Erick Erickson's Blog, page 156

Natural Constituiences

I have thought a lot more about Mike Huckabee's departure from the race on Saturday and then Newt Gingrich's Meet the Press appearance Sunday. They raise a few questions in my mind that I want to explore here. Admittedly, a post like this pulls from my own biases in how I see the candidates, but I'm going to do my best to be as objective as possible, even when dealing with a guy like Huntsman.

I just think it is helpful to explore natural constituencies to see who is fighting over what.

Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich

I think Mitt and Newt are fighting for the same group of people. They are the smart guys, the ideas guys, and the establishment guys. If you are voting Republican and not necessarily conservative, these are your guys. They are the safe picks. Mitt is much more the technocrat and Gingrich is much more the bold thinker, but ultimately you wind up with guys who play it safe and are establishmentarian. Look at Newt and Romney both favoring an individual mandate or Newt's distaste for Paul Ryan's Medicare plan as "radical."

This will come off harsh with me saying it, but I think the natural constituencies for Romney and Gingrich will be the most "elitist" of voters. Were you to survey voters and ask if Sarah Palin is dumb, I suspect the Romney and Gingrich voters, followed by Mitch Daniels's voters, will have the greatest propensity of saying yes. If you ask a voter if we must raise the debt ceiling, I suspect the Romney and Gingrich voters will have the highest propensity to say yes. In other words, Romney and Gingrich voters will put party ahead of ideology — an irony considering how the media views Gingrich.

Mitch Daniels

You want a conservative Mitt Romney? Mitch Daniels is your guy. He has the same bias as Romney toward putting the smartest guys in the room to come up with the solution, but he actually has a conservative record of governance to stand on that Mitt doesn't have. The big downside? He won't let conservative shibboleths get in his way if he decides he has a better way — whether on fiscal or social policy. He is probably the closest we have this cycle to George W. Bush. Conservatism will be what he and the smartest guys in the room say it is.

I think Daniels' natural constituency is the voter who wants the wonk who does not trust Mitt Romney's or Gingrich's conservative credentials and who also does not care much about social issues. The voter going here leans establishmentarian, but puts a value on conservative street cred.

Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty's natural constituency is going to be the social conservative voter. With Huckabee out, Pawlenty's pro-life, evangelical credentials will help him tremendously in Iowa. Pawlenty's fiscal record is not great and his ethanol love will do him no favors with the Club for Growth types. He can overcome those.

I think Pawlenty becomes a safe pick for a lot of anti-Romney people who think he'll be okay in office on fiscal issues, but trust him more on social policy, judges, etc. than Daniels. Pawlenty could benefit from the Indiana Supreme Court decision last week that said citizens could not keep the police out of their homes, even if the search was not legal. A Daniels judge was involved.

Palin & Bachmann

They aren't fighting for the women. They are fighting for the diehard grassroots who want to fight and fight hard. I think their constituency is very vocal, but also small — too small to win unless they work on outreach to some of the other pools of voters. But to do that might mean toning down their rhetoric, which might alienate some of their voters.

Palin and Bachmann's voter pool is largely the same, though some will go for Bachmann and others for Palin largely on the view that the other is unelectable. Because of the small, but vocal pool of voters, the people in this group are, outside the Paul/Johnson constituency group, going to give people online the biggest headache.

Interestingly, I think Palin and Bachmann will have a better chance of pulling people from the Pawlenty and Cain camps than any other because the people most likely to vote for Daniels, Gingrich, or Romney are also the people most likely to view Palin and Bachmann as too shrill or too stupid to win. There is a superiority issue with Daniels, Gingrich, and Romney voters — particularly Romney and Gingrich voters.

Cain

If you want a real outsider who is uncompromising on fiscal and social issues, but who plays up the fiscal issues, Cain is the guy. I think Cain is going to be the "think tank" favorite. He'll be the guy who gets the crowds within the state policy network excited. He will draw from libertarian oriented voters who are more stable than Paul or Johnson voters, he'll draw from evangelicals, and he will draw from those who want a businessman in the White House instead of a politician. I hope you do not underestimate Cain this year. There is a real anti-Washington mood that he is going to capitalize on.

While the Romney, Gingrich, and Daniels camp puts a price on winning based on where candidates are right now, the Cain constituents think a winning message will get you far and, polls be damned, they are going all the way with Herman Cain.

