Erick Erickson's Blog, page 102

The Horserace for October 13, 2011

It was the one question in the Bloomberg-Washington Post debate that gave away the game. A source close to, but not in, the Bachmann campaign told me it was that question when he realized the game was over for Michele Bachmann. It was that one question that, according to a source close to the Perry camp and a source close to the Cain camp, raised a red flag for the Romney campaign and shows just how worried the Romney camp is about the race consolidating.

It was that one question that also shows why the Romney campaign is, behind the scenes, furiously pushing states to move up their caucuses and primaries.

That one question spoke louder to more people than all the other questions asked Tuesday night. And in that question lies Michele Bachmann's ultimate defeat and Mitt Romney's Achilles heel.

Yes, one question did all that. Find out what that question was in this week's horserace.

Michele Bachmann

It was the moment a source close to the Bachmann campaign and supportive of that campaign told me he knew, the minute it was asked, Bachmann's campaign is finished. He cautions that the campaign itself may not have had the "a-ha" moment he did, but that it will sink in.

That question?

During the candidate portion of the debate, Mitt Romney asked Michele Bachmann a question. It wasn't just any question — it was a softball question filled with mush to rehabilitate the Congresswoman's low standing in the polls. It was Mitt Romney's way of saying, "I need you to stay in this thing."

The question:

Let me turn to Congresswoman Bachmann and just — just as you, Congresswoman. As — as we've spoken this evening, we're all concerned about getting Americans back to work. And you've laid out some pretty bold ideas with regards to taxation and cutting back the scale of the federal government. And there's no question that's a very important element of getting people back to work.

And I'd like to ask you to expand on your other ideas. What do you do to help the American people get back to work, be able to make ends meet? You've got families that are sitting around the kitchen table wondering how they're going to make — make it to the end of the month. You've got — you've got young people coming out of college, maybe not here at Dartmouth, but a lot of colleges across the country wondering where they can get a job.

What — what would you do — beyond the tax policies you describe — to get people back to work?

That question said so much. The implication for the Bachmann campaign is clear. The Romney camp is calculating, accurately, that Michele Bachmann has no path to victory, but she can very clearly be a spoiler.

The Bachmann campaign was pronounced dead with that question.

Herman Cain

I did not see it coming and I did not expect it. Herman Cain is now in first place. For an upstart campaign low on cash and staff, it is an unenviable position with so much to envy.

Cain is going to have to start answering tough questions. The more 999 is explored, the more it is clear the national sales tax portion is not viable. It will be an anchor on Cain. More so, he won't answer who his advisors are. That's actually probably because he does not have many to rely on. But because he will not answer the question, the media is going to keep hounding him.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll gives the media every incentive they can to pick off Herman Cain. If his fundraising increases rapidly, he can hang on. If not, his fall benefits Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich

Already polling is showing a Gingrich rebound coupled with a Cain rebound from a strong debate performance. But Gingrich needs to improve his fundraising substantially. Without money and organization, he cannot win.

The poll fluctuations show that voters prefer someone other than Romney and they will keep going through the candidates looking for someone. If Cain falls off, Gingrich is probably helped and, if he can start laying down a foundation now, he may be able to benefit.

Jon Huntsman

If Jon Huntsman would stop telling bad jokes at debates maybe he could start rehabilitating himself. As of now, his polling keeps slowly creeping up, but he remains more a media fantasy than a real candidate.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul will not be the nominee.

Rick Perry

I realize this will get me locked in as a "Perry shill," but the more I think about this race, the more I think Rick Perry still has one of the clearest paths to victory.

Look at the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. Pretty much every bit of Perry's fall went to candidates not named Romney — in particular to Herman Cain.

Of all the candidates not named Romney, Perry is the only one with (A) substantial cash on hand and (B) a continued ability to raise substantial sums from an existing network of donors.

He has the largest staff in Iowa. He has not yet released his jobs plan, his energy plan, his foreign policy plan, etc. That means more exposure over the coming month in free media.

