay. Newt can have the Oval Office.

    Rick Perry would actually make more sense as veep than Santorum.

  • texasref

    If you live in those states, vote like he said.

    I am pretty sure Erick will change his mind before Super Tuesday.

  • texasref

    would that change your mind?

  • aesthete

    1) Duh. Why did we want to “accomplish” NCLB, Medicare Pt D, etc, and what conservative wonders did Santorum receive in exchange for his support for these bills?

    2) That’s blatantly wrong.

    3) Loyalty to one’s principles is much more important than personal loyalty to a fellow moocher in Congress.

    Why would we expect a milquetoast like Santorum to “set” an agenda (esp one that deviates sharply from Bush-era conservatism), when he did no such thing throughout his career?

  • tankertodd

    Santorum is a theocrat and Newt has broken too much glass to be effective in Washington. Paul’s the best choice, but Mitt would have to be second given 1) you ignore his Massachusetts record as a moderate, and 2) take him at his word.

    To his credit his best rhetoric is testing every government program against the question whether it is worth borrowing from China to pay for it. I say that myself and am thrilled that he’s picked up on it (or vice versa?).

    Governor. Business experience. Has Christie’s support. Not from Washington. Yeah, ok.

  • acat

    … more as a delayed reaction or “time bomb” for the teachers unions, just as the Bush tax cut is a time bomb for the budget. It’s no coincidence that Obama is trying to issue waivers for NCLB.

    Could NCLB be better? Certainly! Would it have passed without the Kennedy thumbprints all over it? Maybe …

    My thought is that W was playing a longer game, on some of the issues at least, than many of us gave him credit for. The Roberts court, for instance.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Was Santorum pretty deeply involved in K Street? Yep, and that means he certainly doesn’t have a clean nest when it comes to such issues. He was, however, involved in exposing a banking scandal early on in his career and was far from the most corrupt of Senators — even if one limits his pool to Republican Senators. Tom Delay and Bill Frist were much more involved in the mechanics of K Street and lobbying than Santorum was, for example.

  • trickamsterdam

    He probably means that their financial district probably has more influence than China in DC, it’s that just nobody talks about it.

    He’s also right about voting for Cain, Perry…they are not in the race. Actually, after everything we’ve been through, w/ Cain, it would be insane voting for him if he still were in the race. I liked that Herb endorsed Newt when it still meant something, but Herb kinda peed the bed as a serious politician w/ the Colbert thing.

    I just can’t believe this column at this point…Cain and Perry? OK…hey, I’m probably not voting for Romney in the General (if Rand Paul were the VP, as rumored, it might get me out there, because it would be the heir apparent was a real candidate of change…but I don’t believe the rumor), so I understand reaching a breaking point.

    Maybe my own disgust for Romney has clouded my judgment to the point where I simply can’t recognize how bad Newt and Santorum are. I can certainly see how it’s disappointing that they emerged in the age of the Tea Party, but they both seem better than Dole, McCain and both Bushs to me.

    Then again, I did coin the term “Romney Goggles”. That is, when I look at Romney any Republican running against him starts to look like Reagan to me.

  • aesthete

    1) Santorum wins in the rust belt and Midwest, at least for the winner-take-all states. Hat-tip to Jsob, he needs to move towards talking up his economic populism and “meaty” social issues rather than penny-ante stuff that very few people — including social conservatives — care about, like contraception or banning pre-natal testing.

    2) Gingrich wins in the deep South, where he has the organization and regional ties. He needs to capitulate on his debate performances and continue to do well enough that people see him as a viable option.

    3) Paul wins in Virginia and some Northwestern states.

    Romney is going to win LDS-heavy states, guaranteed: they have the organization, and it’s an identity politics thing for many LDS folks. That means he’s got AZ, CO, and some others locked up. His is also most likely the only organization that can compete in CA. We need the other candidates to do well enough to deny Romney votes elsewhere, particularly in winner-take-all states.

  • aesthete

    Turkey has been our regional partner for decades — arguably more so than even Israel. It has been a part of NATO for years, and was one of the countries that hosted an active AF logistics base during OIF.

  • Finrod

    So blaming Newt for something that has happened Every Single Year is mendacious at best. You’re also conflating taxes and tax rates. Tax rates being high are the bad thing; supply-side economists since the time of Reagan have repeated that the government can collect more money with a low tax rate than with a high one. If you can’t understand the difference there, then you need to look in the mirror to see the stupid person in this discussion.

  • Finrod

    That’s why my name for Mitt Romney is the Lying Suckweasel.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …and can Rick and Newt keep from splitting the not-Romney vote so evenly as to give Mitt the plurality in the winner-takes-all states.

    But basically, it’s hard to see how in the day and age there can be enough money to keep three races going through June.

    And if there were, would that leave any money left in November?

    Hard to see any good scenarios for conservatives. I fear the race has already alienated too many independents and/or written too many Obama election ads.

  • littlehouse18

    You been here two weeks as a declared Romney supporter. You accept the assertions by people with a vested interest in damaging Santorum as gospel truth.

    The Post-Gazette is anti-Santorum. I see nothing wrong in what’s described by the Bloomberg article, although they try to color it as something corrupt. I glad Santorum tried to help Republicans!

    The wikipedia article is lefty trash, and it contains a warning at the top concerning its reliability. And that quoting that Youtube vid posted just 9 days ago by lefty haters of Santorum and Newt is just absurd.

    The clincher for me is your implication that there were no WMDs in Iraq, when we know exactly what happened to them, and if Santorum announced they were found, he was just relying on the reports that many of us heard independently.

    Your use of sources is OFFENSIVE (and I rarely use caps!)! I am disgusted by your post, and you do your preferred candidate no favors by spewing trash. I will admit, however, that such trash may have been effective in helping to defeat Santorum in 2006. You must not have enough to promote your guy Romney so you resort to lies. I still can’t tell if you are truly for Romney or merely a lefty lurker.

  • rogsterling63

    Let’s be honest. Mitt for all of his faults is the only one that can beat Obama – and even that is up for debate.

    Santorum and Gingrich stand 0 chance. If every one of here looks deep inside, that gut instinct telling you they will lose is absolutely right.

    You can have a philosophical fight all you want, but you can’t govern if you don’t win

  • trickamsterdam

    But I honestly don’t understand how voting for people who not are not only in the race, but have endorsed other people is an act of principle.

