I haven’t seen a lot of the post-debate spin from other people yet, but what little I saw seems to argue that Newt Gingrich put himself back in contention.  Maybe.  He definitely had some strong moments, but he started weak and was weakest against Romney, the one guy he really needed to take.  And at this point, his volatility is the issue, not his debating skills.  I’m not sure he can recover from that.

I thought Paul did the worst he’s done in a lot of ways.  He really got wrapped around the axle on some fo the foreign policy stuff, and while it won’t matter to his supporters, it will, in my view, solidify his already low ceiling.

Perry and Santorum had some nice moments, but I thought Santorum came off as just too petulant too many times.  But then, I’m not a fan of Santorum, he and I have serious philosophical differences (here he is hatin’ on libertarians) and so I’m already disposed to not caring for what he has to say.  I also don’t think he’s going anywhere.

Perry had some great moments – I was sort of hoping it would be enough to sustain him, but I’m not sure he can recover either at this point.

I think Romney still came out on top – he was commanding and forceful, but I also think that the previous attacks from the other folks up there have made him much, much better.  Hard fought primaries are a good thing for exactly this reason.  It was getting so ridiculous that I had come to hope that it would all be over sooner rather than later, but I’m again re-assessing that.  Each one of the candidates on stage tonight had better answers and ideas in one area or another than Romney (and they all had worse ones, too), and the more airtime those ideas and answers get, the better Romney will be if he winds up being the nominee.  Done right, the forge of debate can strengthen good ideas, destroy bad ones, and ultimately drive better policy, and I think this debate, while not perfect, moved us in that direction.

Click to read the whole, real-time wrap up. 

And that’s it.  Some wrap up thoughts as soon as I put my little girl to bed.

7:51:  NCLB – I agree it’s been a failure, and I used to support it (I know, to my shame).  Newt’s answer on this is very, very good – get local!

7:49:  Interesting question to Perry about the cost-benefit of border enforcement, and Perry very skillfully turns it back to the economy.  What a shame this guy didn’t show up for the first 50 debates.

7:47:  LOVE Romney’s defense of the First Amendment here!!!!

7:45:  Hitting Romney for not exercising “leadership” over PACS that the law prohibits a candidate from involving himself in.  And this just gave Romney a chance to bring up the anti-Romney, pro-Newt anti-Bain ad, which kills Gingrich.

7:43:  I really respect Paul’s harping on Federalism, but the Second Amendment does, I think, give the Feds a role they don’t have in other kind of tort reform.  And Santorum does a good job pointing out where there is a role for the feds in protecting state sovereignty by not letting one state essentially sue over activity that takes place in another.

7:41:  Finally – non-liberal questions from Juan Williams!  Santorum’s answer here is pretty weak, I think – I appreciate the “backfire” tactic, but trigger locks?  Still, to me this question wastes time that ought to be focused on the economy.

7:40:  Guns!  Definitely a Romney weakness.  But does anyone believe that Romney is going to be a gun grabber in Washington?  Not even the Democrats (Obama excluded) want to make that an issue these days.  But the CORRECT answer here is that as President, he’ll nominate judges who will support and expand DC v. Heller and McDonald.  Why do Republican Presidential candidates ALWAYS forget to make this the issue that it ought to be made?

7:32:  Very interesting mini-debate here with Santorum and Newt.  And Newt brings back his most powerful argument – that he was responsible for 4 balanced budgets.  Romney does a great job pointing out that this is status quo EVERY year in the private sector.

7:29:  Rick Santorum isn’t making sense here on the moving jobs overseas issue here.  Of COURSE labor costs factor into things.  And then he follows it up with a ham fisted attack on not Romney, but Newt?

7:27:  Chile’s only been doing this for a few decades.  We’ve got almost 80 years on Social Security.  Not that I disagree with Newt necessarily, but color me skeptical on any other nation’s forced retirement plan.

7:25:  Social Security – tiered approach from Romney.  I think this is the only solution.  I love the preemptive ridicule of the “throwing Granny off the cliff” ads.  He sounds very wonky on this issue – again, this is where having a money manager running makes me feel pretty good.

7:22:  Back to discussions of closing tax loopholes and flattening the rate.  It’s too bad Huntsman didn’t make this more of an issue.  He would have got more traction, and even better, the ISSUE would have gotten more notice and support.  Not sure I agree with the part-time congress, though.  That misses the point, as I’ve argued before.  I like that Perry took on FM and FM directly.

7:20:  Romney just takes time, Santorum whines about it not being given it.  And Ron Paul, no, the Patriot Act did NOT “repeal the 4th Amendment.”  I agree with him on this issue, but then he goes out of his way to make me DISagree with him with absurd hyperbole.  No wonder he’s 1 for 620 on getting bills passed.

7:17:  This is where I get my inner Ron Paul on – we already have methods of detaining American citizens who commit crimes on US soil, and it isn’t indefinite detentions.  The problem with that bill was that it was the only thing on the table that kept the troops funded.  I’d love to see a “single issue” legislation rule for federal legislation like we have in the Nevada Constitution.

7:16:  Paul is just ignorant about his “distinction” between the Taliban and al Qaeda.  One would not exist without the support of the other.

7:13:  Turkey is an interesting question.  Good move on Perry’s part in using it to point out his military service.  “No space between us and Israel.”  Yes.  Great line about “gonging” Paul.  Also interesting that Perry brings up his time in uniform.  It bothers be greatly that more of the candidates don’t have this, and it’s very smart for Perry in South Carolina to bring up “pissgate” and show a little outrage over the jihadist barbarians.

