Erick Erickson's Blog, page 66

Newt Gingrich Live and a Debate Review #EERS

Speaker Newt Gingrich will join me live tonight on the Erick Erickson Show at 6:34 p.m. It just so happens that Super Tuesday is coming up, Georgia is one of the states up for grabs, and I happen to be host of the most listened to talk radio show in the evening on the largest talk radio station in the nation, which happens to be located in Atlanta.

You can listen live by going right here to the WSB live stream and you can call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK. I'll be taking question suggestions for the Speaker on my twitter account at ewerickson.

Also tonight, I'll be giving you a great debate play by play. One programming note: if you are familiar with the Hemy Neuman murder trial, I'll have a special hour on it tomorrow night.

Consider this an open thread.

Picking Back up on House and Senate Races

It is time for me to get focused again on House and Senate races. With redistricting, we've got to make some tough decisions in races where two incumbents are situated. Likewise, we've got new people running. It is time. Here's my initial list of support and focus. I'll add to it over time.

One of the big races up front is going to be Manzullo vs. Kinzinger in Illinois. We supported Adam Kinzinger in 2010. He ran as a tea party candidate. In his term so far, however, he has done nothing to distinguish himself as someone willing to stand up to House leaders. A simple review of his and Manzullo's Heritage scores make it no contest. In fact, if you have a tough time deciding who to pick in these sorts of races, the Heritage Action for America score card should be the default tool to break a tie. In the Manzullo v. Kinzinger race, there really is no contest on who is more conservative — Manzullo has an 84% score and Adam Kinzinger has a 63% score.

And if you have doubts about the Heritage Action scorecard as an arbiter for who is the better candidate, consider that Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard was reflecting the concerns of congressional Republicans as recently as December that the Heritage Action scorecard is a bad idea. But just recently even Fred Barnes admitted they were doing it the right way.

All that said, here is my initial list:

Senate

Ted Cruz in Texas

Clark Durant in Michigan

Josh Mandel in Ohio

Richard Mourdock in Indiana

Mark Neuman in Wisconsin

Don Stenberg in Nebraska

House

Tom Cotton (AR-04)

Ron DeSantis (FL-6)

Evan Feinberg (PA-18)

Adam Hasner (FL-22)

David McIntosh (IN-05)

Don Manzullo (IL-16)

Matt Salmon (AZ-06)

Carl Wimmer (UT-04)

Martha Zoller (GA-09)

I'll have posts on each and try to spend more time focusing on them and their races. Oh, and we shoud also see if we can find enough people to primary every single congressional Republican from Alabama. Good grief the present contingent is pathetic.

Gingrich & The Rick Perry Factor

It was the last debate. Newt Gingrich won it.

He was the only candidate who repeatedly steered the questions toward Barack Obama. He was the only candidate who dared point out that the media barely touched Obama's infanticide support as an Illinois State Senator. He returned to the role of elder statesman.

The crowd leaned to Mitt Romney. It was probably inevitable. Mesa, AZ is the second largest concentration of Mormons in America and the State Republican Party handled getting the seats filled. It threw Rick Santorum off his game. The crowd booed Santorum taking on Romneycare's individual mandate.

Santorum did not shine. He came in, it seemed, prepared to be beaten up. He was off his game. In the second half of the debate he did better. But the beginning was stumbling, bumbling, angry, and in the weeds. One thing he did very, very well is steer the contraception issue to families.

If Santorum can consistently steer this issue back to stable families, he has an issue that will win over independent voters. Note to the Santorum campaign: you will actually win the debate even in the general election if you focus your social values critique on the integrity of the American nuclear family.

Romney out performed Santorum, but he had two flaws. First, Romney claimed to be a long time proponent of school choice, but he opposed school vouchers as Governor of Massachusetts and the Boston Hereald noted Romney refused to ever meet with the head of the Massachusetts Charter School Association while in the Governor's Mansion.

The big problem for Romney was his concluding moment in the debate. John King asked him what was the biggest misconception about him. It was a legitimate question and a chance for Romney to help himself. Instead, he got bossy and arrogant and told John King he wouldn't answer the question. That question of all questions was the one he chose to get arrogant about?!

Newt Gingrich won. He kept the focus on Obama. He sounded like the adult in the room. He was both diplomat and scholar.

I would caution the media on one thing — the Rick Perry Factor.