    You might as well just right somebody in. Somebody said “there’s no point, they don’t count right-ins unless it’s close”, as if the fact that they “count” the vote for Cain or Perry makes it mean something…they have both left the race and endorsed another candidate.

    Again, I understand reaching a breaking point. I’ve reached w/Romney. I could only support him if the VP were a true agent of change like Rand Paul, even a Paul Ryan wouldn’t do (not that Paul Ryan would ever be stupid enough to get on the good ship Mit-titanic…Rand isn’t stupid either, but being an outsider has less options and routes to become President).

    I’m just surprised by all this at this point. In a column maybe only a week ago, EE said Santorum and Newt excited him, even though they weren’t perfect, and had no real shot in the General. He said he was hoping for a brokered convention.

    I agreed w/ all that. That’s why I don’t understand why we’re here only a week later. Voting for Cain or Perry does not get you closer to a brokered convention than voting for Newt or Santorum..

  • rogsterling63

    awwww!!….thinking Gingrich ever had a legitimate shot! so cute!!!

  • annie54

    Drill, Baby, Drill!

  • littlehouse18

    I’m sorry to say this, but please don’t believe anything someone posts just because their arguments support your opposition to a candidate. I smell a rat in noogan’s post and in his citations. I am very sensitive to this after the lies that were spread in the media about the healthcare protests of March 2010, in which I participated.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    not a rhetorical question.

  • acat

    Look, if you have a legitimate complaint about Gingrich, that’s one thing – if you have another candidate you prefer, that’s another..

    If you’re just here to troll and mock, you need to get to at least the level of Tbone….

    Mew

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    It did have some positive results, That can’t be denied. Test scores are up and learning has actually improved somewhat, except in places where there was widespread cheating.

    But it’s a failure in the sense that it didn’t do what it set out to do, and had a lot of unforeseen side effects.

  • lapert

    But spending has decreased year over year in my lifetime (in fact in everyone’s lifetime who is old enough to type but it might be misleading given the heights it reached in ’09). It decreased in inflation adjusted terms between ’92 and ’93 and ’06 and ’07 (albeit marginally). And I am not blaming Newt for that – I’m just not crediting him for shrinking Government when it didn’t shrink like the stupid person in this discussion did.

    As for tax rates, I didn’t conflate anything at all – I was quite specific that taxes collected as a % of gdp hit a peak. You might think it is just tax rates that matter, I know that taxes as a share of economic activity is a better reflection of the drag on the economy. I don’t care how low the tax rates are the total government receipts don’t need to be 20% of the economy.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    if you have the same understanding of softball that you do of politics.

    You NEVER, and I mean EVER, vote against your core principles, or directly against the interests of your constituents. And any “Leader” who would want you to is not much of a leader. (Both of the Bush presidents coem to mind).

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    With Iran spinning centrifuges and the Hezbollah-Chavez alliance…it may be a race to see who gets in the telling blow first.

  • rogsterling63

    I could honestly say I purr-furr. Sadly I’m deeply disappointed in our current crop. I do want to win in November – nothing would make me happier

  • JSobieski

    and it isn’t much.

    As you know Santorum is not my first choice out of the three but Santorum is not corrupt. While he is a career politician, he is hardly living high off the hog.

    Santorum is an honest guy. If I had to have one of three candidates take custody of something or someone both valuable and vulnerable, I would pick Santorum.

  • joeydavis

    1. George Bush was elected on NCLB. Santorum didn’t need a payoff for doing what REPUBLICAN VOTERS voted for.

    2. needs no explanation. The President runs on a partisan agenda. Your job in a management position is to move that agenda. If you oppose the agenda you should have A)run against the President in a primary with a competing agenda B)remove yourself from the leadership team.

    This is no different than dealing with a management change in a private company.

    3. Specter didn’t ask Santorum to agree with him. He asked for his support. There’s nothing wrong with giving it. My belief is that whatever well meaning, well developed argument Santorum offers now is different from the truth of 2004.

    The truth is control of the US Senate was at stake and the widely held belief was that RINO Specter would easily be reelected and the more conservative Toomey would lose.

    In this case, the enemy you know is the best choice. Remember we also supported the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in the late 70s, early 80s. And I believe history will show us we should have left Qadaffi alone in Lybia. Politics is not an exact science.

    If Toomey loses PA and well funded, well known Erskine Bowles holds the Edwards seat in NC (he was winning by 10 at the time) the Democrats have control of the Senate.

    Principle is useless if you don’t have the ability to exercise it.

  • JSobieski

    Extra money was spent up front.

    On the back end, Obama is giving out a bunch of waivers.

    The competition piece was gutted to get D support.

    On balance, I would have been proud to oppose it.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    so let me get this straight, if the Hutu’s or Tootsies in Rawanda had used chemical weapons that would have been a justification for the USA to get involved in a war in Africa where we had no strategic interest whatsoever?

    So If Bush was right from beginning to end, does that mean he was right to vacillate with Rumsfeld’s approach for three years while we got our ass kicked and lost the public’s support before canning Rummy and instituting the surge?

  • acat

    and anyone who’s ever thought of running for school board in a district *seeking* waivers has one heck of a campaign issue…

    Mew

  • clowngirl

    :)

  • nuthinfancy

    The WASH-EX article demonstrates possibilities, while also confirming, to a certain extent, the low probabilities at work in the process. Overall, it does give one some Hope, particularly someone who is desperately seeking to grasp some fragile tendril of Hope (myself included).

    Kinda like being a football fan, and having someone demonstrate the odd set of circumstances that will project your losing team into the playoff sweepstakes.

    Bottom Line (today) seems to be that delegate-counting (today) is also a waste of time, attention, and civic effort, given the range of theoretically-possible outcomes. Am good with that for now. Thanks for the comment.

