Erick Erickson's Blog, page 116

The Horserace for September 8, 2011

Mitt Romney won the NBC-Politico debate on points and Newt Gingrich won on rhetoric. But Rick Perry held his own and, consequently, locks in front runner status for now. If, however, Perry can't improve his debate performances, he may be a short-lived front runner.

Michele Bachmann is fading from view. Newt Gingrich reminds us he is a good debater. Even the folks on MSNBC say Jon Huntsman sounded like a man in a primary with Obama. Today, we take the candidates who appeared on stage at last night's debate and make the horse race about them.

In all seriousness, after that MSNBC debate last night, I think I need to get all the candidates to come down to Atlanta and let RedState readers ask questions — questions from real conservatives. In any event, on with the horserace.

As we get into this, it is worth noting that at this point in their first terms, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all polled higher than Barack Obama. Only Carter polled worse.

Michele Bachmann

I don't know what she can do to resuscitate her campaign. She has done so well, but as Rick Perry's star has risen, Michele Bachmann has learned more and more what it is like to be Herman Cain. The debate moderators did not give her a lot of time to answer questions, but she answered her questions well. She still gives some of the best answers on Libya and Obamacare and tried her best to pick her fights with Obama instead of the rest of the field. Nonetheless, her campaign manager and deputy manager are gone. People were more interested on Twitter last night on what was up with her hair. I think she peaked too soon and is going to struggle to get back in the game.

Herman Cain

Newt Gingrich, early on, went after the moderators for trying to pick fights between the field. He sternly lectured them on it and suggested all the candidates were above picking fights with each other and instead focusing on Barack Obama.

The moderators then went to Herman Cain and Cain immediately touched on Romneycare and Mitt Romney's record. It was a missed opportunity. Each time Cain and Gingrich have been on stage together, Gingrich has outshone Cain even on answers set up for Cain. I think Herman Cain has missed a number of opportunities in the campaign season and I don't see how he gets it back on track.

Newt Gingrich

Arguably, even more so than Romney, Newt Gingrich won the debate. He gave brilliant answers, challenged the presuppositions of questions, and never fell flat. It is a testament to what might have been.

It is also a reminder of Newt Gingrich's forte being the fight, but his failings being everything else. He seems now positioned as the father figure trying to keep the cats on stage with him herded and picking the fights they won't have to — a role Sarah Palin seemed to stake out for herself, but not being a candidate it is a role now taken up by Gingrich.

Jon Huntsman

I've actually been more favorably impressed with Huntsman since his economics plan came out. What a juxtaposition! He offers up an impressively conservative jobs plan and throws red meat to the MSNBC crowd instead of the people whose votes he is actually courting.

Huntsman had a great, great debate performance, but as one MSNBC commentator noted, it sounded like Hunstman was running in a primary against Obama. Also, note to the Huntsman campaign: the yellow tie caused a camera distortion for a lot of people who now are comparing Huntsman's skin tone to Charlie Crist's. That is not a good thing. I blame the tie, which was a sharp looking tie, but that solid yellow does not work on television.

Still, it was Huntsman's best debate performance, though I do not see how he translates this into momentum. If nothing else, it reassured me he'll still be on the team when the primaries end.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul ran the only email rapid response last night. It was 100% against Rick Perry. There is some real hate there. Ron Paul now hates Rick Perry, Ronald Reagan, Israel, a strong national defense, and a secure border. He is cool with the Soviets, having denounced Ronald Reagan's cold war strategy against them. He's hunky dory with Iran, North Korea, and pretty much everyone else having nukes. And he still loves him some gold and silver.

He'll hang on. But he will not be the nominee. What the hell with the border fence keeping us in? Hello? We can just go cross over into Canada.

Rick Perry

All eyes were on Perry. He stumbled his way through the debate. He did okay. He held his own. He did not blow himself up as people feared. That, in and of itself, is a win, but between his performance and Romney's, Romney had a better performance.

Perry gave an epic retort on Karl Rove, which will only help him long term. He could have had a stronger answer on social security and global warming, but his answer was more for the zeitgeist (if you'll let me use a fancy word) of this campaign season than Romney's defense of social security. Chris Cilliza puts him in the loser camp at the Washington Post. I'd put him in the winner camp not because he won the debate, but because he didn't blow the debate. That's all he had to do in the first debate. Also, he called President Obama a liar on border security, gave good education answers, and hit the nail on the head with states' rights.

Only the Washington Press Corp was expecting him to dazzle in the first of five debates, particularly after a week of dealing with wildfires in Texas. But he must improve. He needs to give better defenses of his book, be prepared for another global warming ambush, and stay on offense. By the way, the next time a debate moderator asks him about global warming, I think the best reply is to ask the moderator why, with 14 plus million people out of work the media is so fixated on the weather. (hat tip to Professor Hunter Baker's wife for that)

I have hesitated to call Perry the front runner just because the polls say so and even now would hesitate to call him the front runner given his debate performance except for one thing. The other candidates made the debate about Perry. He dominated the debate just by being at the debate. Whether I thought so or not, everyone else on that stage treated Perry like a front runner who must be taken on. That makes Perry the front runner and he did nothing to hurt his lead last night. He just did not secure that lead, thereby keeping the race open for Romney to make another move.