7:11:  To Santorum:  “Should we go to war with Syria?”  I dislike Santorum’s casual bellicosity almost as much as I dislike Paul’s naive isolationism, but his answer here was much more toned down.  The problem is that if we “effectuate the removal of Assad,” what comes after?

7:09:  I like that Romney is making a point to praise other points that other candidates are making.  He’s kind of taken away Newt’s “elder statesman of the debates” role away from him.  “The way to keep us out of wars is to have a military so strong that no one would ever consider testing it” – NICE!

7:07:  Paul being booed, and rightfully so.  Hey, Ron Paul – al Qaeda hated us LONG before any of our bombs started falling over there.

7:06:  Newt is really warming up.  But I think he’s so angry with Romney that he can’t attack him effectively.  When he’s focused on other candidates or the moderators, he’s been very solid.

7:04:  Paul:  “We should just do our best, and if that’s not good enough, oh well.”  And then he’s speaking in favor of the capture of Saddam, which wouldn’t have happened if was in charge back then?  Terrible, terrible answer, and one that recognizes his FP positions are just not acceptable to the vast majority of Republicans (or Democrats or Americans generally).

7:00:  “Ron Paul, would you have let Bin Laden go for want of jurisdiction?”  Paul is being very dodgy here – it’s almost as if he’s a human politician!  And he dodges and dodges and dodges.  The bottom line for Paul is that it doesn’t matter what happened 10 years ago, you’re asking for the chance to take the reins now, and you need to tailor solutions to the situation that exists, not the one you wish existed.

6:52:  I love that Newt is talking about the absurdity of “child” labor laws that prevent teenagers from working like I did and everyone I went to school did.  I teach a class for kids who get busted drinking or smoking weed, and the vast majority of them don’t have jobs.  I don’t think that’s a coincidence.  And this garbage about it “belittling the poor” is just trash.  I’m losing a lot of respect for Juan Williams here, and Newt is just owning him on this topic.  Good.  It’s sooooooooooooooo too bad that Newt can’t maintain more discipline.

6:51:  Very interesting topic on the incarceration rates, and as a public defender I’ve DEFINITELY gotten cynical in recent years over spending SO much money incarcerating drug addicts.  And this IS a federal spending issue.

6:47:  Juan Williams:  “On MLK Day, shoudl we commit to discriminating against people in the law on the basis of their skin color?”  Santorum:  “Get married, black people.”  I don’t disagree that getting (and staying) married BEFORE you have kids is a crucial part of enhancing prosperity, but how should this be the role of the FEDERAL government?  Actually not a bad answer on Santorum’s part, though.  We don’t have to shove Jesus down anyone’s throat, but stating obvious truths about familial units is perfectly compatible with limited government.

6:45:  I like Juan Williams, but he’s a liberal, asking liberal questions (this one on immigration).  He really doesn’t belong as one of the moderators here.  Romney’s answer on immigration was solid, I thought.

6:43:  Flat tax – yay!  Ron Paul lost me at “0%”, but got me again by warning about inflation.  It’s too bad that as President, Paul would be so unable to accomplish all the things I like about him, but would be so able to unilaterally do (or not do) the things I DON’T like about him.

6:39:  “If you cut the military, SC will lose jobs.”  Ron Paul:  “I’ll have MORE bases here!”  But he’s specifically talked about significantly cutting the DoD budget, and he was called out.  “You don’t understand!!”  Difference between “military” and “defense” spending?  What?  I think I see what he’s tryign to say, but Ron Paul’s total inability to adequately articulate his positions here would kill him in a general election.  And of course the obligatory, out of context reference to the feared “military-industrial complex.”  Sigh.

6:37:  There’s an economic/debt crisis in Europe and our debt just outstriped our entire GDP?  Bah.  Why are we wasting time with such nonsense when we still haven’t exhausted which felonies should qualify for voting rights reinstatement!  Thank you WSJ.  I kind of respect that Mitt is taking these opportunities to just give little speeches that focus on Obama.

6:35:  I agree with Newt that unemployment should be tied to re-training or something, and I love the “99 weeks is an Associate degree!” line, but why isn’t he making a federalism argument here?  Total missed opportunity.

6:34:  My daughter has curled up with me again, this time with a loud book my dad recorded for her.  It makes it tough to hear, but fortunately it’s making it hard to hear Rick Santorum.  #winning

6:33:  Tenth Amendment + War on Religion.  Interesting answer from Perry, and one that would have resonated in SC several months ago while people were still paying attention to Rick Perry.

6:31:  After what happened in New Hampshire, why is ANYONE questioning voter ID?  It’s NOT racist to ask for ID to vote, and anyone who says otherwise is a race-baiting liar.

6:29:  I usually don’t like the Twitter/Facebook questions, but that one to Romney was great – direct, respectful, but pointed.  “Convince me you won’t change again.”  Romney is answering it LESS directly, which brings it back to why he doesn’t already have it wrapped up.  But this little speech about entitlements is pretty good.

6:23:  A break, and we’ll move up in time with the power of DVR!  (But first another beer.)

6:21:  Perry – “insiders having a conversation, leave the states alone.”  THAT’S why I had such high hopes for Perry.  Excellent way to stop that, and Romney should have done the same.

6:20:  We’re facing economic collapse, and Rick Santorum wants to spend this long on frickin’ felon voting rules?!?!?!?  This is a state issue anyway.

