Erick Erickson's Blog, page 63

Libertarian Ed Crane Decides to Act Like a Liberal. Will It Destroy the Cato Institute?

"Suffice it to say, Ed Crane has no legal argument. Instead, he is doing what the left does — resort to trial by media and whine."

A friend of mine asked me last week why I hadn't written about the Cato Institute lawsuit business with the Koch Brothers. I told him I hadn't seen it pulsing up anywhere, so why should I give it any attention. Ed Crane, the President of Cato, has no viable legal argument and it seemed to me he was just taking advantage of the current left-wing hate against the Koch's to try to garner some sympathy for an organization nobody has really cared about in more than a decade.

Then suddenly there was a flurry of stories and I think they prove me right. The Politico had one of the few stories written before the weekend. The . The Boston Herald referenced it. The Los Angeles Times was ahead of them all.

When the news broke last week, Dave Weigel gave a pretty good overview.

All of the stories show a pretty terrible sense of history and make rather clear that had the Koch Brothers not been involved, there wouldn't be much interest. This is a vendetta with journalists too happy to play along.

As to the history, many of the articles note Cato has an unusual set up. It is a not for profit with shareholders. It is not that uncommon. When I was a transactional attorney I set these up. When rich people give lots of money, they want to make sure their investment does not go off the reservation. But more so, this structure was entered into in the 1970′s when big think tanks were rather uncommon and the tax code so nebulous that strange structures like this took shape out of necessity.

Couple that with the vendetta and you have a story the media loves. According the press reports, the Kochs are trying to take over Cato and change it into something else. That is a distraction from what is actually happening and designed to put the Kochs in the worst possible light while ignoring Ed Crane's egregious, frankly rather spoiled, behavior.

My libertarian friends should really be appalled at Ed Crane's antics. In short, Ed Crane and Charles Koch formed the Cato Institute with an unusual structure establishing shareholders with shareholder rights outlined in a legal agreement. Crane has no legal argument to throw out the shareholder agreement and he and the Chairman of Cato, Robert Levy, largely concede the point to the Washington Post. Levy tells the Post,

"We think it's a really bad structure," said Robert Levy, Cato's board chairman. "We've repeatedly asked that it be changed."

From Levy's quote, we can easily extrapolate a few things. First, Levy admits it is and has been Cato's structure. Second, Levy and Ed Crane clearly do not like it. Third, Levy admits they have tried existing legal channels to change the structure to no avail. So fourth, Levy and Crane have taken a "damn the law and arms length agreements, we're just going to burn the place down" approach. They have no legal argument and are forced to try to shame the Kochs in the press. Well shame on them. Compounding the shame is Levy and Crane's ridiculous hiding behind the Internal Revenue Service with arguments that Cato's own tax lawyer does not really agree with. Yes, this is an example of libertarians hiding behind the federal government to try to break up an agreement entered into in an arms length transaction.

Contrast Levy's lament with Wes Edwards, who is deputy general counsel of Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC, who says, "The purpose of this litigation is to preserve the shareholders' intent. The original shareholders reached an agreement and agreed to be bound by it. A key principle of libertarianism is recognizing and respecting the rule of law. The founders of the Cato Institute reached an agreement and agreed to be bound by it. That is all we are seeking here – that the parties stand by what they agreed to when they founded Cato."

In other words, as both Bob Levy and Wes Edwards make clear, Levy and Ed Crane did not get their way so they are going to ignore the shareholder agreement. That's not how libertarians operate. That is how liberals operate — litigating in the press because they haven't gotten and, more importantly, cannot legally get their way.

Back when conservative Democrats were dying off and otherwise becoming Republicans, the conservative movement underwent a profound shift wherein much of the conservative movement folded into the Republican Party. Instead of being a buttress on the outside, conservatives became Republicans and vice versa. The Cato Institute became one of the groups on the center right willing to hold the GOP accountable for deviating from what it promised.