  • trickamsterdam

    Let’s be honest. There’s not one shred of evidence other than the fact that he appeals to people who live in media centers like NYC and DC that Mitt is more electable than Santorum::

    -Not recent polling against Obama

    -Not the fact that he does well in NE States we’re not going to win anyway but struggles in Rust Belt states (like his “home”State of MI…and were he’s being crushed in polling by Santorum in PA and OH)

    -Not the fact that his approval rating w/ Republicans is more than 30 points lower than Santorum’s since he went negative in December on Newt (well, actually he’s gone negative on everybody but Paul), which bodes very, very ill for turn out in the fall

    -Not the fact that all his donors are big donors and other than the Super Pac are probably going to be maxed out by the General, since Romney spends campaign dollars like they’re pesos (actually, at this point I guess dollars almost are pesos)

    -Not the fact that after the Ds start a whispering campaign on his religion, he’s going to seem weirder to independents than Santorum on birth control (the Wash Post and CNN have already begun this w/ John King openly calling Romney “Governor Mormon” and the Post did a big story on how Mormons were doing post death baptisms of holocaust victims and how they were asked to stop)

    I could go on and on but what’s the point? People are going to insist he was the most electable even after Obama spanks him by double digits…they will be just like the people who defend Obama’s stimulus and say “It would have been worse”.

    PS – If you’re to suck it up until 2016, why do you even care if Romney is more electable than Newt? I think I can guess. Pretending to be neutral, you actually support Romney. Sneaky and deceiving…like candidate, like supporter.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    earmarks = special deals

  • Common_Cents

    I suppose most of the time, the VP pick has some leverage among candidates in the race, but this time around what nominee is going to pick another candidate for VP?

    It could be very beneficial for Gingrich to pick a VP, except for the Rubio sweepstakes. I guess the problem with this is if a Rubio is VP material, Rubio prob wouldn’t have much incentive to accept before there is a nominee. A Perry would, or a Cain or Thompson who have already endorsed Gingrich but not sure if any of them would have enough impact for the nomination.

    An interesting ticket that would make the left explode as well as the DC Republican establishment?

    Gingrich/Palin.

    I think she is much more prepared this time around, she would invigorate the tea party, she’d be able to fund raise like crazy. You know she would love a little payback to McCain campaign throwing her under the bus.

    She has endorsed Gingrich for a state or two, she has hinted at endorsing him as strong as possible. I think they are coordinating messaging too. Palin just before the last debate talked about a candidate should be pushing the gas price angle, Gingrich immediately came out w/ his $2.50/gal gas plan and video. Palin then praised him for it after the debate. That sequence wasn’t coincidence. I think she is holding back from some Fox contractual issues.

    A Gingrich/Palin ticket announcement now would shake up the entire race and the DC establishment and the left would go absolutely bonkers.

  • rogsterling63

    the guy who thinks states have the right to ban contraceptives will be elected in the US in 2012..rrrright

  • clowngirl

    “Is there enough money to maintain a 3 person race?” Certainly there is — it’s just a question of whether there will be motivation to keep giving it.

    Just to be clear, I personally am not rooting for a brokered convention. I’m rooting for Newt to win outright — but those rooting for a Newt win or for a brokered convention have a common interest in seeing Newt win Georgia.

    “Can Rick and Newt keep from splitting the not-Romney vote so evenly as to give Mitt the plurality in the winner take all states? ”

    I think so, yes. There’s a lot of states to campaign in and having multiple candidates in the race means that Newt and Rick can focus on different states. (for example Santorum is campaigning hard in Michigan right now while Newt focuses on Super Tuesday states)

    “Would that leave any money for November?”

    Assuming Sheldon Adelson approves of the candidate, yes.

    Again, I’m not especially pro-brokered convention — but I’d prefer to see Newt fight for the nomination on the convention floor than see it go to Romney or Santorum..

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …when Turkey denied us access to their air space, preventing us from creating a pincer movement from the north. Without that ability to cut off the line of retreat, we had too few forces to prevent the strategic retreat and guerrilla tactics that ensued.

    We salvaged a barely viable Iraqi state with the Surge, but our initial strategic objectives of neutralizing Syria and Iran, which in turn could have led to a solution to the Arab-Israel conflict were not achieved.

  • joeydavis

    Politics is not a game of black and white, rather it is multiple shades of gray.

    The interests of your constituents is always at least to some degree a matter of opinion.

    NCLB was definitely a better program than the system in place at the time. I’d say the vast majority of middle income retirees benefit greatly from the Medicare bill.

    Title 10 is included in an omnibus appropriations bill. So which of your core principles do you promote? I know at least in my values system, children’s health and safety trumps funding for planned parenthood and if the bill I need to take care of immunizations and school lunches includes birth control and sex ed, I’m ok with that.

    What good is served by preventing the abortion if I’m going to let the child die once it gets born?

  • lineholder

    Let’s talk about the current projections of health care expenditures hitting 25% of our GDP within five years. Most of that will come between 2013 and 2016. The 25% is a conservative estimate at this point, because there is little means of presenting any definitive measure for subsidy costs of the public health exchange at this point…we don’t know how strong the phenomenon of employer dumping might turn out to be.

    And even if Obamacare is repealed, there are some aspects of what has been done and what is currently in-process that we will NOT be able to roll back unless we see significant growth and development in the private sector happen relatively quickly. For example, the mandate passed down by DHHS that states begin expansion of Medicaid (a bit earlier than scheduled) won’t be rolled back. It’s estimated that 1/2 of the increase in health insurance enrollment promised to 32 million people via O-care will occur under Medicaid…i.e. 16 million people being put into the program. And then this is followed up by a mandate that states increase Medicaid reimbursement rates to providers for specific services to meet the equivalent of Medicare reimbursement rates (about a 20% increase).

    So, as much as Conservatives hate to talk about revenues and taxes, we need to start being realistic and recognizing that the course of action the Dems have put into place will have to be dealt with, even if O-care is repealed.

    IMO, Increasing revenues would be much simpler by curtailing regulatory measures and allowing growth and development to have a chance in the private sector rather than prohibiting growth and development and putting the people of our nation under even greater hardships to meet the requirements for revenues than what we currently face. But that’s my opinion, and YMMV.

    Who do you see as being most capable of addressing these challenges and why?

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    That’s the end point of “end justifying the means” approach to political decision-making. What conservatives are trying to do is to restrict the scope of Federal intrusion into state and local and personal matters.

    Your last sentence is one of the most flammable straw-men I’ve seen erected here at RedState – in fact it self-ignites.

  • Creedo

    Every national poll shows this to be true. Newt finishes even behind Ron Paul in national polls against Obama. Newt is the weakest candidate in the field against Obama because he’s got zero independent appeal. He should exit the race and let Santorum gain momentum.

  • clowngirl

    I’m not suggesting that anyone vote for Newt just because Perry, Cain or anybody else endorsed him.