Huntsman

While I'd never support him, Huntsman has a shot because his natural constituency isn't likely to go far into the other camps. He'll get the moderate, largely secular crowd in those primary states that allow independents to participate. In effect, he is the John McCain of this year. Those who are focused on foreign policy will have a guy to go to unless John Bolton makes a big showing. All of the other candidates, by and large, will be fighting for conservatives' votes. Not Huntsman. Given his recent statements on religion and his record as Governor, he's the guy who will be seen as the adult by the media and the "reasonable" man by Democrats. But, I doubt he can make it through Iowa or South Carolina because of it. He could, however, give Romney a stiff challenge in New Hampshire.

Morning Briefing for May 16, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For May 16, 2011

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

1. Huckabee Is Out. The Down and Dirty on Who It Helps and Hurts.

2. Newt Gingrich's Rapidly Self-Limiting Campaign Defends the Individual Mandate

3. Do Victory Laps and Spiking the Football outweigh Operational (and Personal) Security?

4. Who's the Boss? AFL-CIO Affiliate Seeking to Unionize Office of Management & Budget

5. Levantine Day of Protest Brings Attacks on Israel from All Sides

6. House GOP Invites Diversity Mandates to Intel Agencies

7. None Dare Call it Hypocrisy: The Left's Outrage Over Teaching Free-Enterprise in Universities

8. Rescheduling Trump

———————————————————————-

1. Huckabee Is Out. The Down and Dirty on Who It Helps and Hurts.

Mike Huckabee announced on his TV show Saturdy night that he is not going to run for President in 2012.

he down and dirty analysis of who it helps:

Tim Pawlenty. He becomes the evangelical governor in the race.

Herman Cain. He remains the Huckabee of 2012.

Sarah Palin. She and Huckabee would largely be fighting for the same crowd.

Who it hurts:

All of us. Some of you won't agree, but I think Huckabee would force the other candidates to bring their A game on message and rhetoric. Just for that alone, I wanted him in the race.

What it means:

Mitt Romney is the front runner and the field is wide open to be the anti-Mitt. If Daniels gets in,and it is increasingly likely, he will be the odds on favorite to be the anti-Mitt. Otherwise it will probably be Pawlenty. And even with Daniels in, Pawlenty's access to the evangelical community will make him a force to be reckoned with. Those two will fight it out to be the anti-Mitt.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Newt Gingrich's Rapidly Self-Limiting Campaign Defends the Individual Mandate

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press this morning and said two things that won't exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.

First, he endorsed the individual mandate and said he would not bash Mitt Romney over the individual mandate.

Second, he went after Paul Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare. Your mileage may vary on Ryan's plan, but he is both offering up one and using the free market, individual choice approach favored by conservatives.

Newt was not happy with the approach.

Gingrich is already going to have to overcome the apprehensiveness of evangelicals and women in the primary. To also have to overcome the free marketers' concerns may prove problematic.

I'm still struggling to figure out what Newt's natural constituency is. He seems to want to be the ideas guy, but that really amounts to being a conservative technocrat. If Daniels enters and Mitt is there too, it is a crowded field for the technocrats to fight over.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Do Victory Laps and Spiking the Football outweigh Operational (and Personal) Security?

This month's successful kill/capture mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which resulted in the death of the World's Most Wanted Terrorist and in the recovery of a treasure trove of intelligence (and of pornography - gotta love those radical fundamentalists' aversion to hypocrisy!) has naturally increased national and media interest in the elite special operations professionals who carried out this operation.

While the information being reported by various media outlets and individuals has often missed the accuracy bulls-eye by quite a bit (yet again demonstrating that life imitates the Onion), enough accurate-ish information has apparently been revealed to the public by the usual suspects - the administration and those members of Congress who hold security clearances because of the voters' actions rather than for any personal character qualities they may actually possess - that some units within, and affiliated with, JSOC are reportedly being forced to consider adapting their Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) — not to mention the fact that some operators are now concerned for the safety of their families (more on this later).

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Who's the Boss? AFL-CIO Affiliate Seeking to Unionize Office of Management & Budget

According to ABC News' Jake Tapper and Rich Klein, the American Federation of Government Employees (part of the AFL-CIO) has filed (or will on Monday) a petition to unionize the employees of the Office of Management and Budget.