And then? Pfffft. . . . It just kind of failed to seize the momentum and failed to stay relevant. Short of its gubernatorial score card, I rarely ever hear Cato mentioned these days and sure can't think of anything it has, as an institute, been a leader on except social security reform back in 2005, though some of its individual analysts are quite sharp and still individually impactful.

The last time I heard anyone talk about Cato in serious terms was when they booted a couple of analysts who had taken to peddling the thinking that libertarians and Democrats could form a natural coalition where big spending wasn't a problem as long as the sex and drugs were widely available. That's pretty much it. This is a real tragedy because of some of the great analysts who are there and even more so because within the center-right coalition, conservative groups need a libertarian think tank competing on free market issues to keep free market ideas fresh, engaging, and relevant.

So if the Koch Brothers want to fix Cato we should be cheering them, not attacking them. To be clear, anything they did would be better than the status quo.

Ed Crane, the President of Cato who has presided over its decline (but like all archaic Washington institutions it has an awesome building), is now a minority shareholder. The legal structure he agreed to is no longer serving him in the way it did when he tossed Murray Rothbard back in the eighties.

What Crane has decided to do is burn down the remains of Cato's reputation to try to save his own power. The shareholder document is straight forward. Under Penalty of Catapult has everything you need to know about the legal arguments involved. Suffice it to say, Ed Crane has no legal argument. Instead, he is doing what the left does — resort to trial by media and whine. What is particularly disturbing about Crane's actions is that he, ostensibly of the center-right coalition, is trying to take advantage of the left's on going war with two of America's top capitalists to garner media sympathy for his lost legal cause.

Wes Edwards makes note of Crane deciding to seize the opportunity afforded Crane by the left's ongoing character assassination of the Kochs.

For months we engaged in multiple efforts to resolve questions about the shareholders agreement. We proposed a standstill agreement that would postpone matters until 2013 and delay an upcoming shareholders meeting to vote on board nominees. We also offered alternative structure proposals, and we suggested third-party mediation. These efforts were all rejected by Cato's officers and they moved forward with the shareholders meeting on March 1. We filed our action as a last resort.

In other words, they were willing to have the fight, but wanted to put it off until after the political season is over. But Ed Crane wants this happening in the political season so he can take advantage of a liberal media predisposed to be against two of Barack Obama's political opponents.

People on the right should frown upon those sorts of actions. If Cato is to die, it will be because of Ed Crane's leadership, not because of the Koch Brothers.

This Goes Both Ways, Right? Some Republicans Start Rooting for Conservative Defeat.

Chris Cilizza as an interesting story in the Washington Post in which some Romney supporters are openly wondering if the Republican Party needs to be wiped out in 2012 in order to win big in 2016.

"I'd personally enjoy all the 'we can't nominate another Republican In Name Only' crowd getting a stomping by an incumbent with an 8.5 unemployment rate," said one senior party strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly, warning of nominating a strictly conservative candidate like former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.

My only wonder is if this is a two way street. Because the party is finally deciding to rally to Mitt Romney. I suspect he will win Ohio and, with it, he will begin wrapping up the nomination. And then I think we will see the Democrats unleash unmitigated hell on him in a way in which the GOP is ill prepared.

The Mormon Church will be the first major attack. Then Bain Capital and all the individuals who blame Mitt Romney for their unemployment. Then we'll get into Romney's flip-flops. Etc. Etc. Etc. It will be nasty. It will be ugly. And Romney will be left to complain about just how unfair it is that the media isn't paying as much attention to what Barack Obama's policies have done to the nation.

And he will lose unless the economy, driven by gas prices and Europe, begins to decline again.

So I hope this is a two way street. If Romney gets stomped by an incumbent with an 8.5% unemployment rate, I hope we can be rid of him and people who give the Washington Post these sorts of quotes.

Of course, then there are people like me who are pretty sure that as much as Romney will struggle against the President, why yes, Rick Santorum would be toast too. We are going against the second coming of Jimmy Carter battling to find the tallest midget to put up against him.