    I’m just confused and disappointed by Erick’s apparent change of position. I thought he was right to encourage Governor Perry to drop out and endorse Newt and think he should follow through with that course of action and advocacy.

    Erick has been committed — for months now– to seeing someone besides Romney win the nomination. In recent weeks he’s spoken about wanting to see a brokered convention.

    Voting for someone who is no longer running (and speaking publicly about planning to vote for someone who isn’t even running) does nothing to stop Romney from getting the nomination. Nor does it facilitate a brokered convention.

    I agree with what Common Cents posted elsewhere in this thread: if Erick wants to see a brokered convention, a one-state endorsement: endorsing voting for Newt in GA to keep the race from consolidating around Romney would make sense.

  • aesthete

    1) That’s completely irrelevant. The Senate and the Presidency are two different jobs with vastly different constituencies, functions, and responsibilities. Why would a Senator need to run against a President in a primary to have different priorities, beliefs, and principles? How is the lack of competing agendas in a Presidential primary your problem?

    2) Government is not like a business: in the United States, it is a (somewhat) cooperative venture intended to have checks and balances between competing interests, which the Presidency, Senate, Congress, and judiciary are intended to represent. A private organization has a certain unity of purpose and an objective need to expand and propagate itself: in the case of conservative governance, this is rarely desireable.

    3) Specter was a pro-choice, big government Republican. Santorum supported him in the Republican primary against a conservative alternative. Were there reasons for him to do so? Sure, but none of them make Santorum look like anything but a “team player” playing for a very bad team.

  • aesthete

    “I?d say the vast majority of middle income retirees benefit greatly from the Medicare bill.”

    “NCLB was definitely a better program than the system in place at the time.”

    “What good is served by preventing the abortion if I?m going to let the child die once it gets born?”

    Now, I hate falling back on the “true conservative” line… but how do any of those statements square with traditional conservative principles? The first statement that I quote completely discounts the trade-offs required for the benefit that you note — a discussion of trade-offs due to government distortion of markets, of course, being fundamental to classical economics and American conservatism. The second statement equally discounts the problems with the federal government usurping the role of states. The third statement is, as noted by c_t, a strawman.

    By all means, though — if you liked Bush’s policies, Santorum is your man.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    nt

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    again nt

  • Vegas_Rick

    nt

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I don’t think there is much to fear of external enemies for the USA right now. Israel on the other hand might have some reason to fear.

    All the nations that really really hate us right now would all attack all at the same time, using all terror tactics and everything they have and it would not change our way of life more than maybe 10% if you have to put a number on it.

    They have no ability to hurt us in an meaningful way. If somehow they got an atomic bomb off, or even two, in American cites, that would have a major effect, But it would not defeat us. (actually, if that ever happened I shudder to think of the horror we would unleash on the outside world.)

  • lineholder

    Do you have any idea at all of what is included in PPs sex ed program? If not, you really need to go evaluate the full content of that program before you ever, ever make a statement again implying that this is any way, shape, form or fashion acceptable to Conservatives.

    Seriously. “The devil is in the details” as the old saying goes, and if you aren’t aware of the details, then this is as good an opportunity to find out as any other.

  • johnnyqb

    Nice work, rogrsterling63,……You are another useful tool for the looney Left…….You people will never get it, until it’s too late. Unfortunately, we that see likely will be included in the sinking ship that you fools unwittingly helped sink….Wake up!

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    or Satan if you will, is in the details where Planned Parenthood is concerned quite literally.

  • rogsterling63

    then i’ll say you were right all along

  • trickamsterdam

    It would be saying “we dislike Romney so much we are willing to vote for Paul”, a person who hasn’t even come remotely close to winning any states but Iowa and Maine, which are both unique situations.

    The problem is if the Pauls and Romney really have an alliance, will Paul even try to win? I’m sure Mitt Romney is much smarter and sleazier than Ron Paul, who’s essentially just a crazy old man.

    Romney may have realized the danger of what a loss to Paul in VA meant to him- basically similar to a vote of no contest vote in a parliament- and so the Deceiver then corrupted the old fool Paul with promises of who knows what? Paul, w/ his good resources, concentrated in that one state could have been very dangerous to Romney.

    So Romney tricks Paul, and then, after VA, I’m sure betrays him.. Neither the son nor the father Paul works as a VP candidate. They’re too controversial w/ independents, and being libertarians, will not be popular w/ the conservative base either (because of their views on defense, the Patriot Act etc).

    But people who favor a brokered convention or any of the other candidates over Romney, must vote for Paul. I defeat will finish Romney. Period.

  • lineholder

    any Conservative make a statement that sex ed is okay, as long as these other things are accomplished along with it.

    Not PPs version of sex ed. Not the version of sex ed that played a part in that incident in CA where 2nd graders engaged in oral sex with each other while the teacher and classroom looked on.

    The “devil” is indeed in THAT. And under no circumstances at all should we support it. For any reason.

  • chuckludd

    The main story will not be a Paul win but will be that the non-Romney won. Santorum and Newt can help claim credit for this if they tell their backers to vote for Paul in Virginia.

    I think the “alliance” is a bit manufactured. There of course is all sorts of horse trading going on between all of the campaigns at some level — that was happening in broad daylight as Perry was going down. But even if there is an alliance of sorts — and if we must have Romney, then at least let’s get Rand Paul on the ticket! — you must remember that Ron Paul’s backers are not going to calm down just because Paul doesn’t put a lot of energy in Virginia. The backers are a force of their own and they are already working Virginia to get non-Romney supporters to vote for Paul. It would be a shame to lose the opportunity for a very clear “non-Romney” win.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    reality

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile in ATL

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    not close
    try again

  • texasref

    Rummy had to go.

    As for your first comment: Yes, use of WMD anywhere is the most fundamental threat to our existence as a human race, and therefore in the American interest to prevent or, if necessary, terminate.

    That’s the texasref doctrine. YMMV.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nteee

  • westcoastpatriette

    can be attributed to Governor Perry as Newt pointed out in the forward to Perry’s book “Fed Up!” Newt mentions there that it was Perry who educated him on the significance of the 10th and its implications for federal encroachment on State powers. Evidently, Newt has made note of it with respect to the move to decentralize the federal government and sees how central it is to achieving that goal.

  • texasref

    It’s really quite annoying how all the blacks vote for Obama and all the Mormons vote for Romney.