Mitt Romney

The debate winner was Mitt Romney on style. He has done this before. His experience and comfort with the format shows, particularly in contrast to Perry's uncomfortable first performance. But that's not good enough for Romney because the anti-Romney contingent in the GOP right now keeps going up and Rick Perry just showed he was not going to blow himself up in the first debate.

Romney's play it safe strategy can go on a few more debates. Right now, the Romney camp is gambling Perry, like Bachmann, fades through a series of unforced errors. But if that doesn't pan out over the next few debates, Romney is going to scramble and the odds go up dramatically that Perry becomes the nominee.

More troubling for Romney, in his play it safe strategy he himself made a terribly unforced error. In his effort to appear a "reasonable" conservative, he defended the status quo in social security, calling the program a success. No conservative can really believe a program that has made millions of people dependent on government for their retirement is a success. These little statements add up and work against Romney with the base. He might have won the battle last night in the debate on social security, but it could cost him the war if Perry plays it right in the two Florida debates where polls suggest even senior citizens in Florida are beginning to think the current system is untenable.

If Perry doesn't implode, Romney is going to have to stop playing safe or lose. Romney continues to strike me as, to play off the title of the play on Sir Thomas More, as a man for another season. He was right for the (again the fancy word) zeitgeist of 2008, but not for a year when the GOP is as upset with the DC-GOP establishment pushing Romney as they are with the Democrats.

He'd be an awesome nominee, but not an exciting nominee. Right now the base wants Romney to excite them, not just placate them. He hasn't done that yet, which is why there remains a love affair with Rick Perry that looks more and more like it could turn into something more if Perry can show he has what it takes.

Rick Santorum

John Harris from the Politico asked Rick Santorum about where the poor fit within the GOP. Rick Santorum began talking about himself in the third person and how he did more for the poor than anyone else in the GOP. Former Senator Sam Brownback might be surprised to learn that. Santorum's candidacy, in this debate, became a joke. There is no rationale at all for him to remain in the race.

By the way, the proper answer the next time any reporter asks the GOP where the poor fit in the party is to say "In the Governor's Mansion in Florda." Lest people forget, Governor Rick Scott grew up on welfare in government housing projects.

Now, if I can just figure out how to get these guys to Atlanta so we can all ask them about something other than global warming and individual mandates.

Deja Vu All Over Again: The White House Talking Points for the Speech

The White House has begun sending out talking points on Stimulus II to left wing groups. I've obtained a copy. I think we need Bill Murray to speak tonight, because I feel like I'm living in Ground Hog's Day.

The American Jobs Act is:

based on bi-partisan ideas;
it is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share; and
it will have an impact on job and economic growth NOW — just as soon as Congress acts.
Every day, people in this country are working hard to meet their responsibilities. The question now is whether Washington will meet theirs.
The time for obstruction and gridlock is over. Congress needs to put country ahead of politics.
The American people know that the economic crisis and the deep recession weren't created overnight and won't be solved overnight. The economic security of the American middle class has been under attack for decades.
That's why President Obama believes we need to do more than just recover from this economic crisis.
The President is rebuilding the economy the American way — based on balance, fairness and the same set of rules for everyone from Wall Street to Main Street where hard work and responsibility pay and gaming the system is penalized.
It's an American economy that's built to last and creates the jobs of the future, by forcing Washington to live within its means so we can invest in small business entrepreneurs, education, and making things the world buys, not outsourcing, loopholes and reckless financial deals that put middle class security at risk.

Just remember that back in 2010, 100 economists said the stimulus had failed.

This year, Ohio State University economists reported the first stimulus actually killed jobs.

Lastly, remember that whatever Obama does is going to encounter, for better or worse, the new Super Committee.

Barack Obama is really out of new ideas. We'll get something bipartisan out of this that will perpetuate the status quo, i.e. a continuation of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits. Unfortunately for the nation, the status quo has not created jobs — in fact, it has created zero jobs in the past month.

Confusion

I realize we're all supposed to be in the tank for Mitt Romney, but when the heck did we suddenly love social security? It's nuts.

We've got Karl Rove out denying it is a ponzi scheme solely because he hates Rick Perry. It's all politics, not principle.

Mitt Romney says that millions of Americans being dependent on government for their retirement is the definition of a successful program.

And we've got a solid segment of the conservative movement falling in line behind them. It's all so confusing.