Morning Briefing for March 5, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

March 5, 2012

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

1. Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

2. Further Proof Romney Supported a National Individual Mandate In 2009

3. We Are at War. Is the Media Scared to Really Cover It?

4. This Goes Both Ways, Right? Some Republicans Start Rooting for Conservative Defeat.

5. Libertarian Ed Crane Decides to Act Like a Liberal. Will It Destroy the Cato Institute?

———————————————————————-

1. Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.

In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.

On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.

But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was "Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Further Proof Romney Supported a National Individual Mandate In 2009

Back in 2009 Mitt Romney took to the pages of USA Today to tell President Obama that as he came up with a healthcare plan he should consider using "tax penalties" as Massachusetts did or "tax credits, as others have proposed" to help cover the costs of health care.

The "tax penalties" is Mitt Romney's individual mandate, a key portion the Obama Administration has credited all along as having been embraced in Obamacare.

Since pointing out yesterday that, in his own words, Mitt Romney supported a national individual mandate, his supporters have gone totally insane on twitter fully denying and trying to spin their way out of this story. Despite Romney's own words in his editorial, Mitt Romney's supporters are denying Romney's own words.

But Romney did not just write an op-ed. He went on Meet the Press too. You can hear Mitt Romney on Meet the Press recommend the President take one of two approaches in formulating health care.

The first approach Romney suggests is Romneycare, which Mitt Romney now claims was never intended to be a model for the nation.

The second approach Romney suggests is the Wyden-Bennett health reform measure then pending in the United States Senate. Wyden-Bennett, like Romneycare, contained an individual mandate.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. We Are at War. Is the Media Scared to Really Cover It?

Journalists are much more tolerant of attacks on Christianity than Islam. It is a fact.

ABC is airing a television show called "Good Christian Bitches." Never mind the outrage over the recent Sandra Fluke business, but there is a double standard. And let's not fool ourselves as the media would never tolerate a story where "Muslim" was substituted for "Christian" in that show.

The media's present politically correct excuse is that Islam binds certain minority group's cultures in a way Christianity does not. First, that is crap and speaks of a secular ignorance about many Christian communities even in this country. Second, it is an excuse so the media does not have to admit it is scared of muslims. You'll see a news story about Christ in a jar of urine, but don't ever expect to see a cartoon of Mohammed on the nightly news. The reporter doesn't want to get murdered.

I am starting to wonder if the same holds true in the present war our country finds itself in that too few reporters are really brave enough to cover. We are at war on our southern border with Mexico and the press is really not doing justice to coverage of the war.

The latest story points out just how much of a war it is and just how badly our government and Mexico are handling themselves.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. This Goes Both Ways, Right? Some Republicans Start Rooting for Conservative Defeat.

Chris Cilizza as an interesting story in the Washington Post in which some Romney supporters are openly wondering if the Republican Party needs to be wiped out in 2012 in order to win big in 2016.

"I'd personally enjoy all the 'we can't nominate another Republican In Name Only' crowd getting a stomping by an incumbent with an 8.5 unemployment rate,' said one senior party strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly, warning of nominating a strictly conservative candidate like former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum."

My only wonder is if this is a two way street. Because the party is finally deciding to rally to Mitt Romney. I suspect he will win Ohio and, with it, he will begin wrapping up the nomination. And then I think we will see the Democrats unleash unmitigated hell on him in a way in which the GOP is ill prepared.

The Mormon Church will be the first major attack. Then Bain Capital and all the individuals who blame Mitt Romney for their unemployment. Then we'll get into Romney's flip-flops. Etc. Etc. Etc. It will be nasty. It will be ugly. And Romney will be left to complain about just how unfair it is that the media isn't paying as much attention to what Barack Obama's policies have done to the nation.

And he will lose unless the economy, driven by gas prices and Europe, begins to decline again.