    I’m gay, but I don’t support Obama because of it. Instead, I apply reason and logic to my positions exclusively…not “oh he’s just like me” or some exclusively self-interested perspective.

    And now we are going to hear it from the Mormons for your comment on the truth of the matter about identity politics and for my comment in support of and expanding upon your comment.

    Having said all of this, let me be very clear: the religion (or lack thereof) of any candidate, including Romney, is irrelevant to an analysis of his qualification for office. IRRELEVANT. I have quite enough other grounds upon which to bash Mittens, thank you very much. I don’t even care if you’re Muslim, as long as you aren’t in alignment with the radical form of Islam that Gingrich correctly calls out, unlike our current excuse for a president.

  • texasref

    nt

  • acat

    The dream of Kemal Ataturk is going up in smoke…

    The outcome is not a foregone conclusion .. yet.. but it’s sliding that way. Looking at a history, one can see that prior to Carter, Iran was regarded as a solid ally…

    Mew

  • salemst

    Romney campaigned on an abortion truce, not pro-choice. He promised in 2002 yo not chip away at or expand abortion rights. he actually did chip away at it duting his stem cell/cloning veto where he moved pro life in, I believe, 2003.

    He worked out a gun bill in conjunction with the NRA who supported the bill cause of aspects they’d gain by its passage. NRA was on board with him.

    You have to understand the Massachusetts political landscape. 42% Democrat, 42% Independent, and 14% registered Republicans means that’s who he’s speaking to. Romney had a 145-15 Democrat House majority, 35-5 Democrat Senate majority, and not enough Republicans to sustain his 842 vetoes in his four years as governor. Also had a liberal majority state Supreme Court.

    What everyone should realize about conservatism is this. Rick Perry in a conservative state like Texas can advance conservatism and claim the mantle of being conservative. Mitt Romney in a liberal state like Massachusetts can slow down/stop liberalism and also claim the mantle of being conservative.

    Slowing down/stopping liberalism in a liberal state is just as conservative as advancing conservatism in a conservative state. As a Massachusetts resident under Romney, the guy governed as a conservative.

  • salemst

    Newt is the GOP’s Bill Clinton. Ethically challenged–a serial adulterer. I’d never vote for him.

  • aesthete

    and probably won’t be by the end of a Romney term. There are lots of things to criticize Romney for, but I see nothing wrong with petitioning historical allies for cooperation on areas of mutual interest — and while I find calls for regime change in Syria unwise to the extreme, there’s nothing particularly unsound about utilizing the experience of a historical ally in areas of mutual interest.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …which prevented us for landing forces in the north of the country to set up a pincer to capture Saddam’s forces when they retreated. That in my view crippled our ability to secure the peace when Saddam opted for guerrilla war – and we know how things went since then.

    As acat notes, this was the early indication of the desecularization of Turkey and the ascendency of Islamist forces. Still in flux, but now Turkey is caught between Russian and Iran/Syria/Iraq – a great example of shooting oneself in the foot.

  • aesthete

    and at any rate, Turkey is a sovereign country and not obligated to support us in any way (and vice versa). I don’t see anything wrong with asking for cooperation on areas of mutual interest — I agree that Turkey is prickly and stupid about basing rights and use of air-space, but it seems petty to commit more of our resources because we were too proud to ask a mostly-reliable partner. (And yes, on some issues Turkey has been more reliable and helpful than countries like France, Germany, or Israel.)

  • anonymousbosch

    He cut the % of govt spending by GDP to it’s lowest level in 20 years.

    In 1994 Govt spending was 20.6% of GDP. Then Newt led the GOP to victory and became Speaker. Here’s govt spending by GDP over the following years:

    1994: 20.6%
    1995: 20.4%
    1996: 19.9%
    1997: 19.4%
    1998: 18.9%
    1999: 18.3%
    2000: 18.1%
    2001: 18.2%

    In 2010 Govt spending was 23.7% of GDP
    In 2011 it was 24.1%
    This year it’s projected to be 24.3%

    I’d say the #s show what Newt did to decrease the size of govt. He reduced spending every year he was speaker and brought govt spending to its lowest level in a very long time.

  • acat

    that predicting the exact tipping point is difficult … who expected for Obama to lose Egypt?

    Mew

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and so can other special-deals!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    and this is all-the-more-reason why The Newt should be supported

  • aesthete

    there is nothing wrong with coordinating with them — especially if “coordinating with Turkey” is code for “not gonna do anything major with the lives of US troops based on the really sketchy proposals of people wanting us to use our military for another war in the Middle East”.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …when the endorser is the candidate whom the individual had supported

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and supporting The Newt serves multiple purposes, notwithstanding confounding attacks by J.Sob.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …Constitutional Conservatives must not acquiesce to this mindset.

    There is a distinction-with-a-difference between compromise and finding common ground.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and omits reference to 9-11 and sequellae.

  • acat

    If we want to put boots on the ground, this cat wants much, much better justifications than “Syria is run by a tyrant”.

    Mew

  • cimmarontrails

    We do not have to accept what is shoved down our throats in this primary…we CAN MAKE OUR STAND…UNITE BEHIND THE BEST! We might have to accept what the establishment and media shoves at us for a nominee…but I refuse to surrender now! We can win this battle!! …Don’t mess up again Eric…Newt is far better than Cain…so Let’s all BE A PATRIOT…NOT A PATSY…VOTE THE BEST…VOTE PERRY!

  • Archer

    should be treated the same as a serious complaint. It seems a little thin skinned to me to bar making a comment here about someone else’s comment here but as you pointed out, its not my site and I certainly don’t make the rules. Thanks for the information.

  • cimmarontrails

    davesinsanantonio…the reason we keep finding one at the top is the wishy washy…the panic in our party…Panic and saying we will stand and fight if it is convient is killing us. Meanwhile we say “anyone but Romney.” “Anyone to beat zero.”

    But that is the deal. “Anyone” won’t work…we need “THE ONE WHO CAN WIN!” Debates won’t win this thing…CONTRAST AND RECORD WILL! Just what will beat obummer? You can bet the negetive is going to fly…but then we need the CONTRASTING SUCCESS TO PROVE A PLAN THAT IS UNBEATABLE.

    That is why PERRY came in…but we still stood wishy washy and paniced. WE sweat the small stuff…won’t forgive human era or bother to listen close, study and really vet for ourselves…if we would…we would not fall for all this stuff.