Now, one might think, so what's the big deal? Another agency unionized under the most pro-union President since Franklin Roosevelt…

Well, you might harken back to a few months ago when Executive Order 13522 was brought to your attention. Executive Order 13522, signed by President Obama back in 2009 and clarified in a January, 2011 OMB letter (below), gives unions in the Executive Branch agencies the right to engage in "pre-decisional involvement" over a wide array of governmental decision making.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Levantine Day of Protest Brings Attacks on Israel from All Sides

"Nabka Day" 2011 represents two major milestones: (1) the 63rd anniversary of the creation of the modern state of Israel by UN resolution, and (2) very close to the 63rd straight year of the UN doing everything it can to make up for its half-century-plus-old "mistake." Sunday May 15, 2011 also represents the first anniversary of Israel's establishment since the events of the "Arab Spring" began.

The results are not good. A possible terrorist attack was carried out in Tel Aviv, rioters massed in areas near Israel's borders with Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and incursions against Israeli territory were made along three of those borders, including that with Syria - a border which could generally be considered Israel's most secure aside from the Mediterranean coast. According to reports, "thousands of protesters stormed the fence [between Syria and Israel] and hundreds burst through, pelting soldiers with stones, the military said. Soldiers guarding the border opened fire to stop them." The IDF says its "forces fired selectively towards rioters who were targeting security infrastructure" in the Israeli Arab village of Majdal Shams. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the IDF was ordered "to act with 'maximum restraint'." Four invaders were reported killed, while thirty were wounded. The latter were treated at a nearby medical center and have already been returned to Syria.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. House GOP Invites Diversity Mandates to Intel Agencies

Aside for oil drilling-related legislation, there weren't any high profile partisan legislative fights on Capitol Hill last week. The major piece of legislation that was brought to the floor and ultimately passed the House last week was the highly bi-partisan reauthorization of appropriations for our intelligence agencies (H.R. 754). The bill passed 392-15. Unfortunately, it is these "non-controversial" bills that are prone to insertions of reckless amendments. After all, who is watching the banal congressional proceedings of consensus legislation?

On Thursday, Republicans allowed Democrats to offer two amendments that would mandate pilot programs and studies to facilitate diversity within the intelligence agencies. I don't begrudge the GOP leaders for running an open process and allowing Democrats to offer amendments. The problem is that they adopted the amendments by voice vote, instead of voting them down. Well, if the timeworn bromide that "Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government" is sufficient justification for failure to pass prudent legislation, it should certainly justify their scuttling of multicultural amendments.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

7. None Dare Call it Hypocrisy: The Left's Outrage Over Teaching Free-Enterprise in Universities

For the last few years, America has been slowly awakened to the level of Marxism taught in American classrooms. From the of taking public school students to Cuba and the NEA's recommendation of Saul Alinsky to the most recent revelation of the University of Missouri's "Introduction to Labor Studies" taught by two Marxists who, in addition to allegedly giving a Communist organizer two hours of class time to recruit, also shared the finer points of industrial sabotage and cat electrocutions.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

8. Rescheduling Trump

Unfortunately, I've just been informed that Donald Trump needs to reschedule our one on one interview. Those of you who have registered already will get a note when the rescheduled interview takes place.

Sorry about that.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Newt Gingrich's Rapidly Self-Limiting Campaign Defends the Individual Mandate

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press this morning and said two things that won't exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.

First, he endorsed the individual mandate and said he would not bash Mitt Romney over the individual mandate.

Second, he went after Paul Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare. Your mileage may vary on Ryan's plan, but he is both offering up one and using the free market, individual choice approach favored by conservatives.

Newt was not happy with the approach.

Gingrich is already going to have to overcome the apprehensiveness of evangelicals and women in the primary. To also have to overcome the free marketers' concerns may prove problematic.

I'm still struggling to figure out what Newt's natural constituency is. He seems to want to be the ideas guy, but that really amounts to being a conservative technocrat. If Daniels enters and Mitt is there too, it is a crowded field for the technocrats to fight over.

Time will tell. The transcript of the related remarks is below the fold.

Endorsing individual mandate:

GINGRICH: well, i agree that all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. and i think there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. i have said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond, or in some way, you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

GREGORY: but that is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: it's a variation on it.

GREGORY: so you won't use that issue against Mitt Romney?

GINGRICH: no

Calls Ryan plan "right wing social engineering":

GREGORY: what about entitle snaents the trust fund is going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. do you think republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors some premium support so that they can go out and buy private insurance?