Are we all so damn scared of Rick Perry that suddenly we're going to abandon the fight for real reform of social security and try to make Perry look like a fringe candidate when, in fact, his position has been the mainstream of the GOP for decades?

Social Security is, for all intents and purposes, a ponzi scheme. Don't believe me? Try out the Securities and Exchange Commission definition:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk.

Or how about from wikipedia?

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

It's one thing to want to defend Mitt Romney. It's perfectly reasonable to say we're scared to death to ever touch the supposed third rail of politics again. It's even reasonable to say that Rick Perry cannot win by holding to this position. In fact, Perry needed to spend more time focusing on the fact that he does not want to abolish social security as the Democrats and Mitt Romney both claim.

But to suddenly proclaim the conservative position as "social security is a-okay and we just need to make it even better" is complete and total bull crap, not to mention seriously chicken and intellectually dishonest for a bunch of people who've more or less held Perry's position for years to suddenly pretend it's nuts just because they support another candidate or think the political winds have shifted.

Shame on you people.

Morning Briefing for September 8, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For September 8, 2011

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

You'll have to forgive me. I wanted to try a new formatting for the Morning Briefing. I'm jealous of Domenech's Transom and his pretty typography. And I was bored when I woke up.

———————————————————————-

THE GREAT DEBATE: Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I gave MSNBC ratings. But in doing so I can say this is a two man race — Perry vs. Romney. It is also clear in this first debate that Perry is the front runner now. I would still prefer to have a few more debates on this before declaring it, but below I'll explain why it is clear he is whether I want to think so or not.

The most shocking bit of the whole debate was at the very end. I felt a great disturbance in the Force as if millions of Republicans cried out in terror and suddenly realized they were watching MSNBC.

First, I don't think Perry had as strong a performance tonight as he could have. He stumbled several times. Romney had a stronger performance — the strongest of anyone on stage in fact. But then, Romney has been in this dog and pony show since 2007. Perry is just stepping up to this level. He made no major mistakes, but could have been stronger on the HPV issue and a few other issues.

Second, it is clear Perry is the front runner given the pile on from the other candidates. It was not just pushed by MBNBC and the Politico. The other candidates took willful potshots against Rick Perry. Perry, despite some stumbles and the pile on by the moderators and other participants, held his own and will only get stronger the more of these he does. And if he doesn't? Goodbye frontrunner status. (READ MORE)

NOT YOUR DADDY'S (OR YOUR) CONSERVATISM: I realize we're all supposed to be in the tank for Mitt Romney, but when the heck did we suddenly love social security? It's nuts.

We've got Karl Rove out denying it is a ponzi scheme solely because he hates Rick Perry. It's all politics, not principle.

Mitt Romney says that millions of Americans being dependent on government for their retirement is the definition of a successful program.

And we've got a solid segment of the conservative movement falling in line behind them. It's all so confusing.

Are we all so damn scared of Rick Perry that suddenly we're going to abandon the fight for real reform of social security and try to make Perry look like a fringe candidate when, in fact, his position has been the mainstream of the GOP for decades?

Social Security is, for all intents and purposes, a ponzi scheme. Don't believe me? Try out the Securities and Exchange Commission definition:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk.

Or how about from wikipedia?

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

It's one thing to want to defend Mitt Romney. It's perfectly reasonable to say we're scared to death to ever touch the supposed third rail of politics again. It's even reasonable to say that Rick Perry cannot win by holding to this position. In fact, Perry needed to spend more time focusing on the fact that he does not want to abolish social security as the Democrats and Mitt Romney both claim.

But to suddenly proclaim the conservative position as "social security is a-okay and we just need to make it even better" is complete and total bull crap, not to mention seriously chicken and intellectually dishonest for a bunch of people who've more or less held Perry's position for years to suddenly pretend it's nuts just because they support another candidate or think the political winds have shifted.

Shame on you people. (READ MORE)

TAKE 2,224,188 FOR OBAMA ON JOBS: How is President Obama going to say anything in his big jobs speech tonight that will make a difference?

Apparently he is not. Obama's new jobs plan looks remarkably like his $830 billion 2009 economic stimulus package. (READ MORE)

By the way, as we all await President Obama's new plan, which will be the same as the old plan, in tonight's speech to a joint session of Congress, it would behoove us to take a few minutes to watch the video below from the Cato Institute. (READ MORE)

THE ONLINE LEFT, LIKE THE OFFLINE LEFT, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BUDGETING: Very quickly, and to get this out of the way: the Online Left is babbling about supposedly-cut Texas firefighting budgets, mostly because they lack the research skills – or possibly, the native intelligence – to tell the difference between a $109 million Forest Service/Wildfire Fighting budget in 2010/2011, and a $196 million Forest Service/Wildfire Fighting budget for 2012/2013 (the 2012 fiscal year started at the beginning of this month). Fortunately, Battleswarm Blog can both think and do research – as seen here and here – which means that I don't have to do any of the heavy lifting this time. Bottom line: never, ever stop just because you got the answer that you wanted. (READ MORE)

LET'S GIVE DEAD BUREAUCRATS FLAGS, JUST LIKE THE MILITARY: Congress will soon take up the "Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011?, an act to make military service to our country no more significant than stamping a passport. Conservatives should oppose it.