Republican primary voters clearly do not want Mitt Romney and are judging alternatives. If Cain collapses again and Newt can't get traction, the odds are those votes rebound to Perry, not Romney. And with a compressed calendar, Perry remains the only non-Romney with the money to compete.

Perry must (A) deal with the immigration issue effectively as that remains a serious sore spot with primary voters and (B) get people back into a comfort level with him — easier said than done. But if he can, he has the money to compete and Romney's question to Bachmann is a clear indicator the Romney campaign knows consolidation of the field is still possible and would work against Romney.

Mitt Romney

Take Romney's question to Michele Bachmann on Tuesday night, add to it the news that Romney advisors helped build Obamacare, and then throw in the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll and pretty much every other poll showing Romney has reached a ceiling of support among voters while voters vet alternatives.

Sure, the establishment is ready to proceed to the general election. The "inevitability" bandwagon is on. Mitt Romney is the GOP's Hillary Clinton. The establishment wants the base to settle down and marry now. But the base is still flirting and showing no interest.

Mitt Romney needs the field to stay crowded to win. Right now, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann are serving only to bolster Romney's chances. If they drop out, they may embrace Romney, but the odds are their supporters do not.

The conventional wisdom is that it is Romney's race to lose, but I wonder if the conventional wisdom might be wrong. If any consolidation starts happening, it will work against Romney. Just as Perry's fall helped Cain get ahead of Romney, any fall by Cain could see those voters go back to Perry (if he rebounds) or go to someone like Newt Gingrich. And yes, a failure to consolidate should help Romney, but look at what is happening. When the voters move their gaze from one candidate to another, that candidate not Romney suddenly takes the lead. He's the perpetual bridesmaid.

If I were Romney, I'd be worried. And that he asked Michele Bachmann a question on Tuesday instead of any of the other candidates polling in double digits suggests he knows he needs to be worried and also knows he needs to keep the second and third tier candidates in the race as long as possible.

Rick Santorum

The Santorum-Cain exchange on Tuesday night was ridiculous. Santorum would not shut up, whined about a lack of questions, and then tried to rally the crowd against Herman Cain only to fail. I was embarrassed for him. He will not be the nominee.

Returning an Obscure Congressman to Permanent Obscurity

He was elected in 2000, and is serving in his 6th term in Congress.

He is pathetic on education issues and school choice reforms in particular. He voted in favor of No Child Left Behind, and earlier this year, was one of only 4 Republicans to oppose reinstating opportunity scholarships for poor children in D.C.

He is a restrictor of free speech. He supported McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform," along with 527 reform a few years later. He even opposed a bipartisan bill to ensure that campaign finance laws would not apply to bloggers.

He is a defender of seemingly every liberal spending program, including: the National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Amtrak, Headstart, Americorps, the National School Lunch Program, the Legal Services Corporation, etc. He is serial reauthorizer of farm subsidies, highway subsidies, and energy subsidies.

He is profoundly unserious about cutting spending. He voted to earmark funds for Kentucky's tourism industry, the DC metro system, a National Mule and Packers Museum, researching the genetic makeup of grapes, the Bronx Council of Arts, etc. He consistently votes against the conservative budgets offered by the Republican Study Committee (with one exception, which must have been a mistake). He opposed comprehensive reforms to the budget and spending process designed to limit government rather than expand it, probably because they were opposed vigorously by the appropriators.

He voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit and the expansion of SCHIP, and voted to block the Bush Administration from controlling Medicaid spending. And in this age where every Republican tries to outdo each other on repeal of Obamacare, he voted to expand one of its grant programs earlier this year.

He is a regulator. He voted for Sarbanes Oxley and led the effort for higher CAFÉ standards on cars and trucks. He voted to over regulate credit card companies so that they increase costs on consumers. And before it was fashionable to Drill Baby Drill, he opposed lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.

He was one of only three Republicans who voted for all of "Six in 06" priority bills of the new Democrat Majority in 2007 (increasing the minimum wage, adding price controls in Medicare, Democrat PAYGO, etc.).