So I hope this is a two way street. If Romney gets stomped by an incumbent with an 8.5% unemployment rate, I hope we can be rid of him and people who give the Washington Post these sorts of quotes.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Libertarian Ed Crane Decides to Act Like a Liberal. Will It Destroy the Cato Institute?

A friend of mine asked me last week why I hadn't written about the Cato Institute lawsuit business with the Koch Brothers. I told him I hadn't seen it pulsing up anywhere, so why should I give it any attention. Ed Crane, the President of Cato, has no viable legal argument and it seemed to me he was just taking advantage of the current left-wing hate against the Koch's to try to garner some sympathy for an organization nobody has really cared about in more than a decade.

Then suddenly there was a flurry of stories and I think they prove me right. The Politico had one of the few stories written before the weekend. The the Washington Post ran a big story. The Boston Herald referenced it. The Los Angeles Times was ahead of them all.

When the news broke last week, Dave Weigel gave a pretty good overview.

All of the stories show a pretty terrible sense of history and make rather clear that had the Koch Brothers not been involved, there wouldn't be much interest. This is a vendetta with journalists too happy to play along.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Further Proof Romney Supported a National Individual Mandate In 2009

As I mentioned yesterday, back in 2009 Mitt Romney took to the pages of USA Today to tell President Obama that as he came up with a healthcare plan he should consider using "tax penalties" as Massachusetts did or "tax credits, as others have proposed" to help cover the costs of health care.

The "tax penalties" is Mitt Romney's individual mandate, a key portion the Obama Administration has credited all along as having been embraced in Obamacare.

Since pointing out yesterday that, in his own words, Mitt Romney supported a national individual mandate, his supporters have gone totally insane on twitter fully denying and trying to spin their way out of this story. Despite Romney's own words in his editorial, Mitt Romney's supporters are denying Romney's own words.

But Romney did not just write an op-ed. He went on Meet the Press too. You can hear Mitt Romney on Meet the Press recommend the President take one of two approaches in formulating health care.

The first approach Romney suggests is Romneycare, which Mitt Romney now claims was never intended to be a model for the nation.

The second approach Romney suggests is the Wyden-Bennett health reform measure then pending in the United States Senate. Wyden-Bennett, like Romneycare, contained an individual mandate.

In other words, skipping the diplomatic phrasing of some, Mitt Romney lies each time he says he never supported a national individual mandate.

BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.

In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.

On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.

But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was "Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on.

The Horserace for March 2, 2012

The reality is I think conservative activists are starting to come to terms with Mitt Romney. His national and state polling is starting to trend up.

More and more I hear conservative activists tell me that while they are not sold on Romney and he has not closed the deal, Gingrich and Santorum have not closed the deal either. The great volume of undecided voters who still decide to participate typically will go with the frontrunner and right now that is Mitt Romney.

Santorum and Gingrich have the opportunity to change the reality in the next week, but it is their last major opportunity. Right now, it all comes down to Ohio — a must win state for the three.

Today, in a pre-Super Tuesday horserace, let's explore where we are headed.

Newt Gingrich will win Georgia. It is not a question of if, but by how much. Mitt Romney will come in third. But Georgia is shaping up to be Gingrich's only win on Super Tuesday. Rick Santorum is probably going to take Tennessee and Oklahoma, though Gingrich will probably come in second in Oklahoma.

Those would be bad headlines for Mitt Romney, except he just might take Vermont, Massachusetts, and will take Virginia. That Ron Paul has not tried to consolidate anti-Romney voters in Virginia suggests to me he is now more spoiler than candidate. The Paul strategy has not turned out as planned and he will not be the nominee.

Santorum needs Ohio. Denying Romney Ohio would be a psychological boost for Santorum's candidacy and help Santorum against Gingrich headed into the week after Super Tuesday when Mississippi and Alabama are up for grabs — states Romney probably will not win.

And yes, the word "probably" is intentional in all these scenarios because the race remains that fluid.