Under the Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011, it will no longer just be the bereaved families of soldiers killed in action who get the flag properly folded in grateful recognition for their service to the country. No, now it will also be the post office worker who refuses to deliver your mail because you once wrote a letter to the editor in favor of post office privatization (I know people who've had this happen).

This well meaning legislation, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Daniel Akaka, takes a notable act of the military and devalues it across the civil service letting a massive amount of civil service employees also qualify to get a folded flag if they have a heart attack on the job, get in a wreck in their postal jeep, etc. (READ MORE)

SUDDENLY THE LEFT LOVES THEM SOME KARL ROVE: Karl Rove is joining the left-wing/Romney camp alliance against Rick Perry's candid statements about Social Security in his book, Fed Up. Even Baghdad Jim McDermott is praising Karl Rove's broadside on Perry. Yesterday, on Good Morning America, Rove had this to say about Perry's condemnation of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme in his book. (READ MORE)

SARAH PALIN: It may sound self-serving, but I think a good rule of thumb is that if you are a conservative and you've lost the front page of RedState, you're doing something terribly wrong.

Consider that of all the candidates, Sarah Palin has the least excuse for her dithering. Unlike Perry, Bachmann, and Paul, Palin hasn't had a job with official duties for the last two-plus years. All the other quasi-retired or term-limited candidates have long ago declared. Even Jon Huntsman was serving as ambassador to China as recently as April; and by the way, Huntsman has a larger family than Palin does. I get that deciding whether to run for President is a difficult decision; however, the Presidency is a job of difficult decisions, and if it has legitimately taken Sarah Palin over two years to decide whether to even start the process of becoming President, then she is unfit for the job. (READ MORE)

ARE WE READY FOR WAR?: Take some time to watch the video. It isn't very often you'll see one commissioned by the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. This one will make you cry with frustration.

It is no big secret in the military. The force is worn down to nubs by a decade of war, the last two of which have been waged under the management of an administration fundamentally hostile to the Armed Services.

The fact is Obama is only comfortable cutting one sector of the budget: Defense. This is not to say that Defense is without waste, fraud, and abuse but it isn't destroying jobs and the economy like Health and Human Services, EPA, and Labor. Right now cuts in defense are projected to total a half trillion dollars. Under Secretary Gates $178 billion, earmarked to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was given up to support budget reductions. (READ MORE)

Perry vs. Romney

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I gave MSNBC ratings. But in doing so I can say this is a two man race — Perry vs. Romney. It is also clear in this first debate that Perry is the front runner now.

The most shocking bit of the whole debate was at the very end. I felt a great disturbance in the Force as if millions of Republicans cried out in terror and suddenly realized they were watching MSNBC.

First, I don't think Perry had as strong a performance tonight as he could have. He stumbled several times. Romney had a stronger performance. But then, Romney has been in this dog and pony show since 2007. Perry is just stepping up to this level. He made no major mistakes, but could have been stronger on the HPV issue and a few other issues.

Second, it is clear Perry is the front runner given the pile on from the other candidates. It was not just pushed by MBNBC and the Politico. The other candidates took willful potshots against Rick Perry. Perry, despite some stumbles and the pile on by the moderators and other participants, held his own and will only get stronger the more of these he does.

Third, Michele Bachmann's star has faded. The recognition of this is the reporter focus on Perry v. Romney buttressed by Bachmann's own outgoing campaign manager, Ed Rollins, that the race was a two man race between Perry and Romney.

Fourth, Newt Gingrich. What an intellect. What a mind. What a debater. What might have been.

Fifth, I am thankful I did not somehow get on tonight's rapid response email list for all the candidates. Usually I am. Tonight, the only campaign doing aggressive rapid response into my email inbox is the Paul campaign. And 100% of his rapid response emails attacked Rick Perry.

Sixth, Warner Brothers wants Marvin the Martian back in Looney Tunes. Thus ends the Ron Paul campaign.

Finally, I think Mitt Romney's "play it safe" strategy is about to come crashing down on his. In the exchange between Perry and Romney on social security and ponzi schemes, Perry gave a less than stellar answer. But Romney then tried to pile on by rejecting the idea that social security is a failure.

Republicans should pay attention to this. Mitt Romney proclaimed making several generations of Americans dependent on the federal government for their retirement a success. That may play well to Washington, D.C. But it increasingly doesn't even play well with senior citizens worried about their grandchildren's futures.

The Flags for Bureaucrats Act

Congress will soon take up the "Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011″, an act to make military service to our country no more significant than stamping a passport. Conservatives should oppose it.

