It appears the long-suspected theory many of us have held is correct . . . that it is no mere coincidence with the similarities of these two dreaded objects of doom. With the “breaking-but-not-yet-broken” “story” (yes, that’s a lot of air-quotes . . . for good reason) of Marianne Gingrich’s career-ending interview regarding her ex-husband, our worst fears have been confirmed.  To our great surprise, we have emerged from hyperspace to encounter a fully-armed and operational battlestation!

Preface 1 – This was originally derived from my comment number four-hundred-and-something under Erick’s post regarding Rick Perry as Kingmaker. It was getting long for a comment so I turned it into a diary entry.

Preface 2 – This is authored by someone who has been and continues to be a public and enthusiastic  Rick Perry supporter, someone who is not vehemently opposed to Romney as the nominee, and someone who has not necessarily been kind to Gingrich in his commentary.

Enough referring to myself in third person.  To the point:

Although rotund, Newt is not Alderran. . . but he’s sure being treated like it.

A great debate performance, probably THE debate performance, from a “non-Romney,” coupled with poll numbers that seem to indicate that said “non-Romney” could actually provide a bump on the road to inevitable nominee-ness, and all of a sudden, this happens.

We learn, in time to have a negative effect on the election but probably not enough time to recover, that (partly based on a story from last year), Speaker Gingrich’s ex-wife Marianne could “end his career with a single interview.” And, after leaking the existence of this interview to, um, fellow media outlets, the Imperial Propaganda Ministry ABC News Execs (that’s where Georgie Stephanopolos works, right?) are now debating if it would be “ethical” to release the interview before the Palmetto state primaries.

PLEASE.

1. If Marianne Gringrich hated her ex-husband enough to “end his career with a single interview,” and had more to divulge than she already has, don’t we think she would have done it before now? Newt didn’t exactly emerge from obscurity or a self-imposed exile to make a run at the White House. He’s been at the forefront of political commentary and an influencing force on public policy (Drill here, drill now) for years since leaving elected office. So if what Mrs. Gingrich had to say was SO damning and she was SO bent on “ending his career,” don’t we think that this would have happened before now? (End it here, end it now).  Maybe she should have started a Super PAC. 

2. What does the establishment, the Status-quos, the Democrats, and the PR Firm of the Democrat party The Media not want? They do not want a conservative nominee, because a conservative nominee would win, and be, probably **conservative**.  Given the current field of prospects, it’s no great secret their favorite would be Romney, and Romney is who the administration most wants to run against (Pon Laul does not count). So it seems a bit consequential that all of a sudden when a “non-Romney” that might actually hold some core conservative convictions starts to get a little tailwind . . . WELL, we have a blockbuster, career-ending, deal-breaking story here.  But . . . (leading to point #3)

3. ABC does more damage to the Gingrich campaign by noting the story exists, but NOT releasing the interview, than it does by actually releasing it. Why? My guess is, much like with most any movie featuring Ashton Kutcher, the trailer for the interview (a.k.a. ‘leak’) is much more sensational than the interview itself (for the record, I did really like That 70′s Show). If they really fear Gingrich as a conservative and had a blockbuster interview that could bury his big mouth forever, does anyone really believe they’d take the “ethics” of the thing into account. Heck, actually, I think it would be far less ethical to hold a story that could effect an election versus actually running with it and letting the people decide.  Isn’t that what the media is for . . . to report, and then we decide?  It would seem that they think they should be in charge of deciding when we get to decide.  Not sure I read that in the 1st Amendment, unless maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg has “discovered it” as a right (oh those, tricky, tricky, Founding Fathers, hiding all those rights like that!).

ANYWAY, all of this tells me that the interview itself is not that damning or even forthcoming with new information.  But the suspense of what the interview might contain is. Remember, these folks understand and have worked hard to condition the public that it is not the nature of the evidence but rather the “seriousness of the charge” upon which we must all be judged (unless you’re elected with a -D by your name . . . see Eliot Spitzer, William Jefferson, William Jefferson Clinton, etc.).

As a conservative who would rather see a non-Romney as the nominee, my plea is this:  Release the d*mn interview. If it’s that bad, then we shouldn’t support Newt. If it’s not, as I suspect, then this is one of the most blatant instances of media-based election engineering that I have ever seen.

But the Death Star didn’t exactly go to any great lengths to disguise its purpose, either.  I mean, the thing was called the DEATH Star.  Of course it was a trap.

Many items have been pointed to as “The Most Important Issue(s)” in the 2012 race for president.

1. Repealing Obamacare
2. Closing the deficit
3. Border Security/Illegal Immigration
4. Jobs/Cutting Government Interference in the Private Sector
5. Reforming the Tax Code
6. National Security and a sound Mid East Policy
7. A sustainable domestic energy policy

Everything on this list, including a few others, are important in 2012.  Ann Coulter writes that THE most important issues are the repeal of the Healthcare mandate and solving the illegal immigration problem.  Surprising conservatives, Coulter has endorsed Mitt Romney as “the only choice left standing” in the Republican field when these issues are in consideration.  Many of us find this odd, in that Governor Romney has virtually no experience dealing with illegal immigration, and then has that whole “Massachusetts was the model for National Healthcare” thing to deal with.  I will concede that I take Romney at his word when he says that he’d see Obamacare repealed – that is was an experiment supported by the people of Massachusetts and not something to be force-fed to the nation as a whole.

Which brings me to the point of this post.  I do not believe that there has been an election since 1980 when ideology should be the predominant issue.  The seven issues I listed above, Coulter’s “2 most important issues,” and others are merely symptoms to be dealt with in one way or another.  The way we deal with providing solutions for these issues is what’s important.  Yes, the treatment matters. With the proper implementation of the Executive’s powers, the other issues will eventually be dealt with in a manner that is beneficial to the nation and in adherence with the Constitution (these two are really one in the same).

This is why I make the claim that the number one, most important issue for 2012 is the preservation of Federalism.  And by consequence, electing a president that both understands the importance of Federalism, and is committed to governing accordingly.  With that in mind, let’s take a look at where it appears the major candidates stand on this principle.  For the purposes of snapshot, I have ranked each candidate on a scale of 1-to-5 in the areas of understanding of and commitment to the principles of Federalism (1 being lowest, 5 being highest).

Mitt Romney

Understanding of Federalism:  3

Commitment to Federalism: 2

In this area, Romney’s biggest strength is his biggest weakness.  As governor and as a businessman, Romney has demonstrated a great capability to “get things done.”  It would be hard pressed to make the argument that Romney is not and would not be an effective executive.  He is the only candidate that has a proven track record of this in both the public and private sectors.  However, as is often the case with Executive-types, their “eye-on-the-prize” approach doesn’t necessarily translate well to government, particularly at the Federal level.  Romney is of the ilk that wants to see results – if there’s a problem, let’s find a solution and fix it.  This isn’t a bad approach in 90% of the areas of life and trade – in fact its downright admirable when balanced with a strong sense of fairness and ethics, which I believe Governor Romney has demonstrated he possesses.  However, Federal government is a different animal.  There are a multitude of issues into which the Federal government could (and has) intervened on the basis of “fixing a problem,” but quite frankly has no Constitutional authority to do, and has no business in doing.  Probably the most blatant example of this (since Healthcare hasn’t really taken effect yet) is in our education system.  I believe that Romney’s drive to take charge and solve problems over-shadows any understanding he may have of why the federal system was established.  At worst he may view it as an anachronism not applicable to 21st century America, and at best his executive pragmatism would get the better of him causing action where no (federal) action should be taking place (see ‘I compromised by free market principles to save the free market . . .”).