The Romney campaign has discovered if it concentrates its resources in particular states and drives up their spending ratio to 5 to 1, they will win. It is a strategy that will not work in the general election, but is working effectively for him now, though driving up his negatives.

Santorum and Gingrich will have a hard time matching Romney in Ohio, though Santorum continues to resonate with blue collar workers. His message, however, needs to change. He spent several weeks talking about social issues and not talking about jobs, which is the key topic. Following jobs and the economy, government spending is a top concern of voters.

Santorum has pivoted to talking about that topic, which suggests he gets why he underperformed in Michigan.

The Romney campaign, however, is still in the driver's seat. Both with money and rising national polling, Santorum and Gingrich both in the race are starting to keep consolidation from happening against Mitt Romney and, consequently, voters are starting to get desperate and are starting to consolidate for Romney.

Republican leaders should be worried, though, that in a Republican primary the front runner is still having this much difficulty in Republican states winning Republican voters. Mitt Romney may be the first Republican nominee in a very long time to win the nomination while losing the South. That signals trouble for him in the general election as he spends time rallying the base to him when he needs to rally independents who are right now turning on him.

The Romney campaign may gamble that the base will vote for him in November. They're probably right. But will they go door to door, talk positively about him, defend him, and give him money? That's more difficult to answer.

Does Carly Fiorina Just Not Get It?

Carly Fiorina is offended by Rush Limbaugh's comments on Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, who testified before Congress that she wants the American taxpayers to subsidize her sexual proclivities.

We should be insulted with Fluke, but Fiorina is insulted by Limbaugh.

"That language is insulting, in my opinion. It's incendiary and most of all, it's a distraction. It's a distraction from what are very real and important issues," said Fiorina on CBS's "This Morning."

Well of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. It is not something I would do and I do think we're going to now focused on what he said for a while and that it will be a distraction from the central argument, but he was using insult and sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of Sandra Fluke and the left's position, which in a nut shell is they think you, me, and every other American should pay for them to have sex. And while I understand people being offended, I am offended by many of these same people thinking I should be subsidizing what has, for years, been considered a consensual act.

They call it "women's health", but the language associated with it involves pregnancy and sex. They have, in other words, turned "women's health" into a euphemism for having sex.

And Sandra Fluke, who spends over $50,000.00 on law school per year really believes that American tax payers should, because of her expensive law school, pay for her birth control pills so she can have sex. Not just that, she claims it costs $3000.00 over the course of law school to pay for the contraception. That's an extraordinarily high price considering most common birth control pills can be purchased at WalMart or Target or elsewhere for vastly less.

So of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats' position is on this. It's what he does and does quite well. And in the process he's exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting — her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves.

Suddenly, an act Democrats have said for years was private and consensual, must despite that be paid for by the American taxpayers.

BONUS POINT: Why is a person who lost a U.S. Senate campaign after sucking up vast resources from Republicans donors that could have gone elsewhere somehow made the Vice Chairman of the GOP's Senate Campaign Committee?

In Other Words, McConnell Is More Concerned With Keeping His Power

The other day, Mitch McConnell made clear to Republican Senators that he would block efforts to offer amendments on full repeal of Obamacare this legislative year.

I wrote about.

Then Alexander Bolton at The Hill wrote about it.

Then Rush Limbaugh mentioned it.

Then conservative group Restore America's Voice Foundation said it would, well, Alexander Bolton has a follow up report.

Restore America's Voice Foundation said it would "unleash" its 2.3 million activists to call for McConnell's resignation if he didn't retract his comments.

Well, Mitch McConnell is now retreating.

Ken Hoagland, the chairman of the foundation, said McConnell's chief of staff spoke with him for 20 minutes by phone after the threat was issued and vowed to make March "Repeal Obamacare Month." Hoagland said his group was taking a "trust but verify" approach and would unleash TV ads and petitions asking for McConnell to step down as minority leader unless he shows he's serious about repeal.

"He has to look for opportunities to bring amendments to the floor," Hoagland said.