GINGRICH: i don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. i don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for free society to operate. i think we need a national conversation to get to a better medicare system with more choices for seniors, but there are specific things you can do. at the center for health transformation, which i helped found, which published a book called "stop paying the crooks." we thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for washington. we, between medicare and medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. and ibm has agreed to help solve it, american express has agreed to help solve it, visa has agreed to help solve it. you can't get anybody in this town to look at it. that's almost a trillion dollars over a decade. so, there are things you can do to improve medicare –

GREGORY: but not what paul ryan is suggesting, completely change medicare?

GINGRICH: i think that is too big a jump. i think you want to have a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the — i'm against obama care, which is imposing radical change, and i would be against a conservative imposing radical change.

Huckabee Is Out. The Down and Dirty on Who It Helps and Hurts.

UPDATED: Title changed to reflect that Mike Huckabee is not running.

The down and dirty analysis of who it helps:

Tim Pawlenty. He becomes the evangelical governor in the race.

Herman Cain. He remains the Huckabee of 2012.

Sarah Palin. She and Huckabee would largely be fighting for the same crowd.

Who it hurts:

All of us. Some of you won't agree, but I think Huckabee would force the other candidates to bring their A game on message and rhetoric. Just for that alone, I wanted him in the race.

What it means:

Mitt Romney is the front runner and the field is wide open to be the anti-Mitt. If Daniels gets in,and it is increasingly likely, he will be the odds on favorite to be the anti-Mitt. Otherwise it will probably be Pawlenty. And even with Daniels in, Pawlenty's access to the evangelical community will make him a force to be reckoned with. Those two will fight it out to be the anti-Mitt.

Original post below the fold.

It looks like I and many others who have been following this are very wrong and that Mike Huckabee is getting into the race.

Maybe not, but he sent out an email to his inner circle that reads like he is getting in. This will come as a surprise to many people. Frankly, at this point, I think it is awesome that Huck has been able to leave us all guessing.

The Wall Street Journal noted yesterday that Ed Rollins had been laying the ground work for 2012 on Huckabee's behalf, but then hadn't heard anything. Rollins speculated that Huckabee was out.

Ed Stelzer, a Republican from Georgia who spearheaded Huck's Army in Georgia, also said yesterday Huckabee wasn't running and added that Huck's Iowa team had all gone elsewhere.

Wesley Donahue reported a few weeks ago in South Carolina that several of Huck's guys there had been told they were free to go. Wes was widely attacked for being a Romney guy, but I and several others had heard this independent of Huck.

If he does get in, this is really a masterful job at throwing everyone off.

Yesterday, I posted my views on the horse race for 2012. If Mike Huckabee does decide to tell the world tonight that he is running, here's how I think it impacts the race.

Herman Cain gets impacted in buzz. A lot of buzz has been going to Herman because, as I and others have said repeated, he stands out as the Huckabee of 2012. With Huckabee in the race, evangelicals in Iowa who want an outsider gravitate back to Huck.

Pawlenty is hurt by Huckabee entering. He'd be the "experience" candidate who also connects to evangelicals. Huckabee fills that void and it will leave Pawlenty scrambling.

Sarah Palin will be able to hold her on, but the establishment GOP that fears her will make peace with Huckabee quickly — very quickly. I think if Huckabee gets in there is no way Palin, should she get in, gets the nomination. In fact, I think Palin and Huckabee both in the race neutralizes them both.

Should Mike Huckabee get in, he will be the front runner. And to be honest, I hope he gets in. I have said for a few months now that while I disagree with Huckabee on much of his economic/fiscal record, he speaks in a way that resonates with the hearts of Americans. He would force every other candidate to rise to the occasion and bring their A game.

For that, we can all be grateful. But I'm not sure i want him as the nominee.

In any event, we'll find out tonight.

Mike Huckabee Is In? If So, He is the Frontrunner.

It looks like I and many others who have been following this are very wrong and that Mike Huckabee is getting into the race.

Maybe not, but he sent out an email to his inner circle that reads like he is getting in. This will come as a surprise to many people. Frankly, at this point, I think it is awesome that Huck has been able to leave us all guessing.

The Wall Street Journal noted yesterday that Ed Rollins had been laying the ground work for 2012 on Huckabee's behalf, but then hadn't heard anything. Rollins speculated that Huckabee was out.

Ed Stelzer, a Republican from Georgia who spearheaded Huck's Army in Georgia, also said yesterday Huckabee wasn't running and added that Huck's Iowa team had all gone elsewhere.