6:17:  Santorum is being such a douche here – let the man answer the question.  I agree with Romney that it’s unfortunate that candidates aren’t allowed to have any input on what’s being said in their names.  And then Santorum set himself up to let Romney be all tough on crime.

6:15:  “Was Huntsman right?  Are you all too mean?”  It’s interesting here that Ron Paul is going bloodily after Rick Santorum.  Santorum responds by attacking the messenger, but refutes NONE of the substance.  VERY interesting answer from him about education, though, and this is a totally different response than he had when he was here in Reno awhile ago when every question he got on education involved a Washington-centric answer.

6:13:  Mitt is acting like a winner here.  He’s the only one so far who doesn’t look worn out, tired, and a little peevish.

6:11:  This moderator is better than any of the other candidates attacking Bain from the right.  Mitt has clearly done his homework on this, though, and he’s very ably rebuffing their specific examples, in my mind.  And he got a union dig in.

6:09:  Perry is REALLY screwing up by doubling down on the attacks on creative destruction, I think.  “Release your income tax!”  He’s right about too many regulations, though.  Interesting – he’d get rid of financial regulators, but wants to rein in companies like Bain?

6:07:  Romney starts by praising Gingrich – smart.  And he’s already talking about “turning around tough situations” – exactly what we need right now.  Mitt is far, far, far from perfect, but this in a nutshell is why I’m warming up to him.

6:05:  “Newt – you hated negativity until you loved it.  What’s up with that?”  The interesting thing here is that Newt sounds worn out and defeated already.  I don’t have any problem with “negative” campaigning as long as it’s a legitimate hit on someone, but the attacks on capitalism (and they WERE, not JUST attacks on Bain) were just dumb.  And Newt’s “I’m just raising questions” thing is weak – is there a more dishonest way to respond when someone calls you on the carpet for a dishonest attack?

6:03:  God, I hate that MLK statue – could it look any more sinister?  Could it capture his spirit any more poorly?

6:02:  My daughter is insisting on sitting next to me to help.  That makes me the winner of this debate.  I love that they aren’t using the “bell” or anything.

6:00:  My computer is being slow to load – ugh.  Oh, well – right to it.  “Five REMAINING candidates.”  Lots of cheers for Romney, and they sounded less forced than some of the others (yes, I’m talking about Ron Paul).

Dinner with the fam came first, but I really wanted to catch and write about this one, since it may be the last one that matters.  Times are TV time.  And here we go!

It’s an interesting brochure – lots and lots of charts and numbers and YouTube suggestions.  It’s apparently NOT paid for by the Paul campaign, but is rather an “independent” expenditure by volunteers who buy the pieces and then distribute them on their own.  (More details here.)  That seems a little weird to me – what would be the point of distributing campaign literature in such a roundabout way?  Maybe it’s just an attempt to make it look more grass-rootsy, I don’t know.  But my flags always go up a little when a candidate doesn’t have to claim expenditures – and the source of that money – on their regular reports.

~~~

But that’s not what really got my attention.  Instead, it’s an issue with one of the images that in all fairness, you have to be pretty nerdy to spot right away.  In the “National Defense” section, there’s this picture of various warships steaming in formation:

That ship in the front?  It isn’t an American ship.

The one behind it is – I think it’s the USS San Jacinto.  But the third ship back isn’t American either.  The last one in this formation is an American destroyer, and is flying a bog-ol’ battle ensign to prove it (I love it).  But half of the ships in this formation aren’t US ships.

I have no idea what this says or means – probably nothing except that someone got a little careless with their Google image search.  But whoever put this together didn’t know or care about what was in their image of “the military” as they were being a little sanctimonious about how Ron Paul is the only candidate who really loves the troops, and that annoys me.  Part of loving/respecting/supporting the troops it to know what they’re actually doing.

I think this resonated with me because it illustrates the reason I find Ron Paul so unacceptable as a CinC candidate.  He speaks of “peace” but doesn’t understand the importance of projecting power abroad in order to dissuade other nations or entities from coming over here and taking a shot or two.  (Pound for pound, there’s no better vehicle for “Peace Through Strength” than a strong Navy that regularly deploys all around the planet.)

Paul supporters love to talk about the ephemeral difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism”, but they don’t understand that you just cannot have free and robust international trade without a strong and globally present Navy to protect those trade routes.   It’s an issue we’ve dealt with as a country since our founding.

(Incidentally, I can’t identify the nation of origin of those other two ships – if any of my readers who have cracked a recce guide more recently than I have can, I’d very much appreciate it!)

~~~

Really, though, the worst image on this brochure takes me back to the front of it.  It (inadvertently, of course) does a good job illustrating one of my core problems with the Paul campaign – it is in so many ways a cult of personality.  The image is just a little too heroic, and a little too evocative for my comfort of some far more odious political marketing…

Incidentally, Ron Paul also wrote a "manifesto".