Under the Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011, it will no longer just be the bereaved families of soldiers killed in action who get the flag properly folded in grateful recognition for their service to the country. No, now it will also be the post office worker who refuses to deliver your mail because you once wrote a letter to the editor in favor of post office privatization (I know people who've had this happen).

This well meaning legislation, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Daniel Akaka, takes a notable act of the military and devalues it across the civil service letting a massive amount of civil service employees also qualify to get a folded flag if they have a heart attack on the job, get in a wreck in their postal jeep, etc.

The act of folding the flag and giving it to the grieving family should mean something special. And when anyone who works for the federal government can get it, not just soldiers who died in active service protecting the country, it becomes just another trapping of power from the federal government available to all those people in the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.

The American Legion has come out opposed to this legislation. John Boehner intends to put it up for a vote as H. R. 2061. You should call 202-224-3121 and tell your Congressman to oppose H.R. 2061. Here is what the Legion says:

Seemingly as the nation attempts remember those thousands killed on September 11th, the House is throwing up a token effort to remember those federal employees killed that day. Maybe, on its face, the House is merely trying to recognize the sacrifice of the nearly 3,000 federal employees who died since 1992. No matter the reasoning, The House has set a consent vote on H.R. 2061 Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011 on the calendar. As amended in the Committee of the Whole, this bill would allow the head of an executive agency to pay for the expenses incident to the presentation of the United State flag for employees of a federal agency.

The American Legion's opposition to this is multifold:

This bill has not been fully vetted in committee hearings and proceedings to further clarify the intent and limitations of the bill.
The Committee of the Whole stated, "Presentation of a United States flag is an appropriate way to honor Federal employees' contributions to the American public. The Committee believes these individuals are no less deserving of our respect than members of our armed forces." The American Legion and most certainly a multitude of veterans and those currently serving would disagree with this statement.
It allows for payment of "expenses incident to the presentation of a flag." Not being further clarified, would this require payment of a formal "honor guard" to present the flag, postage of the flag to the next of kin, or other costs? Those are allowable expenses under the 1993 DoD measure.
It loosely allows the agency head to provide the flag to the "next of kin" or an individual other than the next of kin if "no request is received from the next of kin." Would this allow a friend or acquaintance to take advantage of this provision if the family had decided not to?
We remain deeply concerned that individuals who provide "volunteer services" might also be covered under this without a true understanding of the provisions this inclusion might provide.

Enough

"[A]t some point, Sarah Palin has to take some responsibility for her supporters as Ron Paul must for his. Palin's dragging out the tease on her decision has compounded the problem and we've reached a breaking point."

On Fox News, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham had the best discussion on Sarah Palin I have seen. And Ann said something I have said. But I have not said it nearly as well as Ann did.

To paraphrase Ann, a lot of us fell in love with Sarah Palin because of her enemies and a lot of us have fallen out of love with Sarah Palin because of her fans.

For the past year, Palin fans have become an online fixture with more venom and insanity than the most rabid Ron Paul fan. They have not evangelized on behalf of Sarah Palin trying to lead people to Sarah Palin, they have freaked a lot of us out.

I am at the point of fearing that should Palin not get in the race we're going to have a Hale Bopp moment with many of her most ardent supporters. These people have become too emotionally invested in one person to discuss that person rationally or even to address serious policy concerns.

For the longest time I wanted Sarah Palin to run.

At some point, I decided Sarah Palin could not defeat Barack Obama, but I'd rather go down fighting on Team Sarah than side with any of the guys who will just take us down the "big government conservative" path of creeping socialism.

Finally, I decided Sarah Palin was not going to run and I moved on. Ultimately, 2012 really is about beating Barack Obama, not what Sarah Palin will or will not do.

Unfortunately, as I found out and as others are starting to find out, moving on from Sarah Palin is like leaving Scientology.

To not bow at the throne of Sarah you get disowned. You get attacked. You have people drum up stories attacking your credibility. "Oh, Perry announced at his event, he must be bought and paid for," etc. Ironically, some of the very people going after this site's and my credibility — claiming we're pressured to do things by higher ups at Eagle Publishing — are people who were on payrolls advocating for clients while refusing to disclose potential conflicts among other things. To add comedy to irony, it seems more and more apparent that some of those who attacked this site and me for holding editorial positions based on what our corporate parent dictates (a lie designed to undermine our lack of sufficiently pro Palin bona fides among other things) are themselves engaging in projection because it is they, not RedState nor me, who must tread carefully in who they attack because their livelihoods depend on it. It's always the kooks who project their sins on others.

Logic, reason, and being nominally on the same side in a fight against Obama has no logic for people in the cult. In the past month RedState and I personally have been attacked for being in Romney's camp, Perry's camp, Bachmann's camp, Herman Cain's camp, and most laughably in Jon Huntsman's camp — all by Palin fans who clearly are not paying attention.