Newt Gingrich

Understanding of Federalism:  5

Commitment to Federalism: 1

I have spoken highly of Speaker Gingrich in the past, and continue to hold him up as a conservative icon and hero.  However, I think Newt is better suited to leading the movement from the outside rather than within.  He needs to be the idea guy, and others need to decide which ideas are best to implement.

I cannot believe that Gingrich doesn’t have a high-to-very-high understanding of Federalism, and why they system is the way it is.  He’s a history professor, a historian, a Constitutional Scholar, and a damn-smart guy.  My fear is that, even if it is subconsciously, Gingrich does feel that Federal system actually is and 18th century anachronism – it served its purpose, but now we’re too complex to be governed under such a system anymore.  I believe that Gingrich would use Federalism in defense of non-action when it would his administration’s agenda, and conveniently ignore it when implementing Federal solutions to issues that should be dealt with on the local level.  Most every modern president has done this to one degree or another, so this isn’t to suggest any malicious intent, but merely to point out that when Gingrich believes the Federal government could tackle an issue on national level, Federalist principles would not be stumbling block to implementation.

Ron Paul

Understanding of Federalism:  3

Commitment to Federalism: 5

One could make the argument that Rep. Paul is the most Federalist candidate in the field.  And I wouldn’t necessarily disagree.  I believe Paul to be firmly committed to the Federalist system, but his faults lie in apparent understanding of the system at the top layer (as opposed to the rest of the field, who lack understanding in regard to state and local levels).  There are reasons the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, and there is a proper – in some cases prominent – role for the Federal government and in particular the executive branch.  Paul’s viewpoints on foreign policy are completely inconsistent with the proper implementation of one if not the most important function of the executive – national defense.  Among the clearly enumerated powers of the executive are as Commander-in-Chief of the military.  It is the president’s job to be the front man in foreign policy – of defensive and diplomatic natures – that acts in the best interest of the United States.  The “neo-conservative” view of “preemption” has fallen out of favor now.  However, I would argue that nowhere in the Constitution is a military policy of preemption either promoted or prohibited.  Thus, in a president’s role to “provide for the common defense,” if preemption and international military presence is necessary, then so be it and that’s perfectly Constitutionally correct.  Our history is riddled with instances of preemption – 1812 and the Barbary Wars were both essentially preemptive strikes (yes, in both instances actions were taken against the United States, but were these actions any greater than what a Hussein regime was doing throughout the 1990′s, or what Iran is doing today?).  The opening of the Japanese market by the U.S. Navy is another example.  These instances occurred in times where the executive branch exerted far less power than it does today.

In summation, by fear is that Ron Paul doesn’t understand the proper application of what the executive should be doing, rather than what the executive shouldn’t be doing.

Rick Perry

Understanding of Federalism:  4

Commitment to Federalism: 4

Of the candidates profiled in this post, I believe that Governor Perry scores highest in the Federalism test.  He hails from the heart of States-rights country.  Perry has often spoken out vocally about the need to reassert the 10th amendment into decisions of national policy.  Unlike Paul, I don’t believe Perry would see an issue with plainly and decisively executing Commander-in-Chief duties as necessary.  Unlike Gingrich and Romney, I believe that a Perry administration would ask itself before trodding into an issue if “this is an issue in which the federal government should be involved, or not.”  Perry’s recent declaration on stage that (paraphrasing) elected officials should read the Constitution as-is, and not to try to read more into it than what’s there, is refreshing.  Something that particularly struck a chord with me was his mention specifically of the federal government using “clauses” to stick its nose where it would otherwise be prohibited.  However often as the Commerce Clause been sited as a the jurisdiction that allows some new government program to be created, or new regulations to be enacted?  From what I’ve read, heard, and witnessed, Governor Perry seems to understand better than most that there are limits to what the Federal government should try and do regardless of intent, and that these limits are still applicable today.

You will be able to tell from my previous posts and comments here that I am a Rick Perry supporter – I make no secret of this.  This post, hopefully, illustrates a major reason why I support Governor Perry for the Republican nomination. It is not meant to be a hit piece on other candidates, but rather a comparison on a candidate-by-candidate basis of what I consider to be the defining issue of the race.

Earlier in the year I wrote a few sporadic diary entries and commentaries to frontpage posts describing why I thought Rick Perry would be nominee, and more pointedly, why Mitt Romney was not the actual frontrunner.  I’ll admit that my beliefs waivered in recent weeks (not because of debate performances but rather because of ‘surges’ by other candidates, none of whom were Romney).  However, as I write this on the 19th of December, I will again re-state by belief that Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee for President, and review the reasons that I continue to believe such.

1. Perry’s biggest problem, it seems, is that he didn’t debate very well.  Compared to the foibles of the other candidates, that’s not all that bad.  Being knocked out of the limelight gave room for a linear rise-and-fall of others whose policies, personalities, and practices have been reviewed by the GOP primary electorate. First, Herman Cain . . . no need to get into what happened here.  Second, the Rise of The Speaker.  Regarding Newt, who I readily admit I could vote for in either the primary or the general, I never bought the hype that since all of his personal transgressions had already been “out there,” they wouldn’t be a big deal in the campaign. This never made any sense to me, as baggage is baggage (unless you’re a Kennedy). Couple this with Newt’s frequent quasi-proto-extra-non-conservative “stances” that he oft rattles off-the-cuff, and I just don’t think he can pull it off with the base.  Take for instance his most recent sensationalism of stating that he would basically not respect the judiciary and would, apparently, treat it as a less-than-co-equal branch of government.  Yes, that’s quite Jacksonian and populist in spirit, but how in the world can those utterings be  reconciled with the Conservative-Constitutional-Original Intent notions of rule of law and checks and balances?  Answer – it can’t.  What Gingrich described is the same thing that has conservatives up in arms about the Obama administration’s overt decision to not defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which is the law of the land), as well as several-administrations’ unwillingness to enforce national immigration laws. In truth, its doubtful Mr. Speaker would ever even attempt to treat the judiciary as he said.  But he did say them.

Romney’s foibles seem to be different as compared to Newt, at least ostensibly.  Governor Romney does not now and probably won’t have any hint of scandal about him.  By all accounts, the family life is as stable as Gingrich’s is volatile.  Politically, the worst anyone has yet come up with yet is a braggadocios photo of a young Romney and business partners celebrating a big business deal with “cash money” poking out of their pockets.  (Side note – I was amused to hear Mike Huckabee mention in his daily radio address that if only Obama had been old enough at the time, he’d be in the photo too – scooping up all the money that the Wall Streeters were dropping : )      I’d be interested to see if there are any compromising photos of a young Barrack Obama participating in any activities which might make others cringe.

Governor Romney’s biggest albatross, as we’ve always known, is his suspicion among the Republican base that he’s not really all that into conservative principles.  My take is that its not so much that conservatives believe Romney has a problem with conservative principles (I don’t believe he does), but rather he’s not ideologically committed one way or another.  Should a “big government” solution be deemed the answer then fine and dandy.  In this aspect, voters are re-discovering in Newt something that they’ve always suspected in Romney – namely that conservative constitutionalism is a mildly preferred but not-necessarily-required prescription for what ails America.