Any good marketing piece sums up the central argument of its product with a couple of well placed images.  This piece ironically did exactly the opposite for me, neatly summarizing all my discomforts with Ron Paul.

~~~

I do want to make one anticipatory response to comments I’m sure to get.  I’m not “vilifying Dr. Paul” as I was recently accused of doing.  I know he’s not a secret communist, and that whatever supporter independently put this thing together certainly means well.  And while I don’t support him, I’m glad he’s in the race and shining a light on economic topics that would otherwise be ignored.

But it’s certainly not “vilifying” a political candidate of any kind – and especially one running for the most powerful position in the Free World – to closely and critically examine them.  I simply disagree with many of his positions, and find this particular marketing tactic rather troublesome.

It just doesn’t – nor should it – work that way.

Such a secondary option would still do violence to the Constitution – certainly its spirit. The bottom line is that the Senate rejected Cordray, as is their right. That’s one of the checks on the President’s power. At that point, his ONLY Constitutionally legitimate option is to nominate another person for that post, perhaps trying this time for one who can gain the necessary support from the States’ various elected representatives.

And even if it was Constitutionally legitimate, Cordray’s taking power is still not a legally legitimate under the statute which created the CFPB in the first place.  As Professor Zywicki points out at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Leaving aside the constitutional questions, there is a potential statutory problem with the legality of the Cordray appointment under Dodd-Frank.  Section 1066 of Dodd-Frank provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to perform the functions of the CFPB under the subtitle transferring authority to the CFPB from the other agencies “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011.”  It turns out that section 1011 is a defined term which provides: “The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

This seems to suggest that even if the President might be able to appoint Cordray under the recess power the full grant of statutory authority wouldn’t transfer to the Bureau unless the statutory language was fulfilled as well.

~~~

And are these truly “extraordinary circumstances”?  Please – this wasn’t an invasion or an attack necessitating a swift declaration of war.  Somehow the Republic has survived for 235 years without a “Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”.  None of this was necessary (or even affordable), much less “extraordinary.”  It was purely a political stunt.

Not only was the President’s action lawless, it was gratuitously lawless – and that’s really what’s so deeply frightening about the whole episode.

Is there a good “conservative” “Republican” in the race? As much as I’d like to think the guy currently in office is vulnerable, the Republicans seem to be trying harder to make some kind of a point this year than actually run a candidate that can beat him. The collection of candidates the GOP is running out there is almost humorously bad, in my opinion. Your thoughts?

The short answer is, “Not really, but several are ‘good enough’.”  But as disappointing as that may be, there are silver linings to be found in that fact.

First, it’s worth taking a moment to define the terms.  “Conservatism” is a political philosophy, which many people define in different ways, but which I define here.  “Republican” is the name of the team you need to cobble together and then lead to actually implement certain policies – the purpose of a party is to win elections, without which policy battles can’t even be fought.  One can be a “good conservative” philosophically speaking, but be totally unable to actually lead or work within the party.  One can equally be a “good Republican” and lead a majority of other Republicans to bigger government, more debt, and an increased regulatory state – indeed, that’s been too much the norm, and it’s why there’s a tea party movement.

The key of course is to find someone who can do both, and the “not really” answer means that I’m not convinced that anyone in the field has anything very close to the ideal combination of “conservatism” and “Republicanism.”

My reader talks about “making a point” as if it’s an either/or proposition to “beating Obama”.  I reject that formulation – both are important.  The ability to beat Obama is an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to earning my vote, but that is ONLY a prerequisite.  Unless our policies change radically, we’re hosed – Mark Steyn has a depressing but important piece today on just how hosed we really may be.

(A note for the record:  I’m helping coordinate the caucus in Nevada for the Washoe County GOP, but I’m not attached to or aligned with any of the campaigns, formally or informally.  I am the quintessential undecided voter.  I’ve changed my mind on my preferred candidate dozens of times, and can still be convinced by several of these candidates.  As always, the comments section is open.)

So – how do the candidates stack up for me today?

Michelle Bachmann

Bachmann is interesting – she has an LLM in Tax law, which for the uninitiated means she got her law degree and then studied nothing but our tax code for an extra year, and then she went to work for the IRS where should would have learned much, much more about ways to improve the system.  (The fact that this is necessary says a lot about how absurdly complicated our tax code has become.)  This should have made her a sort of Super Wonk on a subject that’s both critically important and very difficult for most people to understand or explain.  On paper, she could have been another Paul Ryan.  And in a few of the early debates, she exceeded my expectations.

But instead she laid aside her most valuable asset and just seemed to throw a lot of bombs and repeat a bunch of bumper stickers.  She never struck me as a serious thinker, and her failure to garner any kind of support amongst her fellow Republicans for any kind of leadership position indicates they didn’t see her as particularly serious, either.  Conservatism is great, but your personal philosophy as a government official is meaningless to me without the ability to turn it into actual policy.  She never demonstrated that ability.

And for me, she closed the door on any serious consideration from me when she repeated the monstrous lie that vaccines cause mental retardation.

Newt Gingrich

I want to like Newt, I really do.  I love his fight.  I love his record of accomplishment at the federal level.  He’s smart, but also undisciplined.  Interestingly, he’s in a lot of ways simultaneously the best and the worst “conservative” “Republican” out there.

He has said some insanely non-conservative things, and supported some insanely non-conservative policies.  I’ve written about this before, and stand by it.  But he also led the charge on welfare reform, and make no mistake – without Newt Gingrich, the Republicans never would have taken control of the House, and the balanced budgets of the 1990s would never, ever have happened.  That’s impossible to ignore, and it’s why in spite of Newt’s baggage and his weird philosophical forays and his spectacular falling out with and ouster from the House GOP caucus he once led to so many victories, I’m willing to keep him in mind.