Wesley Donahue reported a few weeks ago in South Carolina that several of Huck's guys there had been told they were free to go. Wes was widely attacked for being a Romney guy, but I and several others had heard this independent of Huck.

If he does get in, this is really a masterful job at throwing everyone off.

Yesterday, I posted my views on the horse race for 2012. If Mike Huckabee does decide to tell the world tonight that he is running, here's how I think it impacts the race.

Herman Cain gets impacted in buzz. A lot of buzz has been going to Herman because, as I and others have said repeated, he stands out as the Huckabee of 2012. With Huckabee in the race, evangelicals in Iowa who want an outsider gravitate back to Huck.

Pawlenty is hurt by Huckabee entering. He'd be the "experience" candidate who also connects to evangelicals. Huckabee fills that void and it will leave Pawlenty scrambling.

Sarah Palin will be able to hold her on, but the establishment GOP that fears her will make peace with Huckabee quickly — very quickly. I think if Huckabee gets in there is no way Palin, should she get in, gets the nomination. In fact, I think Palin and Huckabee both in the race neutralizes them both.

Should Mike Huckabee get in, he will be the front runner. And to be honest, I hope he gets in. I have said for a few months now that while I disagree with Huckabee on much of his economic/fiscal record, he speaks in a way that resonates with the hearts of Americans. He would force every other candidate to rise to the occasion and bring their A game.

For that, we can all be grateful. But I'm not sure i want him as the nominee.

In any event, we'll find out tonight.

How I View The Horse Race

It's that time boys and girls — that time where I tell you what I really think and you can all hate me for daring to say something critical about your preferred candidate.

Here's how I think the 2012 race is shaping up by candidate, in alphabetical order.

Herman Cain

Cain is the Mike Huckabee of 2012. He is articulate, sharp, inspiration, has a hell of a biography, and a team of rabid grassroots supporters. I think people really underestimate him. If he can hang on to South Carolina, he becomes huge. He needs money. I think he can get it. In Iowa though, he'll be able to connect with people in a big way.

Mitch Daniels

He was my first choice for 2012, but when he went all trucey, etc. I think he has a real tin ear and that troubles me (See here for example). Like John McCain, I get the sense that Mitch Daniels will put his thumb in the eye of conservatives every time he is on their side, just so the media doesn't think he is one. I don't know that I want to be a battered supporter for four years. In any event, if Daniels does get in, he has a huge shot at it. I actually think he is one of the guys the Democrats really fear. Obama has a terrible handle on numbers. Numbers are Mitch Daniels's thing.

Newt Gingrich

He has a real problem. "Newt" the idea is a good thing. "Newt" the person has left a negative impression in the minds of many as a moral cretin and a terrible manager with an out of control ego as Speaker. He's going to have to work really hard to overcome that. His defense of his Nancy Pelosi on the couch video is truly stellar. If he can keep talking like that, he might turn people towards him. But his personal foibles are going to hurt him more than some might think.

Mike Huckabee

: The front runner if he gets in, but I am still not sure he is. Plus, if he does get in, he is going to get a media rectal exam unlike anything we have ever seen. The released felons, the financial record, etc. are going to come back to haunt him in a way they did not in 2008 because the media was so caught off guard by his meteoric rise. That said, Mike Huckabee speaks about America the way the Gipper did and his entry would force everyone else onto their A game.

Jon Huntsman

He's got McCain's team with him, so the media will Lewinsky him from now to kingdom come and find some way to make him a martyr when he flames out in South Carolina.

Gary Johnson

Bawhahahahahaha. Um . . . no.

Sarah Palin

She's not running. If she does, the dynamics change rapidly, with everyone else coalescing rapidly behind a Daniels or Pawlenty to try to shut her out. The establishment fears her. I'd gladly support her.

Ron Paul

The third time is only the charm in fairy tales. There's a better chance of turning a frog into a prince with a kiss than with Ron Paul getting elected President.

Tim Pawlenty

If Mike Huckabee does not get in, Pawlenty could shine as the anti-Romney, evangelical. He's a good guy. His support for ethanol is going to hurt him with fiscal conservatives. The Club For Growth could damage him. If Mitch Daniels does not get in, I suspect Pawlenty gets the nomination.

