THE MODEL

Early voting in Ohio are showing “Red” counties generally up by 120%, and early voting in “Blue” counties roughly 80% of what it was in 2008.

Obama won “Blue” counties by and average of 55.87% in 2008. McCain won “Red” counties by approximately 58.1% in 2008. If you apply turnout projections and keep the same level of support you get:

Romney:  50.98%

Obama:  49.01%

The difference is 109,559 votes.

Still, a dude in paramilitary attire affiliated with a radical, racist, and violent domestic terrorist group?  That’s fine. Nothing wrong there. Just don’t wear college sweatshirt. THAT, my friend, is blatant election tampering . . . even when, well, it has nothing to do with the election.

Fact is, the Justice Department had the New Black Panthers under investigation after the 2008 election. However, Eric “Fast & Furious” Holder decided to drop the case against them and instead sue the state of Arizona for attempting to enforce federal law.

Why should an organization like The New Black Panthers observe rule of law where there is no controlling legal authority? As if you needed another reason, there is yet another added to the column of “why elections matter.” Practically any other legitimate candidate that has sought the presidency in the past 8 years – GOP or Dem – would have sought to enforce the law as it applied to the NBPP. Not this one. Not this justice department. Not this president.

Get out and vote.  And bring this guy some doughnuts if you’re in the Philadelphia area.  He’s bound to get hungry.

@LTtavernkeeper

Nilver immediately disclosed these findings to the media, particularly the Daily Mail because, claims Nilver, they are the paper “most like the Daily Prophet in Harry Potter.”  Nilver claimed that he was not violating the non-disclosure because that “is a double negative, thus a positive. And anything positive is OK . . . so its all good.”  Nilver was given a pass as it is generally accepted he is a wizard and can turn anyone into a Newt (Gingrich) at will.

“Its good to get some ‘revenge,’ as our POTUS recently put it,” commented Nilver. “I was getting really tired of that false profit Nate Silver getting credit for some lucky incantation he made four years ago.  Abrra Caddabra wookeity wookeity Walla Walla Washington . . . ”

_________________________________________________________

Seriously, check this out - Romney campaign internal polling puts Republican nominee up ONE POINT in Ohio and TIED in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

If that’s true, I think we know what we’ve all got.  It starts with an “Doo” and ends with an “oom.”  Here’s hoping this finally buries the myth of Democratic suicide counselor and conjurer of spells Nate Silver.

(P.S. The Pollster is Neil Newhouse, not ‘Sate Nilver’ in case you didn’t pick up on that. I think “Neil Newhouse” is an excellent foil for Nate Silver. Neil Newhouse pwns Nate Silver.)

(P.P.S. I don’t know why “Neil Newhouse” versus “Nate Silver” entertains me so, but it does.  Probably says a lot about my intellectual level.)

@LTtavernkeeper

As I write this I’m watching president “#Sandy” making a speech in Madison, WI. Now I’m certainly not the first to comment on this, and certainly won’t be the last, but think about what’s wrong with this picture. With apologies to some good folks there, with less than 24 hours before the election, the incumbent Democrat is speaking in The People’s Republic of Madison. That’s just not right. As Shakesbeard said, “Something is rotten in Denmark.”

Today, President Obama goes to Iowa in addition to Wisconsin (in addition to Ohio). President Emeritus Bill Clinton is in Pennsylvania. Romney, on the other hand, is in Florida, Ohio, Virgina, and New Hampshire – all states won by Obama in 2008. It could even be argued that Romney in FL and VA is more about securing support for Connie Mack and George Allen’s respective Senate campaigns.  Seems like Obama’s prevent defense keeps moving further and further down the field.

So what’s with the polls? Well, as has been well documented, many polling firms are utilizing turnout models closer to 2008 than 2010.  The truth likely lies somewhere in between.  I’m not so foolish as to believe that Republicans will have a turnout percentage like 2010. The intensity is there, but with an iconic liberal candidate at the top of a national ticket, Democrats will be able to turn out their base to a greater degree than in the midterms.

However, Republicans have a national candidate too. And unlike 2008, Governor Romney has done a good job securing the conservative base as compared to Senator McCain in 208. The Tea Party may not be as “expressed” as in 2010, but let’s remember that it didn’t exist in 2008.

So CNN uses a +11 Democrat model and tells us the national race is tied.  Pew uses a +6 Democrat model to put Obama up by a three. These effect the RCP Average, which has become a kind of bellweather for predicting the outcome of elections (Well, that and the Magical Nate Silver). So with such high instances of skewing to Democrats the best CNN and Pew can get Obama to is tied and +3, respectively, well, that just goes to show how much trouble the administration is in.

Fact is, Florida and Virginia are gone.  Indiana and North Carolina have been gone for about a year. The race is now being ran in blue states – a great advantage for Romney. Yes, I continue to be worried about Ohio.  The administration spent a great deal of the past four years POURING money into the state in a calculated electoral strategy (ask folks in WV, MS, and GA about this . . . ). The result in an economy slightly better than the rest of the nation (notice I didn’t say “good”) and somewhat of a “firewall.”  Scott Rasmussen released his last election poll today (Rasmussen is one of the more trustworthy ones) showing support all knotted up at 49%.  In early voting, the “secret weapon” of the Democratic machine, Obama leads Romney big 60% – 37%.