And of course, he voted to massively increase the nation's debt limit by a trillion dollars this past summer with virtually nothing in exchange for it.

He currently has a 52% on Heritage Action's scorecard.

He represents a district that is currently a +12 GOP district. George W. Bush and John McCain won the district convincingly, as did Tom Corbett in 2010. (To give you a sense for how conservative that is, Jeff Flake's district is +15 GOP, and Mike Pence's district is +10 GOP.)

Meet Todd Platts. He represents Pennsylvania's 19th district, and he needs to be primaried.

Superficial Agreement

Last night on AC360, John King filled in for Anderson Cooper and noted that a number of the Republican Presidential candidates are tempering their tone toward the Occupy Wall Street crowd. He asked if I stood by all my harsh words toward them. "Absolutely," I replied.

Part of the reason the candidates are toning down is because it is a good way to put more light on Mitt Romney being more of Wall Street than the rest of them. There is a populist campaign against Wall Street to be waged by the GOP and Mitt Romney can't do it.

But in waging such a campaign — one I think needs to be waged — the right needs to be very careful about going too far down the Occupy Wall Street road.

The hipsters, hippies, and assorted police car poppers on Wall Street are as upset as some on the right with the bank bailouts, etc. Superficially there is a lot to agree on.

I have said for a while that it is a crying shame companies in this country have gotten to the point where they'd rather pay a K-Street lobbyist to go carve out a tax loophole to benefit the corporation than spend money to innovate.

Simplifying the tax code, getting rid of corporate welfare, etc. are things that can be agreed on.

But in a lot of the rhetoric from the police poppers and occupying Wall Street, there is a lot of class warfare rhetoric and a lot of pop marxism. They want to redistribute wealth. They want to take from those who have and give to those who they have determined are more deserving. The blame the top 1% for gaming the system when, if they were honest, they themselves helped elect a lot of the people who passed the laws.

How many of the occupiers support Barney Frank? What about Chris Dodd?

Additionally, much of the rhetoric involves more government intervention in the economy. They claim it isn't really a free market. But their solution is not to deregulate and make the market more free. Their solution is to make the market even less free.

Historically, the further a nation moves from a free market, the more its people get poor and the more its government gets totalitarian.

The anti-Wall Street populism will play well on both sides of the aisle. But the solutions, beyond the superficial, are in stark ideological contrast. And we cannot afford as nation for the ragtag group of socialists, communists, and hangers on to have their way.

Morning Briefing for October 13, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For October 13, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Superficial Agreement

2. Maybe That's Why He Is Unemployed

3. The Moment With Lasting Impact

4. Herman Cain's Unrealistic Economic Plan

———————————————————————-

1. Superficial Agreement

Last night on AC360, John King filled in for Anderson Cooper and noted that a number of the Republican Presidential candidates are tempering their tone toward the Occupy Wall Street crowd. He asked if I stood by all my harsh words toward them. "Absolutely," I replied.

Part of the reason the candidates are toning down is because it is a good way to put more light on Mitt Romney being more of Wall Street than the rest of them. There is a populist campaign against Wall Street to be waged by the GOP and Mitt Romney can't do it.

But in waging such a campaign — one I think needs to be waged — the right needs to be very careful about going too far down the Occupy Wall Street road.

The hipsters, hippies, and assorted police car poppers on Wall Street are as upset as some on the right with the bank bailouts, etc. Superficially there is a lot to agree on.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Maybe That's Why He Is Unemployed

Does the White House just not vet these people?

The Obama Administration wanted to show the President in a blue collar setting, so they put him at a table with several bottles of Budweiser and some unemployed workers. Note that the President had a Budweiser in front of him, but wisely opted for a Guiness.

In any event, one of the unemployed workers is a guy named Mark McKim. Turns out Mr. McKim was arrested in 2006 for DUI and possession of drugs. In 2007, he was arrested for violating probation.

There might be a reason other than the GOP for Mr. McKim's unemployment.

Again, does the White House not vet these people?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The Moment With Lasting Impact

Joining the league of people who got to the first tier, Herman Cain is now under withering fire for his 9-9-9 plan and what it'll mean for the country. Thus far he has held his own, but he is going to have to do better.