For the past several months, I have posted a weekly horserace. Inevitably, should Palin not get mentioned the angry horde of cultists come out of the wood work offended that Sarah Palin did not get included. If I included her and dared suggest either she might not run or it might not be a sure thing, the attacks were even more unhinged.

There are many, many good people who support Sarah Palin and feel like they owe it to her to support her given what she has been through — from her shoddy treatment at the hands of Team McCain to an unrelenting press. But these people who have sat and continue to sit patiently and quietly waiting for Sarah Palin to finally make up her mind are starting to get frustrated. And some of them are getting aggravated by and drowned out by The Palin Fan Cult. The cult is full of people with little prominence outside a twitter stream, a few nominal soapboxes imagined to be bigger they they are, and possessing a lot of bile and little grace inside an echo chamber of indecision 2012 dementia. About the only thing this cult lacks are thetans.

Sarah Palin is a great person. She's a great fighter. She draws in awesome attention and rallies a crowd. She has some terrific and loyal supporters I don't want to lump in with the loud voices largely now disconnected from political reality. Ron Paul is the same way. But at some point, Sarah Palin has to take some responsibility for her supporters as Ron Paul must for his. Palin's dragging out the tease on her decision has compounded the problem and we've reached a breaking point.

The comparisons to a late Reagan entry in 1980 and late Clinton entry in 1992 are frivolous and false comparisons. While both waited to make it official until November for Reagan and October for Clinton, it was abundantly clear to people even outside their most ardent supporters that they were running. Few outside Palin's most ardent fans think she is running and, at this point, a sizable majority no longer care.

As Ann Coulter said, "Fish or cut bait." Governor Palin has teased us long enough. Most of us are tired of it. She has harmed her own entry into the race and now, even if she got in, would only see a modest rise in polling.

There are many still who are ready to get involved, are sitting on the sidelines, and are growing impatient for Sarah Palin to tell us what she's doing. There are others who are going to have to be deprogrammed.

I'm tired of the tease. But I'm even more tired of the angry cranks and Palin prophets who swear to know her every move and have shown neither ideological nor political moorings in anything other than their hopes and wishes poured into the vessel of their ambition named L. Ron Hubbard Sarah Palin. That's exactly what many lefties did with Barack Obama. Like Barack Obama, Sarah Palin is just a mortal politician, just a human of the same sinful flesh as the rest of us passing through this place on her way to eternity just like you and me.

We should not set Palin on a pedestal so high she shatters if she falls off, but that's what her most ardent fans have done. Thanks to Palin's own conduct, if she does shatter by either not running or running and losing the nomination, the Palin Fan Cult gives me and many others the strong impression they'd rather shatter all the other candidates than have anyone but Palin herself win.

In the process, these people have overshadowed the efforts and desires of many reasonable Palin supporters who are just ready to either vote for Palin or be told of her decision not to run so they can go support someone else.

Enough is enough.

Morning Briefing for September 7, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For September 7, 2011

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

1. Enough

2. Proposed Questions for the GOP Debate: Time for Specifics

3. Mitt Romney beclowns the Netroots on job growth.

4. Job Creation vs. Career Politician: The Romney Path to Victory

5. Post Labor Day Political Analysis: The Arrogance of "the One" has Caused Him to become Undone

6. From civility to 'barbarians' and 'SOBs' and the Reverend Wright 'I didn't hear it' defense

7. Media Silent as Audience Instructed to Applaud Obama

———————————————————————-

1. Enough

On Fox News, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham had the best discussion on Sarah Palin I have seen. And Ann said something I have said. But I have not said it nearly as well as Ann did.

To paraphrase Ann, a lot of us fell in love with Sarah Palin because of her enemies and a lot of us have fallen out of love with Sarah Palin because of her fans.

For the past year, Palin fans have become an online fixture with more venom and insanity than the most rabid Ron Paul fan. They have not evangelized on behalf of Sarah Palin trying to lead people to Sarah Palin, they have freaked a lot of us out.

I am at the point of fearing that should Palin not get in the race we're going to have a Hale Bopp moment with many of her most ardent supporters. These people have become too emotionally invested in one person to discuss that person rationally or even to address serious policy concerns.

For the longest time I wanted Sarah Palin to run.

At some point, I decided Sarah Palin could not defeat Barack Obama, but I'd rather go down fighting on Team Sarah than side with any of the guys who will just take us down the "big government conservative" path of creeping socialism.

Finally, I decided Sarah Palin was not going to run and I moved on. Ultimately, 2012 really is about beating Barack Obama, not what Sarah Palin will or will not do.