Jon Huntsman

Huntsman has a reasonably conservative record as governor of Utah, but he’s running against conservatism AND the Republican base in a campaign where people are wondering if there’s a “good ‘conservative’ ‘Republican’ in the race”.  His strategy will inevitably fail for reason’s I’ve previously written about – I’ll honestly be surprised if he’s still in the race by February 4th.

Ron Paul

I recently wrote about my primary issues with Paul here.  But there’s another factor that’s equally as important.  He can’t lead.  He can’t convince.  Many of the supporters he attracts actively repel other folks who might be interested in his message.  Even if I agreed with him on every issue, he’s shown zero ability to actually accomplish anything.

Ron Paul has been in Congress literally longer than I’ve been alive.  He’s sponsored 620 bills, and of those, exactly one – one – has become law (it was a non-controversial measure to get a piece of federal property sold in Galveston).  Today I was arguing with a Paul supporter who claimed that was a good thing – we don’t need more laws, after all!  That’s true as far as it goes, but the Constitutional process requires that you pass a law to get rid of a law.  In other words, you still need a bill that can be voted on to limit or eliminate some government program.  And in order to do THAT, you need to actually convince people your idea has merit.

Such convincing takes time, effort, and frankly some people skills.  Either Ron Paul doesn’t possess or doesn’t wish to use the powers of persuasion necessary to turn his ideas into policy.  Even if I agreed with him on everything, that makes him worthless to me as “my guy on the inside,” even in the Oval Office.

His supporters have the same problem.  I think they max out at around 10, maybe 15% of just the GOP, but let’s be generous and call it 25%, reflecting the Iowa caucus polls.  This isn’t true of some, but a sizable chunk of them will immediately refer to you as a “neocon shill” or some other kookiness if you show the slightest suggestion that maybe Paul isn’t some sort of divine savior from the evil forces of Colonel Sanders and the CFR.  Here in Nevada in 2008, their attempt to “take over” the state convention even after is was abundantly clear that McCain had the nomination sewed up demonstrated a total disregard for either their fellow Republicans OR Conservatism.  I wrote at the time:

But their little convention juntas are anything but conservative. A conservative society must respect the individual liberties of each citizen equally, and that includes respecting their votes after they’ve been cast. The Ron Paul people have decided to forgo that respect for anyone else’s preferences, and force through a candidate that most Republicans are, as the primary vote totals and national polls indicate, profoundly uninterested in.

Their justification for this is that those of us who do not support their candidate are either stupid, misinformed, manipulated, or are enemies of the Lost Constitution that only Ron Paul has any hope of restoring. In other words, they know better than I do what’s good for me. I don’t know about anyone else, but that sounds a lot more like Hillary Clinton than Ronald Reagan. Indeed, the entire idea of drastic “revolutions” inspired by “manifestos” ought to be very troubling to anyone interested in maintaining the stable and prosperous society we still live in.

So no – Ron Paul is not my guy.  He’s not good at being a Republican (which I understand his supporters see as a badge of honor), but even philosophically his movement is far more “conservative” in word than in deed.

Rick Perry

I had such huge expectations of Rick Perry.  When you look at actual records of accomplishment, particularly economically, he blows everyone else on the stage away.  And then he stunk up pretty much every single debate and blew a hole in his foot a mile wide.  What a shame.

I’m still willing to look at Rick Perry – Moses wasn’t a talented orator either, and we sure could use a little leading to the Promised Land about now.  But unless there’s some miracle between now and next month, I just don’t see how a vote for him isn’t totally wasted.  Of course, given the volatility of these polls, that may not be completely out of the question…

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is just not a conservative, at least not philosophically.  He’s a fix-it guy with a much better record of “fixing” things in the private sector than from a government leadership position.  But he is a very good (if not great) Republican in terms of looking to build a broad coalition and use the party apparatus to win both elections and policy fights.

Jim Rose had a great piece today that summed up why Romney’s lack of a solid philosophical foundation doesn’t bother me as much as it might otherwise.

The main criticism of Romney is actually the reason I’m not worried about him as President. He’s a political opportunists, so if the conservatives want to win some political battles, give the opportunists plenty of opportunities. In other words, if the GOP can take the Senate and set the agenda, Romney will follow.

(Read the whole thing, BTW – it’s a really great analysis.)  Jim also thinks Romney will nominate an “ultra-conservative running mate” if he’s the nominee.  And a few days ago what picture was up on Drudge?

Oh, yeah. If I knew for certain this was going to be the ticket if Romney won, I'd probably settle firmly into his camp right now.

Romney doesn’t inspire love or passion.  There’s not the sense he means what he says or says what he means, and that’s the reason Romney doesn’t already have this thing locked up.  But Christie?  I don’t agree with him on everything, but I LOVE that guy.  He would bring some serious heft (yeah, yeah, but it’s true regardless of his weight) to that ticket – politically, policy-wise, and communication-wise.  Endorsements don’t usually matter to me, but this one does, especially given the very real possibility in my mind that Romney would ask Christie to join the ticket.

Rick Santorum

In the search for the latest “not-Romney,” some people like the guys over at The Other McCain are climbing on the Santorum bus.  I just don’t understand this.

Rick Santorum is probably the least conservative candidate in this race.  Religion alone doesn’t make you conservative – Big Government in the Name of Jesus is no less odious to me than any other kind.  Indeed, he expressly rejects the idea of individual liberty being the lodestar of legitimate government action, and virtually every one of his solutions to the problems facing us today involve mandates from Washington.  His record as a Senator reflects the same big government mentality.  Santorum has no respect for individualism or federalism, and he’s exactly he kind of nanny-statist that made me think I was a Democrat back when I was in high school and the “Religious Right” was ascendant.  And while I have no reason to believe he’s anything other than a good man, something about him rubs me very hard the wrong way.  This may be grossly unfair, but I know I’m not alone and it definitely matters in terms of electability.