For example, saying that he'd require a 2/3 vote to repeal his plan is unconstitutional unless he somehow is able to get it stuck in the constitution as an amendment thereto.

Likewise, saying the American people will keep pressure on Congress to not alter or increase the rates is not credible given that Cain and the other Republicans are fighting to repeal a health care law that Congress and the White House pushed through despite a majority of Americans opposed to it and a tea party movement energized to fight it.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Herman Cain's Unrealistic Economic Plan

One of the first things you learn as a young infantry officer is that hope is not a method. You don't hope the enemy behaves in a certain way. You don't hope support shows up at the right time. You don't lead an operation that is based on hope.

As Herman Cain has shot to a surprising lead in the polls more attention has turned to his signature economic program: the 9-9-9 Plan.

There is a lot that is superficially attractive about the plan. It's shortcoming is that it relies entirely on hope. Not just any hope but a hope that runs contrary to everything we know about human nature and the way government operates.

For the sake of argument we'll stipulate that the Plan will do all those things Mr. Cain claims. It will produce more revenue in a fairer way than the current system. I don't disagree with that. Sending regiments of Cossacks out to pillage the countryside would achieve the same purpose.

The plan is unrealistic for two reasons: Congress must pass it and Congress must sustain it.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Maybe That's Why He Is Unemployed

Does the White House just not vet these people?

The Obama Administration wanted to show the President in a blue collar setting, so they put him at a table with several bottles of Budweiser and some unemployed workers. Note that the President had a Budweiser in front of him, but wisely opted for a Guiness.

In any event, one of the unemployed workers is a guy named Mark McKim. Turns out Mr. McKim was arrested in 2006 for DUI and possession of drugs. In 2007, he was arrested for violating probation.

There might be a reason other than the GOP for Mr. McKim's unemployment.

Again, does the White House not vet these people?

The Jeremiah Wrighting of Robert Jeffress

Robert Jeffresss does not have a lick of political sense. You do not, in this day and age, to a gaggle of reporters after introducing a Presidential candidate to a crowd, say that the candidate's opponent belongs to "a cult."

You just don't. It doesn't matter what you believe.

Robert Jeffress lacks political skills. But he is not a politician. Robert Jeffress is a pastor and witness for Jesus Christ. He is highly effective at what he does.

Mitt Romney's supporters are trying now to "Jeremiah Wright" Jeffress right out of the mainstream. Romney himself wants Rick Perry to repudiate Robert Jeffress.

As Bryan Preston notes,

The Perry campaign did not select Rev. Jeffress; the Summit selected him and got a perfunctory sign-off from the campaign. Rev. Jeffress' remark that Mormonism is a cult was not made in his introduction to Gov. Perry, but in remarks made to reporters later. As soon as he was aware of Jeffress' remark, Perry did in fact disassociate himself with them entirely.

Romney wants to play the victim and is, as are most Mormons, terribly insulted. Romney is not just upset at Jeffress' characterization of Romney's faith, he is also upset over Jeffress' supposed "religious test" wherein Jeffress declared evangelicals should vote for the Christian over the Mormon.

First, I would note that the "religion test" in question in the constitution applies to the state, not individuals. Individuals are free to vote for or against someone because of their religion. People do it all the time. In fact, I won't vote for someone who belongs to a liberal theological church or for an atheist because of what that says about the person's world view in relation to my own.

I absolutely have a religious test and I suspect most people do.

Second, I would note that while I am appalled at Robert Jeffress' impertinent comments and disagree with him on Mormonism's "cult" status — Christianity too was once considered a cult but at some point a religion becomes too widespread to be considered a cult or fringe element — Jeffress is not some wacko, nut, or fringe person on the outer edge of Christianity.

Robert Jeffress leads one of the largest Southern Baptist churches in America. His church's outreach to the poor and unchurched serves as a good example for other churches to follow. His theology and religious views are wholly within the mainstream of Christianity in this country and, more precisely, within evangelical circles, including refusing to embrace the idea that Mormons are just another Christian denomination. Heck, his view is the mainstream, majority view of Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants.