2. Perry stands alone as a smaller-government politician with the necessary experience.  Take a look at the candidates’ philosophies based on their histories (or lack thereof).  I’ve heard several conservative commentators mention (as well as some writers at RedState), how conservatives want less government, but all that the candidates are proposing are government-sponsored solutions.  This is true of Mr. Gingrich, and Governor Romney.  Even Rick Santorum, who’s social and national security conservative credentials are strong, has a problem with the “government is the answer” issue.  Senator Santorum, for better of worse, was a vocal proponent of earmarks, and was part of the Hastert-Frist “drunken sailor” Republican Congress of the 2000′s.  Michelle Bachman can claim conservative bona fides all the way ’round, but I think her general lack of executive experience will be too big of a hill to overcome.  Voters were willing to give an obviously flawed Gingrich a second look based on discontent with Romney and fond memories of the Revolution of ’94, but that second look also included a look at policies beyond the debates, which I think has really hurt Newt.  Overall, Perry took a small-government approach to governing a big state, and it was generally successful for him.  This is not to say that Perry shrank the size of Texas government – he didn’t.  But there’s little doubt that a Texas government under an establishment Republican or a Democrat would have been more muscular and overbearing as compared to what they got with Perry at the helm.

3. Endorsements don’t matter.  Sure, they’re nice to have, but kind of like the same way seat warmers in a car are nice to have.  They’re great for the first few moments, but after you’ve sat there a while they really don’t matter that much.  I thought about this last week when Nikki Haley shocked the tea party world by endorsing Romney over Gingrich, Perry, or Bachman.  How many us really believe that committed Tea Partiers that worked to get politicians like Nikki Haley elected will go all-in for Romney in the primary?

4. The Iowa process.  Let’s not forget its a caucus not a primary.  Those round caucus votes going to Bachman will likely go to Perry in later rounds, same with Gingrich would be my guess.  I don’t see Gingrich and Bachman voters jumping ship in large numbers to Romney or Ron Paul.  I think Perry will be likely beneficiary of the system here.  And that brings momentum and cash coming in South Carolina and Florida.

So there you have it – why I believe Governor Perry will likely win Iowa, South Carolina, and be on the way to being the eventual nominee.  I don’t think the road will be as clear for Perry as it was for McCain in 2008, particularly because I think Romney will win New Hampshire, and Florida will prove to be close.  However, I do think Iowa/SC will start the ball rolling toward Governor Perry being Nominee Perry, and ultimately President Perry.

Generally speaking, there are two rules that apply to liberal propaganda passed off as  “intellectual discussion.”  The first is that although 70 – 80% of what is said can be easily debunked, the remainder 20 – 30% usually consists of a populist-tinged argument which typically requires a little more work for us to refute.  The second, that liberal arguments are always disguised as something else – they can’t really say what they mean.

Well lo and behold if we don’t find a well-thought-out, relatively well-written article arguing a liberal position that actually flat out SAYS what they all MEAN, and that can be, hands down, refuted point-for-point, fact-for-fact, darn near line-for-line.

This is exactly what we have from Washington Post columnist and American Prospect editor-at-large Harold Meyerson.  Did the Founding Fathers Screw Up? (even the title is a bold departure from the norm) is a substantial article published at prospect.org on September 26th which goes to great length to argue how the system of federalism (although Meyerson calls it a ‘presidential’ system – more on that later) set up by our Framers has sown the inevitable seeds of our what is now widely recognized by other progressives as our slow but defined decline.

My advance apologies to the reader as this diary post will be quite long.  In fact, I’ve decided to break it into a Part 1 (published now), and a Part 2 (published in a day or so).  I was reading the this article on my (waiting for endorsement deal with manufacturer so can insert brand name here) smartphone and thought that the best way to respond to this article would be to repost it section-by-section and respond accordingly.  Just to give a brief summary, the article argues that our federal (presidential) system is inferior to the parliamentary system utilized in most other democracies.  The bigotry, aristocratic nature, and unfounded paranoia of our Framers led them to create a system of government which inherently lends itself to the worst kind of bipartisan bickering and gridlock that makes the government unable to respond effectively to every want and need of the proletariat.  (OK, I embellished the last seven words of that summary.)  Below, indented in festive italics is posted exact cut-and-pasted segments of the article, with the refutation of each segment underneath in standard-formatted text.  Any students of Constitutional development and founding Father philosophy should enjoy this, even given the considerable length.

ARTICLE & REFUTATION BEGIN HERE, PART 1:

Did the Founding Fathers Screw Up?

Gridlock in Washington is no accident. It’s built into the Constitution.

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation,” Franklin Roosevelt declared as he campaigned for the presidency in the spring of 1932. “It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

Most of the experiments Roosevelt tried to rebuild the economy once he took office encountered fierce opposition. But his closing admonition—try something—transcends our political particularities. It’s an affirmation of a specifically American common sense, a statement of our national inclination to action, an affirmation of the pragmatism that remains the country’s signal contribution to philosophy. In times of trouble, try something. Who could be against that?

Interesting.  In terms of government, something – anything – is better than nothing.  So says Godfather of Big Government F.D. Roosevelt.  Wait . . . I don’t think Mr. Roosevelt was around during the founding, or wrote any of the founding documents.  Who did . . . who did . . . ?  Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson would be one.  A BIG one.  And Mr. Jefferson famously noted that, “The Government is best which governs least.”  So my questfutation (my term for making a refutation with a question [copyright pending]) would be – Which statement is really consistent with the American character, and which is the deviation?  For my money, I’ll go with Mr. Jefferson and most of the other classical liberal thinkers of the past 300 years.  (Attention modern liberals – hold your ‘BUT HE OWNED SLAVES’ and other ‘race card’ comments for now.  You’ll have a more appropriate time to use them later).

Yet, three years into the worst recession since Roosevelt’s time, a countercurrent, every bit as American as our bias for action, has swept over us. Twenty-five million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed, and the average duration of joblessness stands at record highs. Consumers are too deep in debt to consume; our producers produce and our investors invest abroad. To remedy all this, the federal government today tries … nothing.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaactually, the federal government has tried Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, Mark-to-Market, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, QE1, QE2 (stay tuned for QE3!), TARP bailouts, ARRA “Stimulus” (stay tuned for StimII), Nationalized Healthcare, and Union-owned automotive manufactures (GM Unions – congratulations on approving your new contracts written by your union bosses!).  That’s actually a lot the federal government has tried.  Plus a four-trillion deficit to boot!  And thank goodness because . . . wait . . . oh yeah.

Washington has ground to a halt, paralyzed by a political division deeper than any we have seen since the days when Abraham Lincoln warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand. “Nothing” also isn’t doing much to commend the American way to other countries. Much of the developing world now sees China and its model of capitalist authoritarianism as more efficient than the creaky workings of democracy. Nations still marvel at the United States, but today, it’s our gridlock that draws the world’s wonder.

Interesting that even when we “grind to a halt,” which is really code for “since Republicans won the 2010 elections, we’re still able to pass debt-ceiling hikes, FAA/FEMA funding, and a host of other measures to keep the Leviathan fat and happy. Certainly all of those things are just as important as, oh, I don’t know, and argument that encompasses issues of America-past like human slavery (continue to hold race-card emails . . .), states rights, and competing economic systems.  And China – yes, evidence that the world is now looking to “capitalist authoritarianism” is obvious given the huge problem they are having with illegal immigration.  Wait, what?  People aren’t climbing over the Great Wall?  Particularly not pregnant mothers who may give birth to females?  Interesting.