Unfortunately, as I found out and as others are starting to find out, moving on from Sarah Palin is like leaving Scientology.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Proposed Questions for the GOP Debate: Time for Specifics

Although a debate stage with eight candidates is inherently conducive to a circus atmosphere, the debate moderators need to focus on questions which elicit substantive answers to specific policy questions from the candidates. Moreover, the liberal moderators from Politico and NBC should remember that they are overseeing a Republican debate. As such, their questions should stem from conservative premises, and should provoke thoughtful responses from the candidates – responses that will demonstrate their visions of conservative governance to a conservative electorate.

Another bonus proposal would be for the Reagan Library to screen the audience more carefully to prevent outbursts of cheers and jeers, thereby engendering a more serious atmosphere than the previous debate (yes, we're looking at you, Ron Paul supporters).

Here are some proposed questions.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Mitt Romney beclowns the Netroots on job growth.

I don't normally devote the front page of RedState to Twitter nonsense from the Online Left – aside from everything else, the netroots are horrifically bad at Twitter, which makes it not quite sporting – but I'll make an exception in this case.

The short version: the campaign of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney put out a chart today as part of his jobs plan that happened to show historical data on our five most recent recessions. It was done up as a bar graph, with red and blue bars: the red bars showed jobs lost in the recession, while the blue bars showed the jobs added in the 24 months following. I'm quoting, by the way: the legend was clearly printed on the chart. Here, look for yourself.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Job Creation vs. Career Politician: The Romney Path to Victory

I have written that I thought the better attack for Mitt Romney would be to go after Rick Perry for being a career politician rather than try to discredit, as the Democrats are, Texas's job creation record under Perry.

The reason for this is two fold. First, it would differentiate Romney's attack from the Democrats and because the "career politician" argument is right for the zeitgeist in this election season. People intuitively give the chief executive of a state credit for job creation in the state in a way similar to giving credit to a CEO for a company's growth. Yes, yes yes, we know that it is a citizen and business effort in the state in the same way it is an employee effort in a company. But the Governor and CEO steer the ship of state and commerce and they get the credit.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Post Labor Day Political Analysis: The Arrogance of "the One" has Caused Him to become Undone

As Perry solidified his lead for the GOP nomination, the opposite has happened to "the One," who, in short, has become obviously and glaringly undone — in a way that has been so dramatic that even the main stream media cannot ignore it, downplay it or talk around it.

Basically, if there is a credible pollster, Obama has hit that pollster's all time low, including Gallup, Quinnipiac, CNN, and the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Meanwhile, Gov. Rick Perry leads the GOP field by double digits in the following polls: NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Gallup, Quinnipiac and CNN.

The fact that the mainstream media (MSM) has begun reporting that "the One" is in real trouble, is directly related to the fact that Governor Perry began to focus their blindingly bias ways on the fact that there is an alternative the MSM could not paint as a idiot or a nutcase (although they tried).

Even Maureen Dowd, in this Sunday's NYT, mockingly wrote: "The One is dancing on the edge of one term."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. From civility to 'barbarians' and 'SOBs' and the Reverend Wright 'I didn't hear it' defense

President Obama, on yet another taxpayer-funded reelection campaign junket — this one billed as a preview of his upcoming big jobs speech, called for a bipartisan response to his latest plan amidst extreme partisan rhetoric.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

7. Media Silent as Audience Instructed to Applaud Obama

What you are about to witness is either awkward or simply military protocol. Either way it's media bias on display.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Job Creation vs. Career Politician: The Romney Path to Victory

"Romney has the money and manpower to walk this tight rope carefully. If he pulls it off, he is going to be a far better general election candidate than even Romney supporters can imagine."

I have written that I thought the better attack for Mitt Romney would be to go after Rick Perry for being a career politician rather than try to discredit, as the Democrats are, Texas's job creation record under Perry.

The reason for this is two fold. First, it would differentiate Romney's attack from the Democrats and because the "career politician" argument is right for the zeitgeist in this election season. People intuitively give the chief executive of a state credit for job creation in the state in a way similar to giving credit to a CEO for a company's growth. Yes, yes yes, we know that it is a citizen and business effort in the state in the same way it is an employee effort in a company. But the Governor and CEO steer the ship of state and commerce and they get the credit.

That's why Obama is suddenly getting the blame for the failing American economy and why Obama is desperate to say Rick Perry deserves no credit for Texas's economy, which is more and more an anomaly within the union.

Likewise, in a year when tea partiers are running the show, attacking Perry as a career politician who hasn't had a real job since the late eighties is an argument worth pursuing. A Democrat turned Republican, Perry has been on the ballot in every year since 1992. Nonetheless, for now at least, Romney is going with the jobs argument.

In pursuing the jobs argument — that Perry is, at best, an accidental job creator — Romney has to let go of his own record in Massachusetts. After all, if Perry cannot take responsibility for job creation in Texas, Romney can't argue about job creation in Massachusetts during his administration.

Matt Lewis explains why Romney probably won't care about that this morning.