Back during the first debate, Rick Perry came under withering assault from Romney on social security as a ponzi scheme.

After the debate, the media consensus was that Rick Perry had been badly wounded, performed badly, and would be hurt by the social security issue.

His polling actually went up. Conservative voters actually embraced Perry doubling down on social security as a ponzi scheme. Conservative voters rejected Romney's attacks. The conventional wisdom was wrong.

I think the conventional wisdom is wrong about Santorum. While I think he did not perform as well as he should have and, in fact, hurt himself, on the social values issues I think Santorum helped himself more than the media would believe.

Morning Briefing for February 23, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

For February 23, 2012

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

1. Gingrich & The Rick Perry Factor

2. Federal Judge Strikes a Blow Against Regulatory Fascism

3. We are Losing the Tax Debate Even Though We're Right

4. David Waldman of Daily Kos: Know-Nothing Bigot

5. VA Governor Bob McDonnell Hangs VA GOP Out To Dry

———————————————————————-

1. Gingrich & The Rick Perry Factor

It was the last debate. Newt Gingrich won it.

He was the only candidate who repeatedly steered the questions toward Barack Obama. He was the only candidate who dared point out that the media barely touched Obama's infanticide support as an Illinois State Senator. He returned to the role of elder statesman.

The crowd leaned to Mitt Romney. It was probably inevitable. Mesa, AZ is the second largest concentration of Mormons in America and the State Republican Party handled getting the seats filled. It threw Rick Santorum off his game. The crowd booed Santorum taking on Romneycare's individual mandate.

Santorum did not shine. He came in, it seemed, prepared to be beaten up. He was off his game. In the second half of the debate he did better. But the beginning was stumbling, bumbling, angry, and in the weeds. One thing he did very, very well is steer the contraception issue to families.

If Santorum can consistently steer this issue back to stable families, he has an issue that will win over independent voters. Note to the Santorum campaign: you will actually win the debate even in the general election if you focus your social values critique on the integrity of the American nuclear family.

Romney out performed Santorum, but he had two flaws. First, Romney claimed to be a long time proponent of school choice, but he opposed school vouchers as Governor of Massachusetts and the Boston Hereald noted Romney refused to ever meet with the head of the Massachusetts Charter School Association while in the Governor's Mansion.

The big problem for Romney was his concluding moment in the debate. John King asked him what was the biggest misconception about him. It was a legitimate question and a chance for Romney to help himself. Instead, he got bossy and arrogant and told John King he wouldn't answer the question. That question of all questions was the one he chose to get arrogant about?!

Newt Gingrich won. He kept the focus on Obama. He sounded like the adult in the room. He was both diplomat and scholar.

I would caution the media on one thing — the Rick Perry Factor.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Federal Judge Strikes a Blow Against Regulatory Fascism

Via the Becket Fund (.pdf) we are informed that a Federal Judge (the same judge who ruled in 2010 that DADT was unconstitutional and ordered an openly gay service member reinstated to the military) has struck down Washington state pharmacy regulations that can only accurately be described as fascistic. The regulations in question declared that no pharmacy in the State of Washington was permitted to refuse to dispense Plan B on conscience grounds. That's it; no requirement that the pharmacy be state funded (pharmacies, unlike hospitals, generally manage just fine without nurturing from the government teat), just a blanket law that you cannot refuse to dispense Plan B on conscience grounds. Keep in mind, you can refuse to dispense it because of business reasons (it's not profitable, no reliable source of supply), just not for conscience ones.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. We are Losing the Tax Debate Even Though We're Right

Let me get something out of the way first: I get it. I understand. I know that 47% of the country pays no income tax and I am fully aware that that is unfair. I'm part of that 53% of taxpayers and I find it infuriating as well. We exist in a system that allows half of the country to vote against the other half's best interests. Half of the country can vote in ways to ensure that the other half pays bills that they don't have to pay. It's completely and utterly imbalanced and so far from what a free and just society would do as to be laughable.

That said, I propose a simple hypothesis that I think most people would agree with: We only change this disparity by getting more people to agree with us than disagree with us.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. David Waldman of Daily Kos: Know-Nothing Bigot

It's time for Democratic politicians like Elizabeth Warren who are courting Catholic voters, or who – like Senator Bob Casey – profess the Catholic faith themselves, to distance themselves from Daily Kos over the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing bigotry of Contributing Editor David Waldman.