It shouldn’t. The current impasse between the Republican House and the Democratic president and Senate has only highlighted what is a chronic—indeed, constitutional—condition: Just as the American people have a bias for action, the American government has a bias for stasis. Governmental gridlock is as American as apple pie.

Yes, Mr. Meyerson, I will agree with you that the American people do have a bias for action.  The American people have a bias for action from entrepreneurs, innovators, and inventors.  This bias doesn’t extend to government intervention.  In fact, if I remember my history correct, we dumped some Tea and protested a few other things that were a direct response to government action.  Americans celebrate a lot of our qualities, but I’ve never seen a statue erected or painting dedicated to the “Spirit of Bureaucracy.”  Remember the most feared words in the English language?

Those who defend our system concede—indeed, exult—that it places roadblocks in the path of major policy shifts. When the nation faces a genuine crisis, they argue, our government invariably rises to the occasion, as it did in Roosevelt’s time. Unfortunately, that’s a selective reading of our history. One hundred and fifty years ago, our government was not up to the task of holding the union together. Today, as the Great Recession grinds on, the different branches of government cannot agree on a course of action.

So the examples given here of America not “rising to the occasion” are the Civil War, and our current recession.  Just so my liberal friends are clear, “recession” and “succession” are not things that are similar, even though they do rhyme.  Mr. Meyerson offers the concession (also something that rhymes but isn’t similar) that America came together during the Great Depression to “do something.”  The same is true during both World Wars, many other financial crises, conflicts, civil liberties and civil rights (keep holding race cards. . .).  And as previously stated, the government has bi-partisanly done PLENTY to both cause and try to alleviate this current recession.  That leaves the great failing of the American federal system to “rise to the occasion” being the Civil War, which is just preposterous.  The underlying assumption here is that a compromise  could have been crafted by all political concerns which would have saved the Union without going to war.  Too bad both sides couldn’t reach a compromise that would have done this.  Yes, certainly a compromise, were it not for our crippled political system, could have saved the union, and averted war (and perpetuated slavery).

The root cause of all this inactivity is our peculiar form of democracy. While most democracies are governed by parliamentary systems, our Founders opted for a presidential system, which they consciously booby-trapped with multiple veto points to impede decisive legislative action and sweeping social change.

In America, for instance, presidents take office, but they don’t form a government, as prime ministers do in virtually every other democracy. Presidents can form no more than an executive branch. They appoint cabinet members, sub-cabinet officials, military commanders, ambassadors, and the heads of regulatory agencies. They don’t appoint congressional leaders; often as not, their party may not control either or both houses of Congress. Indeed, the White House, the Senate, and the House have been controlled by the same party during just 8 of the past 30 years. Even when the same party holds Congress and the presidency, the system still fragments power.

Here Mr. Meyerson, and please correct me if I’m wrong, seems to be pining for power concentrated in the hands of one individual, or at least funneled into one, majority-winning party.  Don’t get me wrong, this is perfectly fine-and-dandy, if you don’t care about observing that whole “rule of law” thing.  I mean, Germany had a great democracy going in the 1920′s in which the leading party formed the government and basically controlled the government, and nothing terrible, horrible, holocausticist, or near-civilization-ending happened there, right?  Hyperbole aside, the system described here by Mr. Meyerson basically makes constitutional adherence obsolete.  With the kinds of parliamentary systems referenced, the law is, basically, whatever the ruling party decides to recognize.  Don’t get me wrong, this is GREAT when you’re on the side of ruling party.  Not-so-great otherwise.  (NOTE:  A plurality of Americans describe their political beliefs as ‘conservative’).

Presidents and congresses are elected not merely independently but at different times and by different electorates. After a midterm election in the United States, no members of the House and only one-third of the senators hold their seats by virtue of having won them in the same election that brought the president to power. The president and the Congress each have separate but equal claims to power and legitimacy. Thus a government divided between a president of one party and a Congress of another, political scientist Juan Linz observes, can reach an impasse for which “there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved.”

“. . . no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved.”  A true statement unless you count the guidelines established by that little thing we call THE CONSTITUTION.  I know, that whole “Rule of Law” thing again.

That’s all for Part 1 tonight. The conclusion and Part 2 to be published tomorrow.  Here’s a preview – It begins with an argument of how our “presidential” system is more prone to military coups than parliamentary ones.  Hopefully Oliver Cromwell’s ghost will answer my request to be a guest commentator.      

NOTE TO LIBERALS – Please continue to hold those slavery/race card emails.  I PROMISE you’ll have occasion to use them in Part 2.

I’m not watching the Republican debate tonight, mainly because I have no idea how you can hold a real debate among nine people.  When it gets down to two, then I’ll watch an actual debate.  There’s no need to watch another yet another crammed Q-&-A session billed as a “debate” just to heighten the drama (wait . . . who would have guessed FOX is involved in such a thing???).  I’m saying this just to disclaim that I’m sure this issue will be “debated” tonight, but I felt the need to put the facts out in regard to the Perry/In-state Tuition for Illegals issue.

As you’ll be able to tell from by sporadic but consistent posts and comments, I am supporting Gov. Rick Perry for the Republican nomination for President.  Many Tea Partiers and other conservatives were waiting for him to come out, and when he did, he was immediately the front runner, and remains so.

The arguments thrown against Perry basically fall into three categories:

1. He’s an opportunist.  He’s only running for president because he’s a politician that sees and opportunity.
2. He’s a RINO.  As governor, he dictated the Gardasil vaccination for teenage public school girls and he signed into law legislation that granted in-state college tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants.
3. He’s dumb.  He got lucky and inherited a prosperous Texas that is no reflection on his philosophy, leadership, or intellect.

I believe, by far, that #2 is potentially the most harmful to Perry, particularly the issue involving college tuition and children of illegal immigrants. First, let’s totally and obviously dispel numbers 1 and 3.

Rick Perry is an opportunist? 

Reasons for this claim:

• Perry was once a Democrat:  Any fellow Southerners over the age of 50 can remember a time when everybody was a Democrat.  Perry, in fact, switched parties earlier than most.  He was a Republican when “Reagan Democrats” were still the rage.

• Perry is a career politician:  Yes, Perry has held office for quite some time. He’s also a farmer, and former solider.  Not such a bad resume.

• Perry only got in the race because he perceived an opening:  DUH. In reference to the “dumb” claim discussed below, I would be worried about the governor if he jumped in the race WITHOUT a perceived opening.  However, I don’t believe this was the only reason he jumped in.  Examination of his activity in reference to the activities of the current regime can point to the fact that Governor Perry felt Washington was “Messin’ with Texas.”  And we all know you DON’T do that.

Rick Perry is Dumb?