When Romney took office, there were 3,224,600 nonfarm seasonally adjusted jobs in Massachusetts. When he left office, there were 3,270,400, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (xls).

That means under Romney's economic policies Massachusetts saw a net gain of only 45,800 jobs; a growth rate of 1.42 percent. Other estimates vary. For example, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development estimates job growth of 51,400 over that period. But in another analysis by Moody's Economy.com, the number was lower: only 24,400.

That placed Massachusetts 47th among all states in job creation from January 2003 to January 2007.

As Lewis notes, Michael Dukakis had a better job creation record as Governor of Massachusetts than Mitt Romney — creating on average in one year the same amount of jobs Romney created in four.

In fact, Romney spent the first two years of his governorship cleaning up the mess of his predecessor to get the economy going and also got bogged down in passing healthcare reform in Massachusetts. But, he cannot use that line because that might remind people of Obama.

So Romney is going to walk a very, very narrow tightrope and hope he does not fall off. He will rely on his experience in the private sector with Bain Capital and the Salt Lake City Olympics. The former might not get him too far as his opponents start trotting out people Romney's actions caused to lose their jobs in restructuring. Get ready for the Republican populist campaign against Wall Street — something both Bachmann and Romney will be happy to run with. On the latter, it is going to be very hard to convince the public that the Salt Lake Winter Olympics can scale to national problem solving.

Romney has the money and manpower to walk this tight rope carefully. If he pulls it off, he is going to be a far better general election candidate than even Romney supporters can imagine. We're already seeing an improvement in his Romneycare message. The statement he gave at the DeMint forum was the best defense yet.

But it is still a very, very difficult line of attack to posit his private sector experience against a decade of amazing job growth in Texas under Rick Perry's leadership. Innately, as much as we all say we want government to run more like a business, Americans understand that government is not a business. And Romney's executive experience in government could undermine his argument about private sector experience.

South Carolina and the Campaign Trail

On Saturday, Sarah Palin went to Iowa to lament crony capitalism in both parties. Her aides said she was taking shots at Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. We don't know for sure whether or not she was because Sarah Palin herself did not confirm it. History is full of times Palin aides said something only to find Palin herself contradicting the aides.

Yesterday, Sarah Palin went to New Hampshire and said we shouldn't be squabbling with each other on the same team.

What do Jesus and Sarah Palin have in common? Only God knows the hour of their coming to save mankind. I give up and I'm tired of being teased.

Yesterday, in South Carolina, Jim DeMint hosted a forum that should be the model for future Presidential debates. He allotted time for each candidate to appear on stage and answer questions from conservatives about things conservatives what to know about. My only quibble is that, while I have tremendous respect for Robert George, I think Professor George went too far into the weeds on topics he personally cares about and, while every other conservative cares about them, are not the focus of the year in politics. Otherwise, it was nice to have non-sound bite answers to non-sound bite questions.

While all of this was happening, a shakeup happened at Michele Bachmann's campaign. My friend Ed Rollins is stepping aside as the campaign manager and the deputy campaign manager is out too. Ed says he is too old for the day to day grind of a campaign and is worried about his health. This news comes as Bachmann tries to stop her slide in the polls.

The guy everyone wanted to hear from in South Carolina, Rick Perry, was a no show. And we can now behold the disgusting rancor of a number of folks who cannot set their cheerleading for their own guy aside.In the past twenty-four hours more than 300 homes have been destroyed in Texas with an out of control wildfire surrounding the capital of the state. In the past year, land the size of Connecticut has been consumed by the wildfires. Tropical Storm Lee may not have sent Texas rain, but it sure sent some wind, desperately exacerbating the situation.

The level of partisan pile on from Republicans that the Governor of the State of Texas would have to fly back to Texas to deal with a disaster is rather unbecoming of the supporters of the other candidates. But then, all the other candidates save Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul possess the word "former" before their title.

It may be hard to believe, but Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry just won elections last year and have gainful employments unlike the other candidates. Sometimes they are both forced off the campaign trail to do their day jobs.

According to sources who spoke to Byron York . . . well, it speaks for itself.

"It's obvious that Rick Perry is skipping the DeMint forum because he knew he was going to be asked tough questions about his previous support for gay marriage in New York, as well as his policies in Texas in favor of illegal immigration," says one representative of a rival camp. "He's looking for a reason to not actually be compared to the other candidates," says an official in another camp. "He was grasping for a reason not to show."

Had Rick Perry stayed, these same sources would have lamented his lack of priorities to the State of Texas and wondered how we could ever elect a man who, like Obama, was too busy campaigning to govern.

Some things should just not be political. Doing one's job in the midsts of a natural disaster should be one of them.

On Wednesday in California and then again next week in Florida we'll see Romney and Perry on stage. Till then, the proper response should be praying for the people in Texas, not ridiculing their Governor for doing his job.