And while he was elected twice to the Senate from a key swing state, after two years in office those same voters fired him with extreme prejudice in 2006 – an 18 point loss, which can’t be explained away solely by the fact that it was an awful year for Republicans all around.  If he can’t convince the people who know him best, it’s hard to imagine that he could do it nationally (not to mention get those PA electoral votes that are up for grabs).

Santorum might do well tomorrow.  But then, so did Mike Huckabee.  I would be just as disappointed as I was four years ago over such an outcome, but then I’d remember how things worked out for Huckabee and would imagine Iowa on a pair of water skis finally jumping over that shark.

~~~

So I don’t agree with my reader that the entire field is “almost humorously bad” (although a few of them are to me).  Several of them have major records of accomplishment, and as long as the GOP electoral strategy remains broad based, we can maximize the pros and minimize the cons contained within this field of candidates.

I hear a lot that we “need a Reagan right now.”  Well, we don’t have one, and even if we did, people would be complaining about how he’s too old and nothing but a doddering B movie actor who isn’t serious and can’t win against a vulnerable incumbent.  You go vote with the candidates you have, not with the fantasy one you wish you had.  If you don’t like it, next time get involved and help support and groom a better guy or gal.

There may not be an ideal “good ‘conservative’ ‘Republican’” in this race right now, but we have several who are “good enough.”  President Obama is actively destructive, and his removal from office is an absolute necessity if we’re to have any hope of serious economic recovery before my son (who is due to be born in April) graduates from high school.

While it would be nice to have some Great Hope come descend from above and fix all our problems, it’s valuable to be reminded that no one we elect to the Presidency is going to just wave a wand. We traditionally tend to ignore the shortcomings of the guy on “our team,” and so maybe a support-with-healthy-reservations-and-a-watchful-eye is probably a very good way to vote for any politician come November.

There is so much passion in the conservative movement right now, and it’s not going away.  People aren’t going to sit at home this time.  So if they’re unhappy with the Presidential nominee, perhaps instead they’ll pay more mind (and time and energy and money) to the Congressional, State, and other down-ticket races that can matter SO much more than the occupant of the Oval Office.  All of this is healthy.

Indeed – those down ticket races cannot be stressed enough.  To quote again from that great Jim Rose piece again, “I really think the Tea Party needs to concentrate more this year on sending Jim DeMint reinforcements so that no matter who has the White House, we still have an army. ”

One thing is for certain – no matter what happens, it will be fascinating to see how the results in Iowa shape our own caucus a month from now.

Click here to go straight to the registration page.

All the info you need to learn about the caucus – your location, times, and how to conduct your precinct meeting itself – can all be found at WashoeCountyGOP.org.  Please bookmark it, share it, tell your friends, and then bring them along to the caucus.

We’re conducting several training sessions so people can get a preview of what to expect at their precinct meetings.  The sessions are held at GOP Headquarters every Tuesday night at 6:30 and Saturday morning at 11:00 through the rest of this month.  Here’s a link for more details.

Remember, you have to be registered as a Republican by January 20th in order to participate.  If you’re a conservative who’s been frustrated by the Republican Party over the last several years, first, welcome to the club.  I’m personally volunteering with the county party to help coordinate the caucuses because I’ve often felt the same way, and because I believe that if you have the energy to complain about the problem, you have the energy to stand up and be part of the solution. (Nobody’s paying me for any of this, that I can tell you!)

I hope you feel the same way, and will join me in pitching in.  We could all use the help – remember, the caucuses are party events, and not conducted by the government the way a regular election would be.  That means we need volunteers to help staff caucus locations, stuff envelopes, make phone calls, etc.  If you’re interested, please fill out the volunteer form during the on-line registration process, and another volunteer will be in touch with you shortly.  It’s quick, easy, and volunteers will still be able to participate in the caucuses.

See you on February 4th!

(The most interesting thing about that RGJ article is how unsympathetic the commenters are to the woman.)

I couldn’t resist, so I asked them if they were demanding more or less government.  One woman (one of the few who WASN’T dressed like a hipster clown) said, “Well, I want less.”  Good for her.

Everyone else hedged, and said, “Weeeeellll, it’s not about whether you want more or less government.  We want BETTER government.”  I said (paraphrased for the sake of me sounding more awesome than I probably was), “You understand that more government leads to more opportunity to be corrupt, right?”  “It’s not about more or less government – it’s about BETTER government!”  “Yeah, but you understand the more intrusive government is, the more likely it is to be corrupt, don’t you?”  “You’re not asking the right questions!”  I just laughed and walked away, while one of them followed me for a few dozen yards trying to underscore why my focus on limited government missed the point.

Some of them were wearing masks.  You have to ask – if you’re just a group of people upset at a bad home loan, why do you dress like banditos?  It is a threat of some kind?  Since they #Occupy movement is all about taking other people’s stuff, it really does make a sort of sense.

I didn’t ask what actual good they thought they’d get out of waiving a few signs for an hour in the middle of the work day, but that’s because I already knew the answer.