If the Romney campaign wants to pick a fight or have conservatives shun a mainstream theologian because, whether Romney likes it or not, the pastor expressed a very commonly held view among Christians then while I disagree with Jeffress on Mormonism being a cult, I'll proudly stand with him against those who want him in some way repudiated.

Jeffress is no Jeremiah Wright and we should not treat him as such.

The Moment With Lasting Impact

Joining the league of people who got to the first tier, Herman Cain is now under withering fire for his 9-9-9 plan and what it'll mean for the country. Thus far he has held his own, but he is going to have to do better.

For example, saying that he'd require a 2/3 vote to repeal his plan is unconstitutional unless he somehow is able to get it stuck in the constitution as an amendment thereto.

Likewise, saying the American people will keep pressure on Congress to not alter or increase the rates is not credible given that Cain and the other Republicans are fighting to repeal a health care law that Congress and the White House pushed through despite a majority of Americans opposed to it and a tea party movement energized to fight it.

But that will not be the lasting impact as I suspect Herman will necessarily have to start adding more substance to his plan and overcome the historic fact that European countries, after World War II, had national sales taxes that morphed to VAT taxes because of the black market trade. European politicians, once the sales tax was introduced, made the case to the public that law abiding citizens were being taken advantage of by tax cheats and the VAT would stamp out that problem. Over time, the European sales taxes became VAT's. The same will happen here.

Again though, that's not the lasting impact. What will last and is already percolating are those bits of sunshine between Herman Cain and the Tea Party. Herman's support of TARP, shared with Mitt Romney, and his explanation of the theory of TARP and the implementation of TARP diverging — did it really? Opening the doors to government bailouts could come back to bite Herman with the Tea Party.

Likewise, citing Alan Greenspan at this moment in time as a good Fed Chairman is not helpful.

Herman is running as the tea party favorite. They love his 999 plan. Bailouts, TARP, and Greenspan may, however, be a bridge too far — especially when he has Mitt Romney agreeing with him.

The Perry Performance

Perhaps it is that Perry has set the bar so low.

In going back through the comments from my post last night on the debate, there are a large number of people — not all Perry acolytes — who think he had a solid debate performance.

I didn't even think he punched his card and showed up until the second half.

What got me thinking this morning that maybe it is not as bad as some of us thought is this Byron York piece on Perry having "another bad debate."

I remember after the first debate, Byron and many others in the DC-NYC nexus thought Perry had a terrible debate performance and handled the social security question badly.

Then Perry went up in the polls.

The reality is Perry has $15 million, few people saw the Bloomberg debate and he'll get another shot next week at a more credible debate with a larger audience. I wouldn't write him off just yet.

And he will, I hear, soon have both an energy plan and an economic plan, both centered on creating jobs. That'll give him the opportunity to get back on the jobs message — a message he hasn't been on much lately thanks to immigration.

Greed & Hippies Properly Understood

About the only thing these hippies, hipsters, senior citizens who never grew up, and college trust funders out protesting can agree on is that greed is bad. They want the whole capitalist system pulled up by the root and replaced with something else because of greed.

What they either do not understand or choose to ignore is that greed is not a capitalist invention. Greed exists because people do. Greed exists in capitalist societies, socialist societies, and communist societies.

All men are created equal and all men are born into this world as sinners. One of those sins is greed.

The few people who claim to be without greed are typically greedy for the praise of others or full of pride at not being greedy. Pride is a far worse sin than greed because pride is the root of most every sin.

But of all the varieties of greed out there, what the hippies do not seem to understand is that greed in a capitalist society is far less pernicious than the greed in the systems they advocate, be it socialist or communist.

Greed in a capitalist system takes the form of money — lust for it, the acquisition of it, and the hoarding of it.

Greed in socialist and communist systems takes the form of power. Just as a CEO has a house in the Hamptons while his workers make vastly less than he does, the Politburo member has a dacha on the Black Sea while his constituents wait in a bread line half starved.