A senior GOP aide said Senate Republicans have planned a public relations campaign this month to highlight the need to repeal the controversial healthcare law. The aide said the campaign has been in the planning phase for weeks.

Now look, we all know this "planning phase for weeks" is pure nonsense. We know this from Alexander Bolton's prior report.

Senators loyal to Mitch McConnell were willing to go on the record saying Obamacare wouldn't be brought up all year. Senator Barrasso (R-WY), one of McConnell's loyal lieutenants said people were already on the record and he didn't think there was a need for another vote.

In Washington, this is the diplomatic dance of retreat. McConnell got exposed and the position was so set in stone his loyal lieutenants were willing to go on the record. So now they all have to say the original reporting was wrong, even though it wasn't, and they now have to do what they did not want to do.

It really is striking how quickly McConnell folded when his leadership was threatened. This should tell everyone what they must do whenever they want McConnell to fold like a cheap suit.

But notice one thing in McConnell's retreat, he's still not saying he'll push full repeal. There are already potential partial repeal measures coming from the House. Partial repeal, of course, will get rid of the things everyone hates now that they have all read the bill. And each thing partially repealed from Obamacare without a full repeal makes it less and less likely the GOP will then advocate for full repeal instead of "fixing it."

And then we go full circle to yesterday's story. Once all the stuff everyone agrees should be taken out is taken out, we come full circle to Mitch McConnell's original position.

McConnell may also want to shield his Senate GOP colleagues from voting to repeal popular portions of the healthcare law, such as the provision allowing young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26 or another barring insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

Once you've gotten rid of all the stuff on which there is bipartisan agreement, every additional point of repeal becomes a full on partisan fight just like a full repeal vote, but with one big difference: a full repeal vote has the American people on the side of the GOP. Each additional partial repeal vote will have the public breaking off back and forth between the GOP and the Democrats, making partial repeal a mine field for the Republicans.

If the GOP will not commit to votes on full repeal with the American people so clearly on their side, prepare to be nickeled and dimed into an even more costly form of Obamacare where all the stuff both sides agree they hate (the stuff that typically was designed to keep costs down) goes away and all the stuff the Democrats love stays because squishy Republicans are too scared to vote with the rest of their party to get rid of.

So, will Mitch McConnell finally let Jim DeMint's legislation on full repeal get to the floor for a vote?

RedState Gathering 2012

Registration for our 4th Annual RedState Gathering is officially open! I would like to extend exclusive, early bird registration and pricing to RedState Morning Briefing subscribers.

The 2011 RedState Gathering featured an all-star cast and schedule, highlighted by Governor Rick Perry announcing his Presidential campaign. Without a doubt, this year's RedState Gathering — double the length of last year's event and just weeks out from the Republican National Convention — will prove to be the best one yet.

The 2012 RedState Gathering will be held August 2-5 at the Omni Jacksonville Hotel in Jacksonville, Florida. With two full days of speakers and activities this year, the schedule will not disappoint. We will once again have an all-star lineup and I will share speaker commitments with you as soon as I am able.

One exciting announcement I am able to make is that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will be a keynote speaker.

Governor Jindal's unprecedented primary landslide re-election just months ago further supported the frequency of his name coming up in the 2012 vice presidential discussion. We are thrilled to have him at the RedState podium this year.

Also, after so many fine compliments the last couple of years about American Majority's training sessions, we're taking them from being a sponsor of the Gathering to being our partner.

As I have frequently said, American Majority provides some of the best grassroots training for conservatives anywhere in America. Adding an extra day to this year's Gathering, we're going to expand American Majority's training to make sure we're not just headed to Florida to listen, but to learn and mobilize for the fight against Barack Obama in November.

So please, go here now and in early before the rates rise. I look forward to seeing you there.