~~~

I will admit, though, that they were polite and non-violent, which our local #Occupy group has been since the beginning.  That’s in sharp contrast to the murder/rape/theft fest that’s helped define their brethren.  Good for them.  I don’t agree with them, but I’m happy they’re out there articulating their message and being honest about what liberalism is all about.

~~~

In the end, though, I admit I learned something very important from these guys.  I learned I need to upgrade my frickin’ phone so I have better photo/video capabilities when such a beautiful blogging opportunity presents itself!  The signs alone were priceless…

The protests may well have merit – I just don’t know (please feel free to elucidate me in the comments – I legitimately would like to hear the arguments without the filter of the Associated Press).  But here’s a free piece of advice to the Republicans – if you want your arguments to have any credibility whatsoever, please, please, please stop with the “Sharron Angle had the election stolen from her” ridiculousness.  In order for this to hold weight, you have to imagine that Reid had this conversation with his minions:

“OK, guys.  I want you to all go double vote and rig the machines for me.  And also for Brian Sandoval.  What?  No, I know he’s a Republican.  Oh, also go vote for Joe Heck over Dina Titus.  What’s that?  Yeah, he’s a Republican, too, and will further weaken my power amongst the Nevada delegation even if I win, but I want you to do it anyway.  No, I understand the Sandoval thing could be explained as cover but the Heck thing is unnecessary.  Oh, and I know it’s a long drive, but I want you all to go do the same thing in Washoe County.  Yeah – and hit Mineral County, too, while you’re at it.  No, no, Sandoval there, too.  Just do as I say.”

Sharron Angle lost because she failed to convince a plurality of Nevadans that she could be an effective Senator, period.  She spent her political career playing the politics of subtraction and burning unnecessary bridges.  She was only the nominee because out-of-state groups who did not know these things about her funded her when Nevadans wouldn’t.  If we ignore the lessons from her flawed campaign, we are doomed to repeat them.

And since I’m feeling the Christmas spirit still resonate, I’ll hand out the gift of free advice to the left, too.  If you want to have any credibility on these election issues, quit denying that election/voter fraud takes place.  It very obviously does – I’ve written this before:

In 2004, 725 King County (Seattle, WA) precincts had hundreds more ballots than voters, with 3,539 more votes than voters. That mattered that year, when the governor was decided by less than 200 votes. In 2008, several kids got busted voting in Ohio (without actually living there) while registered in other states. That same year hundreds of felons voted illegally in Minnesota, very likely throwing an incredibly tight election to Al Franken. In Massachusetts at the time of the January special Senate election last year, a state where photo ID is not required to vote, 116,483 dead people and another 538,567 people who were no longer living at the addresses on their registrations were still registered as active voters. In Florida, fraud involving absentee ballots has been uncovered, including stealing ballots from mailboxes.

I don’t like to assume nefarious motives.  But denials in the face of pretty obvious and consequential fraud (always seeming to benefit Democrats, by the way) while supporting policies that allow such fraud to continue don’t exactly lead to very savory conclusions…

And Now Let’s Throw In a Little First Amendment Caselaw…

Thomas Mitchell at 4TH ST8 is trying to make a First Amendment martyr out of Citizen Outreach, claiming that the state is trying to “gag political free speech” with the AG’s attempt to fine that organization after Secretary of State Ross Miller investigated the issue.  But while it’s fair to be suspicious of any government agency coming down on any political advocacy group, there was no speech suppression here.  No one prevented mailers from going out.  No one was gagged.  There was no prior restraint.  Voters still learned what they needed to learn about the candidate in question, John Oceguera, before they went to the ballot box.

The complaint is over a failure to properly disclose the expenditure.

The important and welcome Citizens United v. FEC was closely decided (5-4), but 8 of the 9 Justices, from Atonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, all agreed that disclosure and transparency requirements were Constitutionally OK, and I agree.  (Mitchell cited Citizens United in his piece, but didn’t include that critically important piece of the opinion.)  The justices all also seemed to agree that Citizens United’s anti-Hillary movie was, in fact, an express exhortation to vote for or against a certain candidate (duh), regardless of the presence or absence of “magic words” (which would be an absurd legal standard).  And look – a mailer bashing one candidate shortly before that candidate is up before the voters is obviously an exhortation to vote against that candidate.  To say otherwise is to whizz on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

We owe the adoption of our Constitution to anonymous political speech, and I welcome it.  But when it comes to individual candidates, I frankly want to know who they’re beholden to, and I agree with the overwhelming majority of the Court that there is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits requiring such a disclosure.

Consider – when Rory Reid set up 91 separate PACs to sidestep campaign donation limits, Citizen Outreach’s Chuck Muth justifiably called him a “lying sh*t-weasel”.  But had Reid been able to hide those PACs behind a curtain of anonymity, that corruption would never have come to light, and more of it would have been invited down the road.

Consider further the outrage many of us felt when Obama was almost certainly getting illegal campaign contributions from overseas by taking advantage of loopholes in disclosure laws.  Consider the outrage we would and do feel when “community organizing” groups, most of which are non-profits, try to inject themselves into campaigns, and now imagine their income sources (like George Soros or guys like William Ayers) can be secret and unlimited, when direct donations to a candidate himself would have to be disclosed.

I’m glad Citizen Outreach helped better inform the voters about Oceguera, and my distaste for that group’s president aside, I’ll fight for their right to continue doing so to the bitter end.  But there was no reason for them to not comply with various campaign disclosure laws, and they hurt their efforts to prevent Oceguera from holding future political office as a result. It was a dumb thing to do, and the First Amendment won’t – and shouldn’t – protect them from the consequences.

If conservatives want to have credibility when (justly) attacking various liberal groups for being secretive and fraudulent when it comes to their election activities, our own hands have to be clean.