    WE would see Rick Perry is the one who makes DC includeing obummer SWEAT! Why else did Napolitano come down to Texas and decide we don’t need that moat after all…we need boots! She is hoping now that Perry is out…he raised the awareness all across the country, with the R candidates that he takes a pacifier and we the people suck our thumbs…zero is going to make all seem so dang peachy fine…it is election year. Why is DC enacting plans of Perry’s already? Are they any others in this race? Just think on all this and one can see…they are the deer in the headlights and Perry is driving right into the whole herd!

    So why settle now? WE do not have to…now is the time to stand our ground indeed…Stand on the one who can win and when we know we want a fight…and must have one…IT IS OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE FOR CHRIST SAKE…then do not let the establishment and media change our minds…back us down and go running to a bunch of loosers.

  • cimmarontrails

    greenpoint…a Brokered does not work as simple as that…and a Unity against the establishment…the Rove and Soros spin machine…then WE THE PEOPLE DECIDE…LET’S GET A WE THE PEOPLE CANDIDATE! Rick Perry will get my vote! And now is the time to STAND ON PRINCIPLE…As John Q Adams left the wise words…I will STAND on them: ?Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.?

  • acat

    They’re a creature with hundreds of legs, eyes, and mouths … and not a single brain. A committee, in other words. This is one reason why I’ve never thought a contested convention is such a great idea…

    Mew

  • clowngirl

    Colorado was supposed to be part of Romney’s “Mormon Firewall” but Santorum campaigned harder, spent more time here, and won the caucus.

    Maybe Romney was relying on identity politics and thought he could take the Mormon vote for granted…

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    n/t

  • sulmak

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/what-we-learned-from-nevada/

    “Much of Mr. Romney?s margin of victory in Nevada was because of the presence of Mormon voters. According to the entrance poll of the state, 26 percent of caucus voters were Mormon, and 90 percent of those voted for Mr. Romney.”

    Can’t find Colorado exit polls, but more likely Santorum won in spite of Mormons rather than them being less supportive of Romney there.

  • greyeagle

    They found small stocks of biological warfare agents under the kitchen sink of a scientist. A man from Dallas (I spoke with him) was involved in looking for WMD. He indicated there were several bunkers that looked promising, (the local people said the stuff was there) he notified the team, but because it was in a different location than they were looking, they never came. The local population in some areas said a lot of stuff was removed from the bunkers just before the major attack occurred. Something was moved into Syria in huge convoy’s the night before the attack. A lot of trucks were involved. What was it? No one seems to know or if they do, it was never discussed.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …Mitt must not be rewarded for his scorn for the true-conservatives, the TEA Party Movement, and the Evangelicals.

  • aesthete

    (null) h/t acat

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and I’m flexible about the execution.

    Hoping agreement by “Civil Truth” with Guzzardi is limited to concern with Neutorum, rather than Guzzardi’s current effort to champion Mitt.

  • greyeagle

    Rick Perry has always been a staunch conservative and his positions have not changed. He moved to the Republican Party in 1989 the same year I did.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    [this is the classic legal explanation]

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    disagree with both ends of the proposal; it represents capitulation to the inevitability/electability argument and the ability to collude successfully

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and it seems you would not mind it if Israel were destroyed.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    That seems as likely as Ron Paul endorsing Mitt. Oh wait…

    Do you have a link?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …The Newt will rise again!

    [This was a consensus view on the FNC "All Stars" discussion.]

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but he wants people to vote for The Newt.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Too many here are smart ass punks.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    many deals are made in parking lots

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Are you an intern?

  • clowngirl

    I don’t think they entranced polled in CO. Not that I know of anyway.

    I’m not saying Romney doesn’t have a natural advantage with Mormons — but I do think Colorado shows he can’t just take them for granted. Romney won with 60% of the vote in 2008 — I think he got around 34% this time. That’s a pretty dramatic drop.

    Romney worked pretty hard in Nevada — put almost all his focus there after Florida (opening the door for Santorum in CO) and yes, the Mormons turned out for him but it appears he had to work for it.

  • texasref

    but still vomit-inducing.

  • texasref

    on January 20, 2013.

  • Archer

    I’ve decided that Redstate doesn’t match my commenting needs and what I expect in the way of site moderation.

    Good luck to you all in your future endeavors.

  • Dave_A

    I put little faith in Rand not being ‘Ron Mk II’ – especially after he started his Senate campaign bashing the Civil Rights Act.

    Putting him in the VP spot would deprive us of our best chance to see the Ron Paul movement join the Dixiecrats in the dustbin of history…

  • Dave_A

    Because being ‘Not-the-other-guy’ doesn’t work in the General Election.

    He has too much personal baggage, and comes across as too slimy (the name only reinforces the image)… Plus his political baggage (the huge negatives from the 90s) is still there…

    Claims to balance the budget are put to lie by the fact that all of his ‘great ideas’ are huge spending programs…

    There’s simply no reason why anyone but a Republican ideologue would ever vote for Newt.

    People don’t want an untrustworthy egghead to be President – and that’s how he’s seen..

  • Dave_A

    The ‘Auto Bailout’ is 100% Obama.

    Unlike TARP, which was passed by the Bush Administration, the idea of an auto-bailout was unacceptable & did not pass until after the new Dem SuperCongress was seated.

    It couldn’t even make it to Bush’s desk.

  • mikelindell2

    as well. Santorum received absolutely no scrutiny because he was such a non-factor; he could make claims without anyone challenging him.

  • mikelindell2

    Mitt raised gun taxes by 400% and that’s a good thing because he’s in a blue state? He raised taxes on business by 700 million and I should just chalk it up to being in MA? From 1994-2006 he was saying very liberal things on almost every issue. In 2009 he said he supported the 750mil stimulus, and in 2010 said he only wants to repeal parts of Obamacare. What’s the excuse there? If you’re saying he has to pander to get elected according to the landscape, how do you know he’s not just pandering again in R primaries??

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …where medical decisions are reached.

    BUT, both medically and legislatively, the discussion is focused on issues rather than the interests of the parties.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    “It is instructive…?when the endorser is the candidate whom the individual had supported.”

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …abhors the assumptions you appear to be making, @ your peril.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …which is intended to illustrate rather than just to inform.

    It is on that level that it must be vigorously challenged; there is no justification – drawn from his own essay – to lump The Newt with the other [faulty] active candidates.