Reasons for this claim:

• He got lucky.  He inherited a prosperous Texas and didn’t really have to do anything.  Problem with this argument is who he inherited it from.  WOW.  Amazing.  Ann Richards much have done such a great job that even almost two decades of Bush & Perry couldn’t mess it up.  Great job, Ann!
• He called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme.  What a doof!  A “Ponzi Scheme is an operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.”  Social Security, on the other hand, is an operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.  TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

Rick Perry is a RINO

Reasons for this claim:

• Perry issued an executive order requiring public school girls to get the HPV vaccine Gardasil.  This, quite frankly, is a non-starter for several reasons.  God love her, Michelle Bachmann’s faux pas aside, states have no Constitutional restrictions on public health requirements like vaccines for public school students (measles, mumps, rubella . . . anyone?).  For the Gardasil vaccine, there was a very liberal (that’s with a small ‘l’) opt-out, and we must remember it only applied to school children attending state-funded public schools.  Plus, Perry readily admitted that he handled the situation less than perfect.  Situation dead, done, over.
• Perry signed into law a bill granting the children of illegal immigrants the benefit of in-state tuition.  As The Great One noted, this is basically subsidizing the children of illegals. It smacks of political opportunism.  Problem is, what Perry did is being mis-characterized, misunderstood, and is, quite frankly, actually in line with Perry’s philosophy on Rule of Law and States Rights.

THE FACTS ABOUT THE IN-STATE TUITION ISSUE

Federal Statue, specifically the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as well as definitive (be it wrong or not) case law (Toll v. Moreno particularly) make it clear that in particular circumstances, established residents of states cannot be denied in-state tuition rates based on the citizenship status of their parents.  Let’s also consider that the Texas bill Governor signed was passed by two-thirds of the legislature (thus likely would have been overridden by a veto), and also stated that the person in question must have been applied for U.S. citizenship to be eligible.

Governor Perry, if nothing else, has staked his career on being a federalist (that’s with a small ‘l’ . . . don’t worry Whigs) and supporter of states rights.  His decision to sign the tuition bill in question wasn’t only correct, it was consistent with what had to be done under the law.

Illegal Immigrant Student Tuition-gate done, over, finished.

There are things we know – he founded the Internet, he saved NASA, and he’s been internationally recognized as for his efforts to promote “peace.”  Only now are we able to put all the pieces together to truly understand the crusade that is Senator/Vice President/SNL Host Albert Gore, Junior.

He is trying to save humanity from annihilation by an advanced race of extra terrestrials who are uber-concerned about our carbon footprint.

In a stunning and not-at-all-insane report from the Islamic Outreach Authority (formerly known as NASA . . . you know, those guys that used to do stuff like fly people to space before we decided it best to rely on our buddies the Russians), it was revealed that the likely and totally understandable outcome of our tailpipe fumes and air fresher sprays would be that aliens from an advanced civilization would detect it and, of course, blow us up.  I mean, when you think about it – I mean really THINK about it in a Nobel-prize kind of way – how could you reach any other rational conclusion?

Alien Kang – “Kodos, look over there, in that Quadrant . . . that blue planet there.  Yes, zoom in . . . there.  Flirking Shmit man, they’re using INCANDESCENT BULBS.  Doesn’t that filthy race know what kind of damage that does to their environment???”

Alien Kodos – “I’ll ready the Death Ray, sir.”

And don’t think they’ll hesitate.  We’re nowhere near as peaceful as Alderran, and you know what happened to those guys.

But Al Gore has KNOWN this.  Think about it – pioneering an advanced communications system like the World Wide Web, saving the Space Agency, and working toward peace.  He knows what’s coming, and he’s doing everything he can to save us.

This entry is a rebuttal to Erick’s post on 8/17 exploring the reasons he believes, given the Perry entry, and Mitt Romney remains the front runner and it remains his “race to lose.”  As I do with many of my posts – FULL DISCLOSURE – in 2008 I gave money to Mitt Romney’s campaign (he dropped out a week later).  I also donated earlier to Fred Thompson’s campaign (summarily dropped out a week later . . . I also considered donating to Obama hoping the trend would continue).  I do support and will donate to Rick Perry during the primary.  I will support and will donate to the Republican nominee (assuming nether don’t freeze and it is not John Huntsman) in the general election.  I believe Mitt Romney would be a decent president – definitely better than what we have now.  I don’t hold Romney’s “flip-flops” against him as much as others.  I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That out of the way, here’s my rebuttal and why I think Rick Perry is, indeed, the GOP front runner.

1. Building Expectations with Anticipation (apologies to Rev. Jackson)

I was about 99% certain that Gov. Perry was running the a couple of months ago when his campaign team came home to roost (apologies to Rev. Wright).  Realistically, I don’t think it was very believable that a viable presidential candidate’s senior staff would resign en masse because the candidate takes and ill-timed vacation.  Seasoned politicos have to deal with that kind of thing all the time.  The only thing that made sense was the team could latch on a familiar, more viable candidate – their former boss.

At that moment, I think it started becoming increasingly evident that Perry was going to announce, and the expectations started to build.  And I think those who gave it ample consideration came to the conclusion that he would be a serious candidate.  Surveying the landscape, everything was leaning toward urging Perry in:

1. Conservatives weren’t comfortable with Mitt Romney
2. Sarah was making too much money . . . she didn’t need to run
3. Perry had nowhere else to go in electoral politics other than the top job
4. There’s no reason to believe Chris Christie would run

So began the expectations, and this can be a real momentum builder.  There were a sizable number of Conservatives and more than a few Big Dog Republicans who were actively hoping Perry jumped in.  To have great expectations can carry one a long way.  Fred Thompson’s entire ’08 campaign was based on expectations.  So were Wesley Clark’s in 2004.  For the former, it just turned out he didn’t really want the job, and the latter just happened to be a terrible candidate.  I don’t believe either of these apply to the Texas governor.  Also consider that in being the “front runner” for so long, Romney can’t capitalize on excitement, momentum, or expectations at this point.  In fact, inflated expectations may actually hurt the former governor.

2. Neither Money nor Karl Rove are an issue

Rick Perry may get ahead of Mitt Romney in the polling, but he cannot knock Mitt Romney out. Romney has too much money and can add more at will. Perry is, in fact, going to have to do a serious job of raising money online from the grassroots and high dollar donors.

Given Gov. Perry’s financial donor base, I don’t see how anyone can say that Romney has a tremendous advantage.  Yes, Mitt has a huge and well-deserved personal fortune.  He can spend his own money and Perry can’t.  Yes, Mitt can raise tons of cash. But I can’t imagine the Koch brothers wouldn’t be full boat behind Perry, given the rest of the field. This offsets Romney’s ability to self-fund.  Then it comes down to fundraising and getting the checks.  I firmly believe that $10 checks and conservative netroots Paypal transfers will flow more frequently to Perry than Romney.

Regarding the Karl Rove factor, I think that his organization is also partially overcome by the Koch-bros.  I honestly don’t think that President and Bush and Governor have a problem with each other.  Obviously they have their differences and hail from starkly different backgrounds, but it seems both are plain-speaking mean-what-I-say-say-what-I-mean type guys.  Obviously their political teams DO have a problem with each other.  This isn’t uncommon within same-party political camps in administrations to have opposition and rivalry.  In the end, rarely does this translate to actively working against the other candidate in a way that fundamentally harms the primary winner in a general election.  Bush didn’t suffer from McCain’s body shots.  Reagan didn’t suffer from Bush’s body shots.  Obama didn’t suffer from Clinton’s.

The hostility is already there and Rove plays not just for keeps, but also to avoid his own marginalization should Perry be the nominee.