This is great news for Romney. Consider:

• Republicans always way out perform Democrats on election day. There’s a lot of speculation that all the early voting mobilization are not really creating any new votes, merely shifting when the votes come in. Plus, the overall early voting total for Obama is down from 2008. Next to impossible to believe that Romney’s total will not far and away eclipse what Sen. McCain mobilized.
• Romney is killing Obama among independents.   The same CNN poll that oversampled D’s by 11 points has Romney up 59% – 35% with indys.  Granted this is national number and not a state number, but it is consistent with what we’re seeing across the board. Should Romney win Independents by 5+ in Ohio, he’s got the state. That doesn’t just seem realistic, it seems likely.
• Romney doesn’t need Ohio. Obama does. It’s practically heresy to prognosticate that any Republican has a path to the White House that doesn’t run through a state that’s High in the Middle and Round on Both Ends. And that makes sense when you consider NO Republican has ever done it, and the last candidate to win the presidency without Ohio was JFK.  But look at the math. Obama has lost:  Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia (Obama’s head fake), NE-1, and Colorado.  They may very well have lost Iowa and likely New Hampshire.  And there, looming in the back of the shadows like a monstrous Super Quaker eating nuclear-powered oatmeal, is Pennsylvania.  TribLive poll has the race knotted as of yesterday.  If Romney pulls out Pennsylvania – New Hampshire and Colorado become luxuries.  With Pennsylvania and one of these others, Ohio becomes a luxury.  There is no conceivable path by which the Obama Administration can count Ohio in the “would be nice but . . .” column.

Pennsylvania by be a long shot, but its not THAT long. Romney will get closer to Obama in Pennsylvania than will Obama to Romney in Florida.  And if the PA polls are oversampling Dems like many national polls have been, well, I think we all know what that means.  A better America.

Take heart, don’t pay too much attention to polls until you look at their internals. We’re not a +11 or +6 Democrat nation.  Not in 2012, at least.

@LTtavernkeeper

Its been a while since I’ve posted at RedState, but after reading Ezra Klein’s latest attempt to further the meme that Romney’s debate domination didn’t matter, it prompted me to author this entry.  In the Washington Post, Klein proclaims that in a battle between “excitable pundits” versus “political scientists,” he will “take political scientists every time.”

Good luck with that.  For the record, in a battle between pundits and political scientists, I’ll take the American people every time.  But, specifically addressing Mr. Klein’s point, well, that dog just don’t hunt (as we say here in the South).

The assertion has been advanced in various forms. This is the latest attempt, trying to advance the meme via data from years and years of polling diligently analyzed by leading political scientists. Basically, Mr. Klein states that, regardless of how “wee-weed up” (the President’s words, not mine) pundits may get over the beat-down Romney delivered in the first debate, the data shows that, well, debates don’t/rarely ever have mattered. Yes, that was written, and published by a major American news outlet by a prominent American writer (well, actually, a pundit). He even offers a graph to illustrate the point.

The graph is sited as having been derived from data compiled by two esteemed political scientists.  The point seemingly contradicts the known fact that, according to most national polls, Jimmy Carter was actually leading Ronald Reagan going into the one and only debate of 1980. The data doesn’t account for the fact that the three-way 1992 debate gave Bill Clinton the bounce he needed to win the presidency through plurality.

“Romney lied so bad that Obama couldn’t respond” didn’t work. “Altitude delusion” didn’t work. So now what?  Let’s throw “science” in on the side of Obama.  THAT should do the trick (I’d note the global warming was also once proclaimed as “science”). And while we’re at it, we’ll associate “pundits” with Romney.  Everybody respects scientists, and hates pundits, right?

Well . . .

1. Mr. Klein, the author of the story, is, in fact, a pundit.
2. Just because you call yourself a scientist doesn’t validate your point in and of itself (see global warming tangent above).
3. Debates have, do, and will continue to matter.

Sure, debates maybe didn’t matter as much in 1976, 1996, or 2004, to pick a few years . . . or did they?  Many believe that Ford actually had the momentum to beat Carter until the “Poland” comment. In 1996, Bob Dole, bless his heart (also as we say in the South) wasn’t as much a participant in a debate against Clinton as was Newt Gingrich. Problem was, Gingrich wasn’t on stage. The debate was irrelevant because one of the candidates was irrelevant. Looking back at 2004, Senator Sir John Kerry was, to be honest, generally considered to be the winner of the first debate. But the fact is, with 2004, Kerry didn’t win the debate so much as Bush lost it.  In 1980, Reagan won the debate. In Romney-Obama round one, Romney won and Obama lost. So maybe the real lesson here should be that debates matter when one candidate is a real, actual winner.