In a capitalist system, one can take a risk, dare to compete with the greedy 1%'er, and quite possibly become one of those 1%'ers. And when unable to do it alone, a group of people can pool their money together and compete with the rich.

In the communist system these kids are advocating, the powerless cannot compete with the powerful. And it is hard to pool power together to compete against power, because while a CEO might be able to pull off a hostile take over of your company, the greedy communist can kill you with his power. One can escape a CEO of one company for the CEO of another company or become their own CEO. One must go under barbed wire and dodge bullets to escape their communist masters.

What these dirty urban hipsters want is a form of greed themselves. They don't want the rich capitalist to have his money. The hipsters covet power. They are greedy in their own way for their own power. They want the power to set the salaries of the CEO and determine, based on their own sense of fair play, what is and is not fair and what is and is not just.

What the hipsters want is far more dangerous than what the top 1% in this country have — the hipsters want the power to control all our lives through force of government. The capitalists just want to sell us things.

There are very few, if any, capitalist systems that tend toward totalitarianism because of competition and the ability of money to flow to others as monopoly enterprises become inefficient and collapse. Socialist and communist systems tend to become totalitarian over time because power, unlike money, is much more easily hoarded.

In a capitalist system there is greed. But that greed necessitates the capitalist produce a good or service the rest of us want. And we can always say no. There is no saying no to the communists.

And the hipsters want us to be unable to say no to them.

Communists, socialists, and capitalists all have poor people in their systems. But the odds are greater that more people are poorer and hungrier the further removed from capitalism they go. And in all, there is greed.

Time to Reconsider the Conversations With Candidates

In light of that tragedy of a debate last night, I want to reiterate this. We're open to all of the candidates who participated last night doing this: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum.

You'll get a better shot at answering better questions in a one on one format.

———————————————–

Dear Candidates:

This letter is written on behalf of Brent Bozell with For America, Ned Ryun with American Majority, Drew Ryun with American Majority Action, and myself. 

Combined we give voice to millions of conservative activists across the country and know that most conservatives believe we have not had a chance to have a real vetting of candidates in Campaign 2012 because of the lack of substance in most of the debates.

Consequently, we would like to provide a unique opportunity for the candidates.  On the attached page we describe the details of the conversation.

Please note that these would be individual conversations and not all candidates present at the same time.  We will work with each candidate's schedule to provide an evening for each candidate individually.

The conversation will be before an audience coordinated with conservatives in the metro-Atlanta area and the candidates' own campaigns.  It would be broadcast live on WSB radio, the largest talk radio station in the country.  It would also be streamed live on the internet with the ability to embed on campaign websites and a television feed would be available without restriction for use by broadcast networks.

Given the desire to do these one on one with the candidates, we will work to accommodate the candidates' schedules.  You may contact me at the address, phone number, and email address above.  We hope Congresswoman Bachmann would be willing to sit and discuss her vision for the country in a conversation led by conservatives for conservatives.

I have enclosed a more specific page on what we are offering.

Sincerely yours,

Erick-Woods Erickson

Editor, RedState.com

A Candid Conversation

For Conservatives and By Conservatives

The Presidential candidates are invited to Atlanta, Georgia for a candid conversation hosted by RedState.com, For America, American Majority, and American Majority Action.

Format

Three chairs on stage

Brent Bozell on the candidate's right

Erick Erickson on the candidate's left

The candidate in the center

The candidate, Brent Bozell, and Erick Erickson would engage in a free form conversation that would be guided by questions submitted by video on the internet from conservative activists around the country and vetted by American Majority and American Majority Action.

There will be a live studio audience of conservative voters.

Please note this will be an opportunity to discuss and vet the candidate's record and ideas, not an opportunity to attack the Republican opponents.

Duration

Two hours for a total of 1.5 hours of conversation and several breaks for media format.

Location

Atlanta, GA

Date

We will accommodate the candidates based on their schedule, but insist all conversations be held between October 17, 2011 and December 16, 2011