To me, this reasoning seems to support why Rove WOULDN’T go all-out to try and cause a Perry implosion.  Rove and his organizations are political professionals – meaning they make their living from being relevant in politics.  The most irrelevant position in politics is not to be in opposition to those in power, but to be out of favor with those in power on your side.  There’s a very good chance Rick Perry is the next president.  If Rove & Co. go all-out against Perry (or anybody else) and that candidate wins, then you can kiss the Hannity interviews, the book sales, the Twitter followers goodbye.  Rove is smart, damn smart.  I can’t believe that he or his folks would risk livelihood for the sake of servicing a vendetta against a candidate that lives on the same side of the ideological coin.  As they might say in Texas – It just don’t make no sense (I’m allowed to say that since I live in Mississippi).

3. Misnomer of being a “regional” candidate

More so, we still don’t know if Rick Perry is going to be just a flash in the pan. He could be. He’ll have to work on positioning himself as someone more than a regional candidate, let alone a candidate without broad base appeal throughout the Republican Primary.

Rick Perry has been the chief executive of America’s second most populous state (argue-ably with the nation’s strongest economy).  That’s pretty much akin to being a two-term governor of California in the 1960s and 70s (yes . . . I WENT there).  It wouldn’t take much intellectual investment to make the case that a long-time Texas governor is less a regional candidate than a short-term New England one.

Let’s take a trip back across recent presidential electoral history.  The 2008 election was truly an aberration – the milque toast planets aligned to have an erratic/geriatric senator versus a young inexperienced one who read better from a teleprompter.  The latter happened to be handsome and African-American (Lord help me . . . YES I went THERE), and got the vote.  Fine, but one election is one election.  Anyone remember the last Democrat senator elected governor before Obama?  John Kennedy – from Massachusetts.  Anyone remember why he was able to be elected in one of the closest elections in modern history?  He put a Texan on the ticket.  (Incidentally he beat a California governor, if anyone wants to keep score).  Since then our presidents have been:

Lyndon Johnson – Semi-elected Southern Senator

Richard Nixon – California Governor

Gerald Ford – Non-elected anomoly

Jimmy Carter – Southern Governor

Ronald Reagan – California Governor

George H.W. Bush – heir to California Governor

Bill Clinton – Southern Governor

George W. Bush – Southern Governor

Barrack H. Obama – First Term Senator & WT(letter that starts the name Frank)

Other than the surreal-ness that is #44, what sticks out about this list?  For me, it is the over-representation of that word “Southern”.  A “Southerner” (and Southern governor save Johnson’s tenure) has held the White House for approximately 51% of that period.  That’s impressive if you consider there are eight major regions of the United States (New England/Upper Atlantic, Southeast, Upper Mid West, Mid West, Mountain West, Southwest, Pacific, Pacific Northwest).

This is all to say that just because Rick Perry has a natural base of support in Texas and the Southeast doesn’t preclude him from winning a national election or being a national candidate.  Isn’t it more feasible to believe that Perry has more in common with the Scott Walker crowd in Wisconsin or the Chris Christie crowd in New Jersey than Romney does with the Haley Barbour crowd in Mississippi or the Bob McDonnell crowd in Virgina.  Or the MICHELLE BACHMANN crowd in Iowa or Minnesota (yes, I went there to).

Going in somewhat a tangent, I would note that Rep. Bachmann is a national personality, but not necessarily an national candidate.  For all of the good, positive points that the Congresswoman offers, we have to realize that the only people that have ever pulled a lever for her a concentrated in a small region of a mid-sized state.  By collective vote counts, more folks have repeatedly pulled the lever for Rick Perry than have for Barrack Obama.  Sure, its just Texas, but look at the makeup of that state.  Other than probably California, does represent immense diversity.  Whites, Blacks, Latinos, poor, rich, middle class, etc., etc.  Perry has won EVERY election – more than a handful statewide.  Sure, Texas is a Republican state but let’s not forget that Perry beat another popular Republican in the most recent primary in a three-way race WITHOUT a runoff.  I simply fail to see where Perry wouldn’t meet the requirements of a candidate being able to draw a broad base while also maintaining a strong standing throughout the various GOP factions.

I think this is a good place to make a general comment about the concept of having a “broad based” candidate – what’s been talked about as the concept of the “big tent.”  There are two ways to make your tent bigger – you can stretch and stretch and stretch your tent so that you bring its boundaries to people where they are, or you can make your tent so attractive that people journey there on their own and it builds organically.  The former is the approach the GOP has taken post 1995.  The latter is what resulted in the “Reagan Democrat” phenomenon and the Republican Revolution of 1994.  I know when Erick mentions “broad based” support he isn’t talking about stretching the tent, but I just thought it a relevant and important point to make here.  Between Romney and Perry, I don’t think there would be much debate between who is a “stretcher” and who is a “builder.”

4. Perry and Bachmann DO NOT have to fight over the same pool of voters

More so, Rick Perry will have to fight Michele Bachmann over a common pool of voters that Romney does not necessarily need.

Related to the point I tried to make in #3 above, Mrs. Bachmann has only been voted for by a small number of people in one region of a mid-sized state.  I’m in no way knocking the Congresswoman’s ability or demeaning her intellectual capacity – on the contrary I think she’s one of conservatism’s brightest stars and the kind of asset that movement conservative that we need.  But back in El Rushbo’s adopted hometown of Literaville, we should realize that much of Michele’s support among GOP primary voters is, indeed, a placeholder.  Its the same vote that hoped Fred Thompson would step up in 2008, that wanted Pat Buchannan in 1996, and that has hoped Governor Christie would run now.  For the sports fans out there, consider this analogy – when you know you can do something, but don’t believe that you will, you probably won’t.  As much as I hate to say it, I think the same thing applies to Michele Bachmann among primary voters in 2011.  But I also think the same probably applied to Ronald Reagan in 1976.  And let’s face it, from what we know now, Rick Perry is way better that Gerald Ford (no disrespect to the late president).

Point of all this being that while on paper Perry and Bachmann are competing for the same votes, I don’t think that will be case when the rubber meets the road.  And regarding another aspect of Michele – she’s a smart woman, and ambitious (which, regardless of what liberals would have you believe, isn’t an inherently bad character trait).  Vice President Bachmann?

Confession – While cutting and pasting Erick’s line from above, I realized for the first time that Mrs. Bachmann only uses one “l” in her name.  This has no relevance on any other point, just thought it was kind of funny.  Should Rep. Bachmann be the VP on the ticket, I could totally see a Rachel Maddow expose of how she’s so stupid she doesn’t even know how to spell her own first name.  m

5. Howard Dean was not going to be the nominee, Kerry and McCain were not on life support, neither apply to Romney

Around this time in 2003, it was a given that Howard Dean would be the Democrats’ nominee, and that John Kerry’s campaign was on life support. In 2007, people were already writing the postmortems on the Obama and McCain campaigns,  . . .

To be fair this is a quote from RCP’s Sean Trende that Erick re-posted (thus the triple-indent versus the standard double).  Maybe I’m wrong about this or looking at it from an awkward viewpoint, but I just don’t remember any point in time where it was “a given” that Metrosexual Doctor Howard Dean would be the Democratic nominee.  GOP/Libertarians that right now believe Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee might be more of a parallel with those who thought Dean would get the nod back then.  To the best of my recollection, the consensus at the time was that the Democratic side was in disarray that the smart money was that Saint Albert Gore Jr. would eventually materialize to save the party.  Sooooooooo, what if Governor Rick Perry plays that role for our side, but has actually MATERIALIZED?

Sure John Kerry’s campaign was on life support and won the nomination that year.  But he was running against . . . HOWARD DEAN.  You can point to John Kerry as the guy that should have gotten the nomination, but I think that deep down in most people’s psyche – even if on a subconscious level – they can sense scum when it matters.