~~~

I’ve always liked Secretary of State Ross Miller – remember, this is the guy who – as a Democrat – went after ACORN and actually secured some fraud convictions.  And I have a LOT of very conservative friends that I trust explicitly who have known Miller well for years, and who hold him in very high regard.  Whether I agree with his policies or not, that’s enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to his motives.  (And frankly, civil discourse in this country would be a whole lot further along if we didn’t automatically assume secret and nefarious conspiracy every time we have a policy disagreement with an elected official.)

But both of the above stories show why his decision to go with that “Ballot Royale” in September’s special election was so damaging.  Whether his motives were partisan or not, it certainly LOOKED that way, and that perception alone undermined the credibility of his office as a fair, non-partisan arbiter of our elections.

~~~

But stoking those flames on the other side helps no one, either, and indeed can have scary consequences.  We cannot have a free society with limited government without (ironically) some measure of faith in that government.  As soon as a critical mass of people believe their government is no longer legitimate or hopelessly corrupt, and rigged such that they can never change it, they start ignoring it – and that pretty quickly leads to a full on breakdown of civil society.  The veneer of civilization is a thin one – ask anyone who was still in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

That isn’t to say we shouldn’t be skeptical, vigilant, and outspoken when it comes to our government officials – obviously we should.  But before we start throwing out accusations of evil motives, we ought to be damned sure those accusations are fully vetted and warranted.  From everythign I know so far, the above accusations against the SoS’s Office do not meet that standard.

We all live here – salting the fields and scorching the earth in a political fight – no matter how morally outraged we may feel – will starve our entire society to death.

On my deployments to the Persian Gulf, the Iranians would come take a look at us from time to time. This is a patrol boat watching us as we conducted anti-smuggling boarding operations in 2001. They would also send out "fishing" dhows to disrupt fueling operations just by getting in the way and other sorts of things. And this was a "quiet" time in US-Iranian naval involvement - the incident with the USS Vincennes was sparked by out and out attacks from similar Iranian patrol craft.

I respect where Ron (Anderson) is coming from, but I’m with Ace.  If Ron Paul had been President in the late 30s/early 40s, we might have come out of the Depression faster, but Germany would have developed the Bomb before we did, and we would have been fighting Japan and Germany mostly on American soil with vast damage to our own economic infrastructure (not to mention all those dead people and enslaved nations).  The soundest monetary policy in the world won’t help you when your factories are all blown to rubble.

Hitler won’t be working on the A-Bomb in 2014, but Iran certainly will be.  “But wait!” you might say.  “I thought Paul said Iran was just minding their own business.  You mean they aren’t?”

A federal judge in Manhattan has issued a default judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, its top officials and various political and military subdivisions in finding that the defendants provided direct and material support to al-Qaida in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

This isn’t a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to Iran since about 1979.  But while I don’t think anyone has the appetite to go to war with Iran (although they certainly seem to be daring us to take a shot these days), it’s worth remembering that they are still there, they don’t like us, that they are overtly hostile towards us, and that they have been for some time.  A nuclear armed and uncontained Iran is no less an existential threat to our continued existence than the horrific economic policies of the current Administration.

If Iran (or some other Muslim nation) feels there will be no consequence beyond a nasty letter from the UN if they make good on their repeated promises to “wipe Israel off the map,” no one should doubt that they will start wiping with any means at their disposal.  And a Middle East without Israel as a both an outpost of liberal democracy and a geo-political-military counterweight would be terrifying indeed – not to mention the horror of genocide.

Isolationism is neither in the interests of the USA specifically or the cause of liberty generally.  While President Obama doesn’t understand this adequately, he at least understands it better than Ron Paul.  Paul’s brand of aggressive isolationism and willful blindness to evil as it brews and strengthens overseas is suicidally dangerous, and I can’t vote for a guy for President who acts suicidally towards my country.

Roberson in particular is persuasive.  Part of this is that he’s usually gracious even in his tenacity, even when I happen to disagree with him on something.  This is crucial – unapologetic conservatism will sell even in “blue” districts and states, because the idea that government has limits, should be accountable, and should spend within its means are concepts that are hard to argue with.  But even quality products need to be promoted and “sold”.

Incidentally, this is why merely looking at a voting record is an inadequate way to judge a legislator, which is why most of those “report cards” you see at the end of the session should be taken with large grains of salt.  The question must broaden to one of, “was this person able to get enough other legislators (in either party) on board with their idea such that they either passed good legislation or blacked bad legislation?”

I sincerely don’t mean to knock folks in past sessions, but these guys have been particularly good.  I hope we see more and more of this kind of leadership in the years to come in both chambers, and frankly, nationally.

And just for fun for the nerdier amongst my readership, here’s a theoretical astrophysicist with the scientific background of Lillian’s story.

Merry Christmas and a wondrous New Year to all my wonderful friends and family – I’m so blessed to have you all in my life.  Thank you and God bless to everyone of every political (and non-political) stripe who makes me think, who teach me new things every day, and who make life so wonderful and interesting.  And thanks to all the people who have to work today – police, military folks both here and abroad, the folks at CVS who saved a Christmas dinner of mine when I ran out of butter a few years ago, and everyone else who makes America worth living in.