Waldman, @KagroX on Twitter, is one of the leading figures at Daily Kos, the largest left-wing blog; a former Hotline staffer, he's a contributing editor and front-page writer, runs the affiliated site Congress Matters, and his tweets are frequently quoted and retweeted by Markos Moulitsas. In an angry, profanity-laden tirade last night on Twitter over a flap between a local Virginia church and the Girl Scouts, Waldman unloaded his hatred of the Church, grasping for every anti-Catholic trope he could reach (examples: "Catholic Church: the ones we don't rape, we'll alienate by calling them communist b****es" or "Catholics are the next Shakers. No one under 35 will ever stay in this church") and complaining that there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court ("Oh that's right. Six Catholics. Fantastic.") Waldman's vicious rant would have been right at home with the anti-popery screeds of the Klan in its heyday, the Know-Nothings of the 1840s or the "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" trope that cost James G. Blaine the 1884 presidential election.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. VA Governor Bob McDonnell Hangs VA GOP Out To Dry

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Romney supporter and leading contender for the VP spot on a Romney-headed ticket, demonstrated his complete philosophical alignment with Romney yesterday by flipflopping on a bill he has championed and in the process hanging VA GOP delegates out to dry.

For those who haven't been paying attention, Virginia's legislature has been going after the abortion industry root and branch. Last year they passed a law requiring aborttoirs to be regulated as if they did what they do: perform a surgical procedure which can be life threatening. This year a bill is being finalized that requires a woman seeking an abortion to see ultrasound pictures of the baby. Somehow this bill, which does not require any medical procedure the woman was not going to receive in the first place, has the pro-abortion lobby in a tizzy. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has predictably styled this as rape.

Up until yesterday, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell had unconditionally supported the bill.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Morning Briefing for February 22, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

February 22, 2012

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

Folks,

I'm off to Mesa, AZ for tonight's CNN Debate. This will probably be the last of the Republican Presidential Debates for 2012. I expect fireworks! So tune in for the pre-debate show starting at 6pm ET and the debate starts on CNN right at 8pm ET. I'll be on afterwards to share my thoughts on the event.

— Erick

1. A Primer for the Media and I Agree With Rick Santorum

2. When Petard Hoisting Goes Horribly Wrong

3. Dahlia Lithwick's Sonogram Lie Implodes

4. Demagoguing Rape, Exploiting Victims: The Degenerate Left Continues to Use and Abuse Women

5. What are the depths of Peter Gleick's depravity in the Heartland global warming smear attack?

———————————————————————-

1. A Primer for the Media and I Agree With Rick Santorum

The Drudge Report put up a story about Rick Santorum's speech to Ave Maria University in which Santorum said Satan was attacking the United States. The speech was giving in 2008, but is largely consistent with statements he has given in the past few weeks.

I agree with Rick Santorum. I also think that this is a Romney leaked piece. Given the close ties between Matt Drudge and the Romney camp, that's an easy guess. I also think it will hurt Santorum who apparently has Gingrichitis, a disease the frontrunners all seem to get where they mouth off on any topic under the sun once they are the front runner.

Focus on this topic does not help Santorum and is largely irrelevant to being President. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to defend Santorum given how clueless some of those attacking him seem to be on the specific points he made and also given the cluelessness of a lot of reporters trying to put his remarks in context or explain them.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. When Petard Hoisting Goes Horribly Wrong

It seldom ends well when stupid people try to be clever. The latest case in point involves some Democrats in the Georgia legislature.

"This afternoon, the House Judiciary (Non-Civil) Committee will take up HB 954, a measure that would prohibit abortions on women who are more than 20 weeks pregnant. Current law prohibits abortions after the second trimester, or about 24 weeks."

** snip ** (please pardon the pun)

"In response, House Democrats have scheduled a 3 p.m. Wednesday hearing at the state Capitol, to propose a bill that would ban Georgia males from seeking vasectomies."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Dahlia Lithwick's Sonogram Lie Implodes

Last week I posted on the egregiously dishonest line of attack being made on a proposed Virginia law requiring all women who are seeking an abortion to be given the opportunity to see an ultrasound picture of the baby before dismembering. The left, led online by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, who seemingly has the same grasp of medicine and human reproduction that she has of the law, has mounted one of the most transparently fraudulent assaults since anything they perpetrated on George W. Bush.