Mitt Romney

The guy we all want to like, but just have such a hard time liking. His defense of Romneycare hurts him. He has surrounded himself with many of the smart players, but in an a-typical election year when people want a "man of the people", it hurts Romney.

Rick Santorum

Not gonna happen. Some social conservatives will rally to Santorum, but no fiscal conservative will. I doubt he makes it to Iowa.

Donald Trump

I don't think it is going to happen. I think he really did want to run. I think he let the story get ahead of him. Trump likes to control the story and this is one he can't control.

Rescheduling Trump

Unfortunately, I've just been informed that Donald Trump needs to reschedule our one on one interview. Those of you who have registered already will get a note when the rescheduled interview takes place.

Sorry about that. And my plane ticket isn't refundable. Oh well.

Mitt Romney At His Apex?

If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, Mitt Romney would probably be the nominee. But this may be the high water mark for Mitt Romney after yesterday's speech at the University of Michigan in which he gave a full throated defense of Romneycare.

In fact, in his Power Point presentation on slide 7, Mitt Romney defends the individual mandate as okay at the state level, but not at the federal level. That nuance may be constitutionally sound, but it sounds very much like Romney defending European socialized medicine at the state level.

A lot of people have waited on the sidelines hoping Romney would distance himself from Romneycare or apologize for it as Pawlenty has done with his global warming nonsense. Instead, Romney embraced his record.

It is reassuring to see a candidate proud of his record — but being proud of destroying the Massachusetts healthcare system is nothing to be proud of. Thanks to Romneycare, the Massachusetts government is imposing price controls on hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers. They are doing everything conservatives have feared would happen under Obamacare.

The Democrats continue to point out that Obamacare derives from Romneycare. As the Wall Street Journal scornfully notes today

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." If we may judge by his health-care speech at the University of Michigan yesterday, Mitt Romney is a very smart man.

The likely Republican Presidential candidate fulfilled the White House's fondest wishes, defending the mandate-subsidize-overregulate program he enacted as Massachusetts Governor in 2006 even as he denounced President Obama's national reprise. He then proposed his own U.S. reform that is sensible and might do so some actual good, but which also runs against the other two plans. These are unbridgeable policy and philosophical differences, though Mr. Romney is nonetheless trying to leap over them like Evel Knievel heading for the Snake River Canyon.

This will not help Mitt Romney moving forward.

Mitt Romney At HIs Apex?

If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, Mitt Romney would probably be the nominee. But this may be the high water mark for Mitt Romney after yesterday's speech at the University of Michigan in which he gave a full throated defense of Romneycare.

In fact, in his Power Point presentation on slide 7, Mitt Romney defends the individual mandate as okay at the state level, but not at the federal level. That nuance may be constitutionally sound, but it sounds very much like Romney defending European socialized medicine at the state level.

A lot of people have waited on the sidelines hoping Romney would distance himself from Romneycare or apologize for it as Pawlenty has done with his global warming nonsense. Instead, Romney embraced his record.

It is reassuring to see a candidate proud of his record — but being proud of destroying the Massachusetts healthcare system is nothing to be proud of. Thanks to Romneycare, the Massachusetts government is imposing price controls on hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers. They are doing everything conservatives have feared would happen under Obamacare.

The Democrats continue to point out that Obamacare derives from Romneycare. As the Wall Street Journal scornfully notes today

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." If we may judge by his health-care speech at the University of Michigan yesterday, Mitt Romney is a very smart man.

The likely Republican Presidential candidate fulfilled the White House's fondest wishes, defending the mandate-subsidize-overregulate program he enacted as Massachusetts Governor in 2006 even as he denounced President Obama's national reprise. He then proposed his own U.S. reform that is sensible and might do so some actual good, but which also runs against the other two plans. These are unbridgeable policy and philosophical differences, though Mr. Romney is nonetheless trying to leap over them like Evel Knievel heading for the Snake River Canyon.

This will not help Mitt Romney moving forward.

Morning Briefing for May 13, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For May 13, 2011

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

1. Why Yes, I Am Interviewing Donald Trump

2. Mitt Romney At His Apex?

3. RSC Debt Limit Plan: Cut, Cap, and Balance

4. Joe Walsh's Smackdown of Obama on Immigration

5. Tax Hikes Texas Style

6. Energy State Dems: The New Endangered Species

7. Teachers' Union Protects Teacher for Standing Idly By While Student is Beaten

———————————————————————-

1. Why Yes, I Am Interviewing Donald Trump

He's a blunt new voice that's hitting our conservative establishment with the force of a wrecking ball.