  • Dave_A

    ‘City of London’ is just another snide evolution of ‘banksters’ and other anti-finance populist garbage…

    Silly Paulbot, go back to dailypaul.com

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    redux

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the experience of his history and the legislative process informs that side deals will be done on many occasions; whether via devices of earmarks, agreements for later legislation…the possibilities are endless. But to think one can legislate away side deals is akin to those that abridge the First Amendment with campaign finance reform to “get the money out of politics.” naive

    And so much of the vague language around here about “pork” as bad per se and even unconstitutional is quite lame. Interstate highways and many other improvements are clearly constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, Post rods and national defense.

    The discussion is too often quite shallow.

  • nomaster

    Least of all we do not need to elect a want to be theocrat and have him debase our constitution. He wants to increase intrusive government in order to control your morals and what you wish to believe while imposing his. We do not need an American Ayatollah.
    As far as the parties they have are different only in the labels they bear and the liberals and conservatives detest and love government at the same time with different goals all leading to a police state.
    When do we learn? Obama and GW are one and the same of the other. They both sought more power for the executive and the federal government. When do we learn not to trade our constitutional freedoms for the false security of more government power that we have so carelessly been buying through gimmicks like the Patriot Act. Fear not terrorism or the remedy may be worse than the cure. We don’t need an American Taliban. Living has a risk lets be proud to be free. The New World Order may not be the shining beakon to entrall yourself upon. The first and the second amendments are our gold so don’t barter it away for the comfort of false security under someone’s seeing eye.

  • nomaster

    Least of all we do not need to elect a want to be theocrat and have him debase our constitution. He wants to increase intrusive government in order to control your morals and what you wish to believe while imposing his. We do not need an American Ayatollah.
    As far as the parties they have are different only in the labels they bear and the liberals and conservatives detest and love government at the same time with different goals all leading to a police state.
    When do we learn? Obama and GW are one and the same of the other. They both sought more power for the executive and the federal government. When do we learn not to trade our constitutional freedoms for the false security of more government power that we have so carelessly been buying through gimmicks like the Patriot Act. Fear not terrorism or the remedy may be worse than the cure. We don’t need an American Taliban. Living has a risk lets be proud to be free. The New World Order may not be the shining beakon to entrall yourself upon. The first and the second amendments are our gold so don’t barter it away for the comfort of false security under someone’s seeing eye.

  • texace

    It’s time to acknowledge, despite what Talk Radio exaggerates, we are not a very conservative nation. Everyone has their hands out wanting something material from the national government and if, as someone aptly put it, St. Santorum has his way we’ll get morals from the feds too. If we truly demanded common sense conservatism from our political leaders, we would not be having to choose from the four horsemen of doom we’re currently faced with. At this point, the best we could probably wish for would be the most conservative northerner at the top of the ticket with a solid conservative southerner for VP. I doubt Santorum or Newt fill either criteria.

  • lapert

    Percent of GDP is not the same as spending. Spending actually increased, when he passed the budgets each year with increased spending he didn’t know what GDP would be and even if he did, while GDP may be a meaningful way to look at affordability of government spending it doesn’t justify it. Why does the fact that our GDP was growing necessitate increased government spending?

    The absolute size of government increased, spending was not reduced in any of the years he was speaker and government spending in the last budget he passed was the highest it had ever been at that point in time.

  • lapert

    I don’t have much hope that any of the current Presidential candidates are capable of addressing thee challenges in any meaningful way. But, being forced to decide I think Romney is the best of the bunch. I think he is the only one who can take a pragmatic approach to policy development that will allow him to get any movement towards actual solutions. Gingrich’s personality and temperament do not serve him well in position of leadership where it is anything less than absolute – and our presidency is nowhere near absolute. Santorum’s priorities would be a distraction from the actual challenges and he would invest too much capital in those priorities to actually accomplish much of anything. Paul is a nut and Obama may occasionally be able to navigate the political process to get something done but it will inevitably be the very wrong thing.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I said that Israel has reason to fear. But not the United States. That is just a statement of opinion. But a pretty solid opinion. There is not much our enemies can do to us short of nuclear weapons.

    Our armed forces are bigger and a magnitude better than the nest three or four nations put together, and some of those are our allies.

    I find the war hawks to be the ones who are delusional. It always seems that having overwhelming force is never enough. MORE SPENDING! It is always better isn’t it?

    By the way since the US and Israel for that matter, really must fear a nuclear strike more than anything else then why do we need such a huge amount of conventional forces?

  • demsaresatanic

    Great analysis.

  • demsaresatanic

    you listen to socialist rats like Krugman. Dear Krugman considers Romney a closet Keynesian, and Krugman knows his Keynesians.

    Per Krugman; “the many people on the right who don?t trust Mr. Romney, who don?t believe that he?s truly committed to their political faith, are correct in their suspicions. He?s playing a role, and it?s anyone?s guess what lies beneath the mask.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/krugman-romneys-economic-closet.html?_r=2

  • lapert

    I don’t know about you but I don’t look to Mr. Krugman to generate my view of other people – even when it might fit what you want to be true

  • demsaresatanic

    The point of my post is that a Keynesian economist considers Romney to be a fellow Keynesian, not whether or not you look to Krugman for guidance.

  • texasref

    As usual, our instincts are dissimilar, Dave.

    We’ll get you on board with Newt yet!

  • lapert

    I didn’t miss anything. Krugman projected his views on Romney and you agree with Krugman. Me, I don’t give Krugman’s opinion much weight on anything and certainly would not use him as an authority on divining Keynesian views out of politicians.

  • demsaresatanic

    economics than Krugman, why should you give his opinion much weight.

  • lapert

    I do not know as much about Keynesian economics as Krugman – though where he exceed me will be at the levels of detail that are far beyond unnecessary for the argument here. I know it to the same level as anyone else who did their advanced degree focused in microeconomics – that is enough to know it is a poor match for reality.

    We aren’t talking about the minutia of say multipliers on dividend tax rate cuts versus capital gains rates. The ability to have an informed opinion on how Romney will approach spending and fiscal decisions generally doesn’t require that type of expertise.

  • Dave_A

    WA’s caucus will be 3/Mar.

    They cancelled the primary and went caucus this year to save money.

    I don’t get back to the States until a few days after that, and there’s no vote-by-mail with a caucus, like there would be for a primary…

  • Dave_A

    That has nothing to do with the Department of Education.