Her claim was that Virginia was RAPING WOMEN!!1!!!! because an ultrasound was being required before a surgical procedure was undertaken.

Today the story descended into farce.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Demagoguing Rape, Exploiting Victims: The Degenerate Left Continues to Use and Abuse Women

Out: Hitler analogies. In: rape demagoguery. If you are a morally bankrupt Leftist, that is. And it's not just 'fringe', either. Mainstream Democrats, including our own Vice-President, are hopping on the revolting bandwagon that reached the nadir of it's journey this week. While it's been well-shown that Democrats are not For The Women, in fact they are anything but, the reprehensible actions of late have shown the depth of their depravity and their outright contempt and disdain for women.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. What are the depths of Peter Gleick's depravity in the Heartland global warming smear attack?

OK, quick background: last week there was a bit of fuss when a variety of documents appeared that purported to show that there was some sort of nefarious global warming 'denialist' (that's what a Lefty calls somebody who has noticed that, hey, the temperature's not actually rising the way that people told us it would) conspiracy centered around the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute was not amused by this, and has been making it clear that at least one document was a pathetic forgery. This latter point has generally been conceded by all the players, if tacitly, and the great walkback is beginning. I recommend Watts Up With That for those looking to monitor further developments: that site has been all over this story.

But let's go back to what got revealed, for a moment. The documents can be grouped into two categories: a variety of materials that global warming advocate (and lecturer on ethics*) Peter Gleick admitted stealing from Heartland**; and the aforementioned pathetically faked document. Since we now know that not even Gleick is standing by the provenance of said document, let us ignore it completely. What it says is irrelevant. It has no bearing. I did not even read it before my summary below of the documents that Gleick stole, solely to keep it from contaminating my assessment.So, what's in those documents?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

A Primer for the Media and I Agree With Rick Santorum

The Drudge Report put up a story about Rick Santorum's speech to Ave Maria University in which Santorum said Satan was attacking the United States. The speech was giving in 2008, but is largely consistent with statements he has given in the past few weeks.

I agree with Rick Santorum. I also think that this is a Romney leaked piece. Given the close ties between Matt Drudge and the Romney camp, that's an easy guess. I also think it will hurt Santorum who apparently has Gingrichitis, a disease the frontrunners all seem to get where they mouth off on any topic under the sun once they are the front runner.

Focus on this topic does not help Santorum and is largely irrelevant to being President. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to defend Santorum given how clueless some of those attacking him seem to be on the specific points he made and also given the cluelessness of a lot of reporters trying to put his remarks in context or explain them.

In 2008, Rick Santorum wasn't running for President. His statement is well within the mainstream of orthodox Christian theology. And that's the point here for a lot of reporters who seem stunned by Santorum's statements.

I'm not Catholic and disagree with some of the teachings of that church, but both orthodox Protestant and Catholic views are consistent with the idea of Satan (who is very real) at war and trying to both tempt and corrupt people.

The humorous thing is there are many on the left who are trying to claim Santorum's view is nutty, wacked out, or bizarre. There's actually a stronger case for saying Satan is trying to corrupt the United States than that Barack Obama is a Marxist. Pick your poison.

But one of the statements Rick Santorum made that the media has terribly portrayed and clearly does not understand is Santorum saying, "We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

He is absolutely correct in this statement. When mainline Protestant denominations are in the news these days, it is more likely to be over their debates on the ordination of gays than on anything they have done to actually advance Christ's kingdom. The problem is that a lot of reporters and even a lot of conservatives do not understand what "mainline Protestants" are.

It is not hard.

A mainline protestant is not a "mainstream" protestant. The two are not interchangeable. The former is more of an academic term.

The base way to understand what a mainline protestant is would be to understand that the term largely means those protestant denominations that existed during the colonial era of the American colonies and as they have evolved from that point.

Many suggest the term comes from the Pennsylvania Main Line railroad that ran through Philadelphia neighborhoods at the turn of the twentieth century, which were organized around communities of interest making up those original colonial faithes.

Specifically, Mainline Protestant denominations are Episcopalians, the United Methodists, the Presbyterians (USA), the American and Northern Baptists, the United Church of Christ, the Congregationalists, the Disciples of Christ, and the Lutherans.