Senator McCain is probably the write-off/come back that is most difficult to explain.  Yes, his campaign was considered dead and Rudy was considered to be the probable nominee.  All I can maintain here – and admittedly the weakest part of my argument – is that 2008 on the GOP side was such a weird year that we have to count the nomination process on our side as an outlier.

——————————————————————–

So there you have my rebuttal and case why I believe that Rick Perry is the front runner, and some reasons why I’m supporting him for the Republican nomination for president of United States.  I believe the man is a true conservative, ethical, honest, and can win.  I will donate to his campaign in the primary and in the general.  I will actively campaign for him, and overtly solicit other Red Staters to do the same.  Thanks to all who have taken the time to read this entry and I look forward to your commentary.

Instead of making populist-style accusations about tax credits to businessmen buying jet airliners leaning to a shortage in weathermen and lack of school lunches (perfectly . . . perfectly natural conclusions there . . .), let’s put on our “not blind and mindless” 3-D specs and examine this desperation ploy in the rational, sensible, conservative way.  (BTW – it is a desperation ploy.  My rogue copy of the Democratic playbook plainly lists in section 12 subsection 2 that ‘should discussions on tax increases hit a wall, exercise the school lunch option.’  And that’s a quote, folks (footnote by Saul Alinsky).

Calculatus Eliminatus

For any Red Staters, moles, mobys, or the like who aren’t familiar, Calculatus Eliminatus was a logically and mathematically-based system developed by one Theodor Seuss Geisel, M.D. (also known as ‘Dr. Seuss’) whereby the best way to “find a missing something,” is to “find out where its not.”  Ingenious.

First I suppose we should identify the “something” that has gone missing. Looking at our economic situation from 3,000 feet, you would have to conclude that the raging and uncontrollable budget deficits – steadily gnawing and gnashing its way into a greater and greater portion of GDP – would point to our missing “thing 1″ – Economic Expansion through fiscal responsibility. So employing the scientifically-proven method of calculatus eliminatus, we can move on the to second leg of the postulate – finding out where its not.  At this point, I think it would be best to hone our scientific inquiry down to specific and measurable instances for the purposes of more immediate results.

The Experiment

On one side, you’ve got a handful of companies and rich guys that would love to own private jet airplanes.  These would increase productivity in terms of multicity or multinational travel, potentially cut costs, or at the very least provide more openings on commercial jet liners which would place downward pressure on ticket costs with more capacity available on the market.  Even at the costs, many neer-do-well business guys and gals identify the benefit of the private jet, and seek the most responsible way to purchase such aircraft relative to their shareholders.  Well LO and BEHOLD there appear to be tax credits that can be taken by some in some situations that would apply to the  partial subsidizing (or more accurately reimbursing) of a purchase of this sort.  So the story in the media goes, “Jets bought using tax payer money.”  That allows a Demagogue type a fairly easy segue into why “millionaires” shouldn’t be offered tax credits for these planes.  Well, let’s just make a little trip to ****fairly world**** and grand that wish.

(((((((((((((((Other-worldly sound effects here woooooWOOOOOwooooooo . . . )))))))))))))))))

Utopia . . . Or a willing suspension of belief

So Calculatus Eliminatus is helping to find the missing something -  robust economic expansion – by identifying all the places it is not.  Specifically here theoretically in tax credits or some business jetliner purchases.  Putting our crack economist on this case (we shall call him ‘Thing 3), we begin to discover the problems with the links made between training weathermen and school lunch programs in regards to tax breaks on jets.  True, if a rich white guy (because you KNOW he is) buys a jet and doesnt’ get the tax break, that’s money that will be added to the federal coffers and can, theoretically, be apportioned to programs such as school lunch or scholarships for students to study meteorology, (or high speed light rail between Vegas and Reno . . . but you get my drift).  So fine, point taken.  Mr. Rich man buys his jet and doesn’t his tax credit.  Mr. Rich Man 2 does the same (probably just trying to keep up with the Mr. Richmen), BUT Mr. Rich Man 3 decides that with economic uncertainties and other market forces, he’s just going to drop his order for the new jet.

WIN WIN WIN , right?  School lunches for all, we won’t have to fear future inaccurate weather forecasts, and 2 of 3 Richie-Richies get to globe trot.    BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTT, says Mr. Buzzkillington, we haven’t though through the ramifications for Rich Mr. 3 who decided to pass on opportunity to fly like a G6.  With a little Jet-strapolation, what could that mean?

And once again . . . Trickle Down . . . YES, we told you it works . . .

Without the tax credits, Messrs 1 and 2 paid full price and thus full taxes on their purchases.  Great job.  Mr. Rich 3 paid nothing on his purchase since, well, he didn’t purchase.  So what does that look like?

Let’s start with aircraft company staff.  Business models vary, the the honest truth about things are, if, over a reasonable period of time, you cannot meet performance goals that can be tied to company ROI, you’re likely gone.  I’m sure that Engineer 3 is a talanted person who will find work soon.  However, in the meantime, he essentially ceases having positive earning capacity for a time being, and must look into other helpful avenues such as unemployment insurance, and various other government sponsored programs (remember, all tax payer monies).  At this point, the employee shifted from being a contributor to government coffers, to at the very worst a hand-out.  Washington has lost a Contributor.

But even beyond Engineer 3, who’s got some kind of support system, there are countless others that in deeper peril and in even less position to contribute to the federal treasury.  What about contractors who were to build Mr. Rich 3′s plane.  And the support services that they needed along the way – things as simple as supplies and lunch.  Every transaction results in revenue for state and federal governments.  And many secondary, tertiary, or even farther down the spectrum type commerce occurs to support what has gone on up top. And there are taxes (sometimes double taxes) are paid through every phase of that heirarchy.  Seems to a simple American using Dr. Seuss in complicated mathematical theory that we’re going about this the wrong way.  We want jobs, lets put policies in place that create incentives for businesses to make things. If businesses make things, then they’ll need help in getting parts, engineering, hiring consultants, marketing folks, sales managers, etc.  And guess what – they all pay TAXES!

Take from this what you will but

Seems like a pretty common-sense way to approach things.    What do you guys thing?  @tavernkeeper

PS – Apologies for not posting in so long.  As they say I “got buzy” at work and the paying gig takes the front seat.  Thanks all for welcoming me back.

All the negative economic news and the never-ending media parade about the "Chinese Century" can get a patriotic guy down from time to time.  Tonight on the drive home I heard, on NPR of all places* a couple of news stories that reassurance you that the good ole USA remains that shining city on the hill.

(In my defense, I was flipping between NPR and Mark Levin.  So don’t go getting any ideas about me one of those ‘stablishment Republicans.)

We are still THE World Ideal

The first was on the daily wrap-up All Things Considered .  The story was about the lottery that the US State Department runs annually that chooses, at random (as lotteries are apt to do) recipients of a green card and a path to naturalization.  The lottery focuses on people from countries that otherwise would not fall high on the immigration list (i.e. Indian and Mexican nationals are not eligible; the story featured a gent from that hotbed of terrorism and Polish Plumbing otherwise known as New Zealand . . . joking Zealanders).  Well it seems the a computer glitch caused 22,000 people to be notified that they had "won" in the lottery when they really had not (no word if traffic from Rep. Weiner’s Facebook account caused the glitch, but it is curious . . . I’m just saying).