    State & local government – not the feds – sets school curriculum.

    The fault for ‘indoctrination’ lies primarily with liberal university teaching programs (last I checked there’s no federal influence there), and the choices of individual states & local school boards…

    The DoEd isn’t the one responsible for the insanity.

  • Dave_A

    You really, really don’t understand what you’re talking about.

    The current conflict isn’t WWI or WWII – we’re not at war with a people or a nation, but rather with an organization.

    We have Muslims on OUR side too, as critical allies. We can’t win the war in Afghanistan without the ANA/AUP/etc (who are often just as conservative/observant Muslims as the Taliban – they just don’t want the Taliban running the country – I could care less what they worship, so long as they aim their fire in the proper direction)… Similarly, we could never have stabilized Iraq without the local tribal militias (all Muslim) formed to resist Al Queda’s occupation (And yes, AQ essentially sent an occupying army to Iraq – complete with ‘government ministers’ for the Emirate they intended to create if they won).

    Bush didn’t coddle anyone – he just understood who the enemy was, and wasn’t – and that who they pray to was not the defining factor…

  • demsaresatanic

    the flaws in Krugman’s reasoning because such minutia is unimportant, not because you don’t understand Krugman’s point. But just for fun, why don’t you argue the specifics of Krugman’s statements instead of evading them? That should be easy enough for someone with an advanced degree.

  • lapert

    I guess you missed mine. You don’t need to get into the minutia or have a deep understanding of macroeconomics to disagree with this very journalistic piece. But, if I need to humor you.

    Okay, well his point is that Romney is a Keynesian because he isn’t stupid – so let’s start by asserting that his assumption that smart people are Keynesians is at best unproven. Or he is a Keynesian because he has two economics advisers who aren’t outside of the mainstream of their field academically despite loyal service to Republican administrations in the past where their policies did not neatly fit Keynesian academic theory. Or he is Keynesian because
    of an imprecise answer he gave about reducing spending’s near term impact on the economy that would be true in nearly every macroeconomic model out there.

    Or his basic point that Romney is insincere and not to be trusted by either side. Well, speaking as an expert in macroeconomic I’m sure Krugman has a lot of authority on judging the relative sincerity of politicians but forgive me if I replace my own judgment for his here.

  • demsaresatanic

    “Speaking in Michigan, Mr. Romney was asked about deficit reduction, and he absent-mindedly said something completely reasonable: ?If you just cut, if all you?re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you?ll slow down the economy.? A-ha. So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal.”

    Accident, no doubt, not evasion.

  • lapert

    Last sentence in my second paragraph.

  • demsaresatanic

    It was only an “imprecise answer.” Romney buys into the Keynesian idea that deficit spending is good, not bad. That is the thrust of Krugman’s argument, and as I said, Krugman knows his Keynesians.

  • lapert

    Romney’s economic proposals don’t reflect a Keynesian approach to fiscal policy. It may be the case that in his heart of hearts he is a Keynesian but there is no evidence here to suggest that he would govern that way.

    The thrust of Krugman’s argument is that Romney says what he thinks others want to hear and Krugman wants to believe that this statement is an insight into his true beliefs while all the ones that wouldn’t fit a Keynesian approach are him being insincere. Your welcome to agree with him, but don’t think it comes from some great authority on peering into the ‘true’ beliefs of insincere politicians.

  • Patrish

    lapert is the one with the advanced degree in economics — not you. How has your Social Work degree prepared you to comment so haughtily?

  • Scope

    that they have an advanced degree in economics automatically qualifies them as a credible and valid poster? Do you have any proof whatsoever that leper is telling the truth? Surely you jest. Hey, I am a brain surgeon, and I also have an advanced degree in environmentalism. Does that claim make my posts more valid than leper’s? Do you know if I have those degrees or not? Good Lord, get a grip.

  • Patrish

    are a brain surgeon or environmentalist. I sincerely doubt you have much of an advanced training or education with the attitude you display on a daily basis. Your attitude problem would have nixed you the first semester, no doubt!

  • lapert

    Arguments from authority are at all time fallacious. I wouldn’t use my education as justification of my beliefs just as I won’t take Paul Krugman’s as support for his opinion – particularly when the opinion isn’t about the science of macroeconomics but the psychology of evaluating the true beliefs of politicians.

  • Scope

    I really could care less if you believe me or not. If you didn’t pick up the fact that my claims were snark, and that you just automatically believe that a blog poster is always telling the truth, you have no intelligent argument to make against me, or anyone else posting on this thread. I could argue that anyone with the attitude of leper, who always resorts to comments such as, you don’t have a clue, you are a fool, and you don’t know what you are talking about, by your logic, would not even gain admittance into an institution of higher learning. I had no idea that a person’s attitude was a requirement for admittance to secondary education, or to remain in that institution.

  • demsaresatanic

    “I know it to the same level as anyone else who did their advanced degree focused in microeconomics” to “I wouldn?t use my education as justification of my beliefs.”

  • lapert

    Uh, I was pretty explicit that my education, or any detailed knowledge of macroeconomics, wasn’t needed to evaluate Krugman’s piece here – it has nothing to do with economics as science.

    But I bet getting context isn’t really your thing.

  • demsaresatanic

    in missing the point as well?

  • lapert

    Would seem like an easy way to get a PhD. Than you could go by Dr. Satanic.

  • aesthete

    for a group of individuals with a very disparate set of opinions about the economy and how it functions. Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman are both Keynesians (as are most — though not all — professional macroeconomists), and are bitterly split when it comes to most economic policy. I know that, depending on where you sit ideologically, Keynesianism has become a label to disparage/praise the left (even among hacks who should know better, like Krugman), but in reality Keynesianism is a view which a) is rather similar to the classical view outside of depressions and recessions, b) recommends additional spending only as a counter-cyclical measure, and which c) does not, in and of itself, recommend anything beyond counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy in the event of recession.

    In a very real sense, everyone outside of the ideological neo-Classicals like Lucas and co, or the Austrians (won’t go there) is a Keynesian, in that they recognize that policymakers could, in theory, wrangle up effective counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy to combat a recession. In practice, many Keynesians tend to favor either limited or no counter-cyclical policies, or to critique the ones forwarded by the given administration reflexively, due to public choice limitations, information assymetries, and the structural limitations of government.