While evangelical churches are more mainstream in America, they are not considered main line. Many evangelical churches branched off from the main line. The Southern Baptists, the nation's largest protestant denomination, branched off from the Northern and American Baptist Churches. The Presbyterian Church in America, Evangelical Presbyterians, and Reformed Presbyterians broke away from the main Presbyterian Church, which is today the PCUSA. Anglicans have come back into the country in response to the ordination of gays within the Episcopalian Church.

I await the United Methodist Church splintering over that issue and the social gospel too. The Methodists are one of the last major mainline denominations not to have a serious split. But it is on the verge of happening.

There is a long history here and I am no religion scholar, but there are a couple of points to understand.

The mainline churches are more concerned these days with the social gospel, the role of gays in the church, etc. These churches are in decline. Their numbers are falling as they have replaced the actual Gospel with a modern sense of spiritualism that ultimately does not feed the flock.

Evangelical churches over all are growing. The charismatic churches are really seeing strong growth. These churches are much more concerned with fundamentalism, which is, like "mainline", a specific term. Fundamentalist churches believe in the fundamentals of the faith, which were toward the turn of the twentieth century narrowed to five points including the inerrancy of the Bible, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the need for salvation. When people talk about "fundamentalists" these days, they usually mean hard line Christians who are no fun. Actually, a "fundamentalist" is someone who subscribes to five specific points within Protestantism: (1) the inerrancy of the Bible; (2) the virgin birth of Christ; (3) the atonement of sins through Christ's death; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; and (5) the reality of Christ's miracles.

So, when Santorum says mainline Protestantism in this country is in shambles, he is referring to specific churches, not all Protestants and specifically not evangelicals. He is referring specifically to those specific denominations more interested these days in the social gospel and the ordination of gay ministers than in salvation through grace. And both the decline of those churches' populations and their ceding the field on actual matters of the Gospel are proof that Santorum is right. These churches have less and less to do with orthodox Christianity and it is no surprise that it is from the ranks of these churches that the media typically draws on ministers to rebut long held orthodox Christian views and the mainstream churches of America, which are more and more evangelical.

Downton Abbey on Rabbit Ears Eating American Jobs . . . Or Something Like That #EERS

Believe it or not, I won't be starting my radio show tonight talking about Presidential politics. But something else — Downton Abbey. Seriously. Well, that and rabbit ears on televisions and then we'll get into Presidential politics, etc.

Oh, and of course we'll take on Santorum's "protestant" critique.

You can listen live right here on the WSB live stream and can call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

The show runs from 6pm to 9pm on the nation's largest talk radio station, WSB out of Atlanta.

Consider this an open thread.

Principle as Political Liability: Even Reagan Understood it

Not to put a RedState reader on the spot, but these comments are rather predictable. Said one commenter to my original post on principle and political liability:

This same false argument was made about Reagan, you know it, I know it, the press knows it. It got him shut out by the GOP leadership in 1976…it got him elected in 1980.

Never run from your principles, NEVER RUN from what you know is right.

It just makes you a traitor to yourself and those who rely on you.

Good people gravitate to persons that act in a principled manner, scary as that may seem to the political class.

Except this comment shows no sense of history.

First, I never said that the candidates should abandon their principles. They should not. But they sure also shouldn't scare the heck out of independent voters by fixating on their personal positions. For example, Santorum says his position on birth control is a personal one. As a legislator, he never opposed legislation relating to contraceptives. But why spend so much time focusing on his personal view when he makes clear he wouldn't impose it on others?

But back to Reagan. There is a well established myth about St. Reagan that he said what he meant and he meant what he said with unvarnished truth. Actually, that was Barry Goldwater and Goldwater lost. Badly.

Reagan said what he meant and he meant what he said, but he did so smiling, laughing, and with a lot of fun. And he spoke in a way that was not off putting to independent voters. More so, back in November of 1979, the Reagan campaign was already in danger of being painted as the second coming of Barry Goldwater, so Reagan shook things up a bit.

From the Washington Post on November 29, 1979,

Like a troubled theatrical production that tries out new scenes and actors well away from Broadway, the Ronald Reagan presidential campaign is making big changes on the road.

After the third departure or demotion of a major longtime Reagan adviser in as many months, the Reagan candidacy is losing some of its conservative California appearance and taking on the coloration of its pragmatic Washington campaign director, John P. Sears III.

If you know your history, you know that many of the men who left the Reagan campaign in 1980 remained powerful figures within the conservative movement and closely connected to Ronald Reagan. But on the campaign trail, Reagan could portray a "pragmatic" candidate.