Morning Briefing for March 2, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

March 2, 2012

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

1. RedState Gathering 2012

2. Andrew Breitbart, 1969-2012

3. A Supernova Now Dark

4. After the Fact, Romney's Supporters in Michigan Seemingly Rewrite the Delegate Rules

5. The World Gets Newer And Braver Every Day.

———————————————————————-

1. RedState Gathering 2012

Registration for our 4th Annual RedState Gathering is officially open! I would like to extend exclusive, early bird registration and pricing to RedState Morning Briefing subscribers.

The 2011 RedState Gathering featured an all-star cast and schedule, highlighted by Governor Rick Perry announcing his Presidential campaign. Without a doubt, this year's RedState Gathering — double the length of last year's event and just weeks out from the Republican National Convention — will prove to be the best one yet.

The 2012 RedState Gathering will be held August 2-5 at the Omni Jacksonville Hotel in Jacksonville, Florida. With two full days of speakers and activities this year, the schedule will not disappoint. We will once again have an all-star lineup and I will share speaker commitments with you as soon as I am able.

One exciting announcement I am able to make is that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will be a keynote speaker.

Governor Jindal's unprecedented primary landslide re-election just months ago further supported the frequency of his name coming up in the 2012 vice presidential discussion. We are thrilled to have him at the RedState podium this year.

Also, after so many fine compliments the last couple of years about American Majority's training sessions, we're taking them from being a sponsor of the Gathering to being our partner.

As I have frequently said, American Majority provides some of the best grassroots training for conservatives anywhere in America. Adding an extra day to this year's Gathering, we're going to expand American Majority's training to make sure we're not just headed to Florida to listen, but to learn and mobilize for the fight against Barack Obama in November.

So please, go here now and in early before the rates rise. I look forward to seeing you there.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Andrew Breitbart, 1969-2012

It's always tough to lose a friend. It's exponentially tougher when that friend leaves behind a wife and four children, who will no longer have their husband and father in their lives, and who should remain in all our prayers.

Add to that just how huge a figure Andrew Breitbart had become in the conservative movement, and you will begin to understand just how big a loss we all suffered yesterday, when we lost a giant.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. A Supernova Now Dark

There will be a number of posts from people on this site and others today about Andrew Breitbart. Editorially, you're supposed to have one post that everyone can rally around, but Andrew Breitbart was such a multifaceted fascinating renaissance man. We each have our own descriptions and stories of Breitbart.

When I first heard the news I thought it was another twitter hoax. But it sadly is not.

Andrew Breitbart was, in every room I ever saw him in, the brilliant bright light and ball of energy people gravitated to and fixated on. It is like a supernova has gone dark.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. After the Fact, Romney's Supporters in Michigan Seemingly Rewrite the Delegate Rules

According to the Michigan Republican Party rules, each candidate who wins a congressional district will win a delegate per district. Romney and Santorum split the districts, so they each got 14 delegates. There are two statewide delegates.

The statewide delegates are divided based on a mathematic calculation for each candidate who gets over 15% of the vote. In Michigan, as Right Michigan explains, Romney and Santorum each got one.

So while Romney got just shy of 2% more of the vote than Santorum in Michigan, he and Santorum split the statewide delegates and wound up tied 15 to 15 in Michigan.

But the Romney camp cannot have that. This is Romney's home state. Romney has to win.

So last night, the Michigan GOP's Credentials Committee voted to take a delegate away from Santorum and give it Mitt Romney.

They claim this had all been decided back on February 4, 2012, but it is clear from the memo documenting that meeting that no one else read the delegate count that way.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. The World Gets Newer And Braver Every Day.

Perhaps someone smarter and better than I should handle this latest moral outrage of the Secular Anti-Humanists. It deserves opposition greater than that which I could provide alone. However, if nobody protested maybe the very stones would cry out.

The United Kingdom once had a great and venerable institution of higher learning known throughout the entire world as The Oxford University. The school still exists; the greatness can no longer be attested to without vigorous moral dispute. They have financed research for an article entitled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. The abstract of this despicable work of Anti-Humanism follows below.

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

Please click here for the rest of the post.