I’d leave on one final note about “political science” in general. I’ve always thought that the idea of “political science” itself was a huge oxymoron. What we understand as “science” consists systems and ideas which can be proven or disproved. As Rush is fond of saying “there’s no consensus in science”; it is either is or it isn’t. Science is the pursuit of determining which it is and explaining why it is. The very fact that we acknowledge something like the Bradley/Wilder Effect exists should in and of itself go to show science does not and cannot create accurate explanations of elections. To put it another way -there is no polling in science. We don’t analyze polling data to determine the interworkings of Quantum Mechanics, find dark energy, or create chemical reactions.

In the end, political scientists are really just pundits with more expensive college degrees and less telegenic personalities (although that could be argued in the case of Chris ‘The Thrill’ Matthews). Sorry Mr. Klein, but political scientists are no more qualified to “identify” the effect that individual occurrences have on elections that are TV hosts or my grandfather (actually probably less so in the case of the latter). As I stated before, in the battle of political scientists versus pundits, I’ll take the American people. Time to quit the meme-generation, lick your first-debates wounds, and move on.

(BTW – My minor was in political science . . . it didn’t require any math!)

I debated whether or not to stop this entry at the conclusion of the previous paragraph as an “nuff said.” (but it was TOO easy). Basically the point was – we better be glad the oceans and plants have our back because if not, we’re screwed. Apparently, the oceans (which cover like 70% of the Earth), and plants (which are pretty persistent even when you RoundUp then) really LOVE carbon emissions. So much so that they’ve dramatically increased the amount of CO2 they can absorb. And this basically explains why all the global warming, er, climate change, that we are supposed to have caused hasn’t happened.

I kid you not when I say the whole tone of the story was “you better be glad and start backing off, because the oceans and plants may get tired of this and stop absorbing so much to teach us a lesson. If the ocean and plants weren’t here,we’d be in a real pickle.”

Yeah. We’d have MAD global warming with all this industry if the Earth didn’t have oceans and plants…wait …

This reminds me of one of the first successful arguments I had with a liberal back in the 90′s when I was but a greenhorn:

ME: I think this global warming thing is just a crock.
LIBERAL: Seriously? You’re an intelligent person. I can’t believe you can’t see how global warming is happening.

ME: plants are good, right?
LIBERAL: yeah, better than factories spewing CO2 in the air.
ME: plants use Carbon Dioxide for food, right?

LIBERAL: yes
ME: so if we put more CO2 out there, won’t more plants grow?
LIBERAL: (pause)
ME: (fixed stare)
LIBERAL(longer pause)
ME: (continued fixed stare)
LIBERAL: so you’re saying that the problem might correct itself?
ME: I’m saying it’s not a problem.
LIBERAL: Hmmm (walks off).

All I’m saying is, we need to be nice to the oceans and plants, else they stop absorbing that CO2 stuff they really like.

Great job, NPR. Hopefully mass won’t get tired of causing gravity.

Thursday of this week, the Supreme Court in all likelihood will strike down most, if not all, of Obama’s signature Healthcare legislation.  This is practically Policy Armageddon.  For Political Armageddon, we will witness, also on Thursday, the United States House of Representatives vote to hold the sitting Attorney General of the country in contempt of Congress.  This for a coverup AND underlying crime that has actually resulted in the death of at least one person serving his country and countless other innocents who lost their lives in what was potentially no more than an attempt to take the “cling” out of the bitter clingers.

The ruling on Arizona’s Immigration law adds a third tier – Social Armageddon – to the fray.  This one is less evident.  The SCOTUS struck down most of the state law, but left in place one of the tenants that most annoyed liberals and the open borders crowd.  Left and Right are both claiming victory here – Arizona Jan Brewer has said the ruling “affirms” the rights of Arizona to ensure the legality of those roaming withing Los Estados Unitos, while the administration and numerous Democrats are “pleased” that the Federal Government’s supremacy in matters of immigration are affirmed.  Secretly I’ve got to believe this is the absolute WORST outcome that liberals could imagine.  SCOTUS basically said “Yeah, the Federal Government should be in charge of setting immigration policy . . . but since they won’t pay attention to our own laws the states have SOME POWER here.”  I’m not sure everyone fully understands the ramifications of this yet.  It concurrently places the states in a subservient role to the fed in matters of interstate policy (which is technically the correct stance IMO) while acknowledging that the fed is derelict in its duties.  Ladies and Gentleman, I’m in no way claiming collusion among the “conservative” Justices on the court to make sure the verdict came down this way with the supporting and opposing opinions structured as they were, but that would have been BRILLIANT.  I mean, darn near Marbury v. Madison brilliant…seriously.

So that puts the administration in a position where it must oppose an Arizona policy that is wildly popular across most of the country.  They must now directly defy local and state authorities who are simply attempting to enforce what is the law of the land.  Its akin to the Civil Rights era, but with roles reversed – The Federal Government is trying to subvert Federal Laws, while the states are trying to uphold it.

So there you have it – Policy, Political, and Social Armageddon, all likely in the same week.  A trifecta.  The Hat Trick. The triple-double.  Any way you position it, I fully expect the week of June 24, 2012 to be the one that history looks upon as the one when the ponzi scheme that is the Obama Administration’s house of cards actually fell.

Long live Liberty.  We still have our country.

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.

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.