What was truly remarkable to me – in both that this characterization was reported and actually came from NPR – was that this mistake was top-line in the rest of world.  Barely a blip in the domestic media, but the outrage it caused resulted in front page headlines from Kenya to Nepal to even Ireland.  Apparently somewhere around 20 million people worldwide enter this little-promoted lottery every year.  The outrage generated over this mistake betrays something that we are all too apt to forget – we the USA are the last best hope of mankind.  We remain the Eden on Earth, the bastion for those yearning to breathe free.  I feel for those who got their hopes up just to probably have them dashed.  But I must selfishly confess, it did my heart good to hear this story.

No Child Left on Steroids

My second bit of unlikely public radio uplift came from the financial show Marketplace , which I actually think is a well-done program (that could easily compete in a publicly de-funded Marketplace . . . hint hint GOP Congress I’m looking at you).  In a media environment fawning to crown China the greatest thing since Chopped Suey, this story was about the focus of the ChiCom education system on an end-all-be-all test called the gao kao (pronounced gow-cow).  Basically the direction of the entirety of the remainder of a China guy or gal’s life (assuming the latter hadn’t been aborted, of course) is decided by the performance on the gao kao.  For those who do well on the test, its off to university and a more sophisticated degree of indoctrination.  For those who don’t do well on tests (you know, like Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, or Rush Limbaugh), its a trip to the Nike factory sweat shops and a cog in the new Chinese economy.

What was remarkable about this was the position the story took on this system.  Rather than praising Chinese forced labor work ethic and efficiency, the featured characterized Chinese secondary education as glorified test prep.  The reporter actually said – paraphrasing – that there is no way an Apple or Google would come out of this system, and that China wouldn’t be able to compete in the area of intellectual capital.

Amazing.  How often can you say "yes, NPR is SAYING what we’re all THINKING."

Just goes show that in a country full of wonders, wonders never cease.  At any rate, these were two little reassurances that brightened my evening.

- Your Tavern Keeper

*I remember reading a study a while back that determined that more conservatives that liberals watch Fox News, but also the audience for NPR news consists of more conservatives than liberals.  This just reinforces what we already know – conservatives are more informed than liberals.

Some RedStaters may remember the one I am talking about.  It was the same size as the one the Heritage Foundation is giving away now, but instead of the painting of the signing of the Constitution on the front it had a black-and-white illustrated depiction of a minuteman.  Something about it I particularly remember was the image of the “IRS Man” running from the spider on the back.  I did a quick Internet search for the “Patriot Network” and it looks like an anti-income tax advocacy outfit.  Maybe the Ruby-Ridge types, not sure.  All I remember is that my Granddad carried this pocket Constitution around with him, and gave one to his seven-year-old grandson.  It had a profound effect on my outlook of life.

This past week I learned that my grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

My apologies – I know RedState is not the place for personal business, and I don’t mean this post to be such.  It’s purpose is something else.  Something that I can’t manage to put into words but that I hope is evident by the end of the post.

He doesn’t know that I know.  My parents begrudgingly told me a few days ago.  Funny thing, the first thing I though of was when I was told was that little book, that little pocket Constitution.  I was putting my son and his spend-the-night frient to bed tonight.  Through a related incident that was in no way my fault, I was looking through out nightstands for some antibiotic ointment.  I came upon one of those little Constitutions that I had stuck in there several years ago.  It was tough.

I would say that you would have to now my grandfather to understand, but I’ll bet a good many of you, by virtue of what you believe and the principles that you hold true, have had someone in your life much like him.  He was in Korea.  He was the son of a son of a son of who-knows-how-many sons of a farmer.  He was drafted by the Rams to play professional football out of high school.  But in those days, football players didn’t do that well, so he opted for college.  An farming man majored in economics, messed up his shoulder, and came home to take up the family acreage.  My grandmother was a northern transplant – from Philadelphia by way of D.C.  When she came to Mississippi, the folks she was staying with (so goes the story) told her that “whoever you date, don’t date ____ ____.”  So naturally you know who she ended up with.

So may grandfather raised his family, a son and a daughter, farmed the land and took care of his wife for many, many years.  The values he instilled in his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are second to none.  He was always known as somewhat of a rebel . . . not against “authority” per se, but against what he considered oppression.  See my grandfather was something of an anomaly at the time.  When so many folks were basking in the legacy of the Roosevelt bailout, he genuinely understood the genius behind the Constitution.  He believed in the same principles the Framers believed in, and unlike so many of us that either haven’t had the will or the opportunity to prove it, actually stood up and fought for his beliefs.

The real purpose of this post isn’t to get into particulars.  The purpose is to recognize a man that is a real American, and to try and explain how his convictions shaped those of his grandsons.  My brother and I, although we live a few hundred miles apart, still talk regularly and vehemently about conservative issues.  It is not because we don’t have anything else to talk about.  It is because we understand the importance of preserving our legacy as Americans, and this comes primarily from our grandfather.

I can’t really explain my grandfather’s passion for America other than to think that he, like our nation, really is exceptional.  Reading the newspaper, I can remember him asking outloud, “Now where in the Constitution is the government given the power to do that?”  I would love to put up against our current president in a debate.  In our president’s own words, my grandfather “would tear him up.”

One other instance I for some reason vividly remember really solidified for me that this man was a man of principle.  As I said, he was, for decades, a farmer like so many before him.  In fact, so was my father, too.  When farming really went south in the late 1980′s, my dad and granddad sold off most of their land, equipment, etc., and took to different ventures.  My father first bought info a franchise and later started his own manufacturing business which, much to the dismay of the Chinese, has proven to be highly successful.  My grandfather started his own excavation/trucking business, ran this for several years, and sold it off once my father started his business.  My grandfather now works at this business, which I think is the greatest thing in the world.  But back to my original point – the thing that really told me he was a man of principle.  Knowing that his legacy and life’s work was farming, and that it had to be abandoned for economic interests, I engaged him on the subject of farm subsidies one day.

“I actually think that farming would be something that government subsidies would be good for,” I said.

“Naw,” he said.  “You wouldn’t have to have any government subsidies for farmers if they (government) would just leave us alone.  We could feed the world.”

Wow.  That said it all.  Not bitter, just a clear understanding of freedom, markets, and liberty.

My grandfather was the first person to explain to me natural rights – that the government doesn’t “give” us anything.  In fact, our laws are designed to protect us against government overreaches.

You could call him a Reagan Democrat, but I think he would take offense to this.  I have heard him describe himself as “what you call ultra-ultra conservative.”  But, I must say, not so far Libertarian.  He thinks Ron Paul, for all his good points, has “gone off the reservation.”

Like I said, my grandfather has prostate cancer, and I just learned about this.  Were it not for him, I likely would not have been involved in the conservative movement, worked in campaigns, or have found RedState.  I’m not claiming that I make some great contribution to our effort, but I’ll have words with anyone who says this man didn’t.  A poor country farmer that understood macroeconomics, foreign policy, and limited government.  If only he could have ran for president.

God bless my grandfather, and those our there we all know like him.  I really believe that they are the reason we carry on this fight.  They are the reason that we strive to achieve a vision that we know to be the best man can do, live in the most liberty, the most protection, the most “pursuit of happiness” that is possible in an imperfect world.

I shouldn’t ask this, but please say a prayer for my grandfather.  He is truly a great American, and the greatest solider for freedom and the American way I have every known.

Thank you all for listening.

TK