He never wavered from his principles. When he spoke of them, he spoke of them with a smile and jovial tone. But his focus was on fixing the country. When he spoke, he maintained his principles, but did not delve into them so starkly. Check this out from the June 16, 1980, Washington Post:

[S]enior members of Reagan's camp have been sharply divided about how to present the candidate's tax and budget policy. A more radical element in this group has pressed for a stark presentation: A Reagan administration would cut taxes 10 percent a year for three years, would "index" tax rates to inflation rates, would eliminate all federal inheritance taxes, would improve tax benefits for private industry, would increase defense spending and would promise lower inflation and smaller deficits.

In practice, this is the line Reagan adopted in the primaries, though never quite so starkly. In one television commercial, this was Reagan's message:

"High tax rates don't lower prices, they raise them. In the 1970s taxes grew faster than any other item in the household budget, including the price of energy. High tax rates discourage work and production. They add to the cost of living. If we make a deep cut in everyone's tax rates, we'll have lower prices, an increase in production, and a lot more peace of mind."

Keep the principle. I wouldn't trust any candidate who abandons his principle. But accept it can be a political liability if not handled properly.

From the Mail Bag

In 2012, when you use the oft used expression "off the reservation" you get emails like this.

From: dougs2msu2003@yahoo.com

Date: February 21, 2012 9:23:31 AM EST

To: contact@redstate.com

Subject: Erick Erickson

I find it hard to believe that you do not find the phrase "off the reservation" to be racially offensive.

Life exists only in the eternal present.

Just bizarre.

Principle as Political Liability

What a weird campaign season we are having. Let me present you a truth that some of you may bristle under, but is true nonetheless.

No matter how right the cause or principle, it may still be a political liability.

I'll start with the one you'll agree with it. Barack Obama and many on the left may believe that abortion . . . er . . . um . . . "women's health except for mammograms, pap smears, and the like — contraception only —" is a fundamental right necessitating the Catholic Church foregoing its own tenets and forced to give out free birth control pills and abortifacient drugs, but those who agree are deluding themselves that it will not also be a political liability.

Let's try another one. Barack Obama and the Democrats may believe that socializing healthcare in this country is the right and proper thing to do, but it has also been proven to be a political liability.

How about this one: God bless Mitt Romney for being a capitalist's capitalist making millions on Wall Street, but it will be a huge political liability in November.

Oh, one more. Come on! Rick Santorum may be absolutely right on the principles of morality and social decay in this country, but it will be a political liability with independent voters.

The funny thing is that many of you on the left who read the first two were shaking your heads in absolute disagreement and then agreeing with the latter two. Those of you on the right had the opposite reaction.

Partisans typically do. It is for level headed strategists, consultants, and pundits to try their best to overcome their partisan world views and accept reality. Some things you and I may love about a candidate may actually be real political liabilities for that candidate in a general election.

In prior years it seems a candidate would try his best to minimize the political liabilities of his principles or offset those liabilities with some real political assets. For some crazy reason this year, it seems the President and his Republican rivals are hell bent on attaching spotlights and banners to their political liabilities and running with them in a "rally the base" campaign that's doing nothing but burning bridges on all sides.

If Republicans are to win in November, it is incumbent on both the base and the die hard supporters of each of the candidates to recognize that some principles are worth fighting for, but some of them cannot be fought for if they become political liabilities denying that candidate the White House. In that regard, if Rick Santorum really believes we're going to hell in a hand basket, perhaps he should campaign on fixing the place instead of pontificating on theological matters and mangling Edmund Burke.

Likewise, perhaps MItt Romney has gone overboard in the opposite direction. If principles can be political liabilities, he seems to have calculated that he should run his campaign on having no principles to minimize the liabilities.

Unfortunately, just as there really is no such thing as an atheist, there is no such thing as a man without principles. The lack thereof is a principle in itself, just as the rejection of God becomes a replacement for the Almighty.

We really are a party on the verge of suicide against an imminently beatable President. The beltway Republicans are finally starting to realize it, but I fear it may be too late. And far be it for me to point it out, but I see no reason the base of the Republican Party should trust the judgment or candidate alternatives of any person who has peddled Mitt Romney for half a decade.

The ship, my friends, is sinking. It can be saved. But not if we don't first realize the reality we are in, instead of the one we want.