The guy fascinates all of us, but let's face it: he also raises a lot of questions.

I'll ask Donald Trump those questions, 1-on-1, live, for a solid hour. Is this all just posturing? Is he running — or not? Let's get answers. Who's the real guy behind the money, flash and fast talk?

Join us. I promise you this won't be interviews as usual. From the minute we kick off at 11AM Eastern, Tuesday May 17, this will be what everyone's talking about. Be there.

Best of all, it's FREE. Reserve your spot now!

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Mitt Romney At His Apex?

If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, Mitt Romney would probably be the nominee. But this may be the high water mark for Mitt Romney after yesterday's speech at the University of Michigan in which he gave a full throated defense of Romneycare.

In fact, in his Power Point presentation on slide 7, Mitt Romney defends the individual mandate as okay at the state level, but not at the federal level. That nuance may be constitutionally sound, but it sounds very much like Romney defending European socialized medicine at the state level.

A lot of people have waited on the sidelines hoping Romney would distance himself from Romneycare or apologize for it as Pawlenty has done with his global warming nonsense. Instead, Romney embraced his record.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. RSC Debt Limit Plan: Cut, Cap, and Balance

The political world has been waiting with alacrity to hear the details of the GOP demand for raising the debt ceiling. The Republican Study Committee is wasting no time in publicizing their overarching condition for raising the debt ceiling; lowering the spending floor. You might think of it as the preeminent 'cap and trade' program.

We have long railed against an incremental approach to the battle for limited government and spending cuts. The reality is that Republicans don't have the requisite political power to statutorily roll back big government policies through the front door. They probably won't for some time. Consequently, their only recourse to impel meaningful and perennial change is to use the budget process to force the issue.

Republicans will have the opportunity to deny the issuance of any more debt as the debt limit fight reaches its crescendo towards the end of the spring. In September, they will have another opportunity to force the Democrats' hand by refusing to budge from the fundamentals of their FY 2012 budget, even if the Democrats threaten to shut down the government. Yes, even with control of "just one half of one third of government," the GOP can prevail in a budget fight with the support of the public.

The RSC is proposing a three-pronged plan that would attack all of the pressure points of the big government beast.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Joe Walsh's Smackdown of Obama on Immigration

Like no other president in American history, President Obama supports the domineering use of government over every facet of our lives. Yet, when it comes to one of the few core functions of government, like border security and the regulation of immigration, he is suddenly tepid about asserting power. Worse, he uses the power of executive agencies to disregard and subvert immigration laws that were duly passed by Congress. Now he is denigrating those who suffer from gang violence along the border and those who seek to fulfill our core constitutional responsibilities.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Tax Hikes Texas Style

I told you people Joe Straus was bad news. Under his leadership, the Texas House has decided to impose taxes on internet purchases via H.B. 2403. Conservatives in the State House supported it, arguing that it really didn't change anything in the law, but internet companies and tax advocates are raising all sorts of red flags that Texans are about to get screwed.

The legislation is before the State Senate right now. Basically, the legislature is considering getting rid of the "physical nexus" standard for tax collection. In effect, a retailer couldn't be required to collect sales taxes in Texas unless it had a physical connection to the state. Using political parlance, this law "clarifies existing law". Yeah, right.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. Energy State Dems: The New Endangered Species

Democratic politicians once ruled the energy-producing states, but they are becoming quite a rare breed. Republicans scored strong electoral gains in the Congressional elections of 2010, particularly in Texas. Here in Louisiana, both houses of the state legislature have swung red, by a combination of election and defection; it's no secret who owns the moratorium and a host of other energy-hostile policy initiatives. Sen. Mary Landrieu remains the sole remaining Democrat in a statewide elective office in the Pelican State.

Mary and the other energy state Dems know upon which side their bread is buttered. Democrats in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana have a long history of working cooperatively with the oil and gas industry as a engine of jobs and economic growth in each of their respective states.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

7. Teachers' Union Protects Teacher for Standing Idly By While Student is Beaten

Some viewers may find the video below, of a student being punched in the face repeatedly by another student, disturbing.

What many may find even more disturbing is the fact that the teacher stood by, with his hands in his pockets, as the student was beaten. However, what is truly appalling is the fact that the American Federation of Teachers is protecting the teacher's inaction.

Please click here for the rest of the post.