Erick Erickson's Blog, page 69

The Frontrunner

The other night I was having dinner and Pat Cadell, Jimmy Carter's pollster and a very honest liberal, came up to me. He said bluntly that if his side's front runner had lost 3 of the first 8 elections and been swept out last Tuesday, by Wednesday the Democrats would have a new candidate in the race.

He is right.

Yet the Republican Party has decided instead of finding a new guy to do what it can to get Romney across the finish line no matter how bad the limp.

On Tuesday, Santorum swept. Romney came in third in Minnesota. Counties he won big in Colorado turned on him overwhelmingly. Our "frontrunner" has won three of the first eight. With the exception of Florida, he has shown he can only win states with strong family ties like New Hampshire and states with strong Mormon participation like Nevada.

That may give him Michigan and Arizona, but it spells trouble elsewhere.

This is the seventh CPAC I have been to. The crowd is the least excited I have seen. On the first day, before the candidates have had a chance to bus in their supporters to stack the deck and straw poll, this is the least excited I've seen them. The crowd's heart is with Santorum. But in their mind they do not think he can win.

Today, Mitt Romney must convince the crowd he is one of them or at least won't betray them. Rick Santorum must convince them he can beat Barack Obama. Newt Gingrich must convince them he is still viable.

Along the way a funny thing has happened. Romney supporters are starting to be openly critical of him. The business whiz has failed to restructure his own failing organization. His support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

And he has been replaced as front runner by the crowd. They are with Rick Santorum in heart, but also in money and votes. On the horizon looms a brokered convention.

Morning Briefing for February 10, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

For February 10, 2012

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

If you are at CPAC today, my buddy Todd Starnes is doing a book signing at 10:00 a.m. today in Exhibit Hall B for his book Dispatches From Bitter America . Also, do not forget all the awesome Regnery authors who will be present.
1. The Frontrunner

2. Tim Murphy's Love Affair with Big Labor

3. House Brings Conservative Reform to Broken Highway System

4. A $54 Billion Bailout

5. Why Are Republicans 'Evolving' On Transportation Spending?

———————————————————————-

1. The Frontrunner

The other night I was having dinner and Pat Cadell, Jimmy Carter's pollster and a very honest liberal, came up to me. He said bluntly that if his side's front runner had lost 3 of the first 8 elections and been swept out last Tuesday, by Wednesday the Democrats would have a new candidate in the race.

He is right.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Tim Murphy's Love Affair with Big Labor

Keith Impink runs Westmoreland Electric, a small business in Tarrs, Pennsylvania which was founded in 1988 with two employees and a truck. His company, now 65 employees strong, is the type of job creator we should empower to move our state and country out of these difficult economic times.

The painful irony for local job creators like Keith is their very own Congressman, Tim Murphy, has consistently voted to make it harder for small businesses to grow, thrive and prosper.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. House Brings Conservative Reform to Broken Highway System

Yesterday morning we awoke to find that the New York Times Editorial Board and Redstate's Erick Erickson had aligned themselves on an issue by both taking a shot at the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act, a bill the House will consider next week. Usually when a situation like that arises, something's amiss. And that is certainly the case today. It's not surprising the New York Times hates the bill – it's the most conservative plan for America's infrastructure in anyone's lifetime. That's why Erick's post this morning was so surprising. But there's an explanation. Put simply, he has his facts wrong. I've known Erick a number of years, and he's usually a straight shooter, but his critique missed the mark – big time.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. A $54 Billion Bailout

Our friends at Hertiage Action have a great piece out that looks at CBO data and says that if House Republicans vote for the Highway Bill, they are basically guaranteeing a $54 billion bailout of the Highway Trust fund over the next five years.

It's incredible that anyone would even consider this good policy, let alone conservative. The Club for Growth is advocating that members of Congress vote NO on the Highway Bill and instead call for devolution of the gas tax and highway spending to the states.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Why Are Republicans 'Evolving' On Transportation Spending?

Throughout the week, Republicans have expressed their shock and dismay that we would have the unbridled temerity to oppose a highway bill. They want to know why we are suddenly opposed to such basic things as transportation bills, even ones that will leave us with a $70 billion budget shortfall. They are impugning our motives, charging us with opposing everything that emanates from leadership.

Well, once upon a time, it wasn't just conservative outsiders who supported the notion that we peg transportation spending to the level of gas tax revenue. In fact, just last July, members of the T and I Committee, led by Chairman John Mica, introduced a bill that would do just that. They drafted a plan for a 6-year reauthorization bill that would cost $230 billion, roughly commensurate to the gas tax revenue over that same period. At the time, we heaped accolades upon that bill.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

House Conservatives Support Barack Obama's Latest Stimulus

Since February of 2009 when President Barack Obama began his aggressive push for stimulus into the American economy, he focused on one core area — infrastructure.

In fact, in his stimulus speech before Congress in 2009, his States of the Union in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and his Jobs Act speech of late 2011, the President repeated referred to spending government money to create jobs to fix America's infrastructure.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), leader of the Republican Study Committee, is confirmed to be leaning toward supporting the plan. His public pronouncements that he is leaning toward supporting the plan is leading House conservatives as a whole to support this new stimulus plan — a stimulus plan to create jobs fixing and expanding America's infrastructure.

The plan will most likely necessitate a federal bailout of the Highway Trust Fund, which is typically funded through the gas tax and is used to pay for highway projects. But Obama's new stimulus busts the cap on the trust fund and, like social security, gets into general fund money to pay for the spending binge.

With the House bill, as is typical of Barack Obama's legislation, spending will outpace income over the next five years by $69.6 billion. Moreso, as is also typical of President Obama's stimulus schemes, Washington would retain the bulk of control, even though the money would be going to state transportation projects. Federal strings and federal money will come with the legislation.

Oh, and if the House goes along with the Senate's version of this stimulus plan, Americans could see new taxes on their IRA's.

So why is Congressman Jim Jordan leading conservatives to support Barack Obama's latest job creation scheme with federal tax dollars to fund a temporary infrastructure spending binge?

Part of the reason is because highway spending is kryptonite to conservatives. You want to undermine conservative principles, just throw a roads building scheme into legislation.

But the biggest reason conservatives in the House are lining up to bust the budget, bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund, and spend $69 billion more than will come in in revenue is because this is John Boehner's stimulus scheme, not Barack Obama's.

It busts the budget, just like Barack Obama.

It raids government trust funds for pet projects, just like Barack Obama would do.

Over five years, it adds to the federal debt, just like Barack Obama's schemes.

But the letter next to the plan is an "R" and not a "D", so conservatives will yet again sell out their principles because John Boehner and not Barack Obama asked them to bankrupt the country.

With leadership like this is it any wonder we're at $16 trillion in debt?

Morning Briefing for February 9, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

For February 9, 2012

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

1. House Conservatives Support Barack Obama's Latest Stimulus

2. President Barack Obama: "The Dependency President"

3. The State Department Staff at the Baghdad Embassy is Embarrassing Itself

4. Is Syria Really "Different?"

5. Our Constitution is not Irrelevant, Justice Ginsburg

6. What the Heck is Wrong with Mitt Romney?

7. Michael Medved Wants A Different Conservative Base

———————————————————————-

1. House Conservatives Support Barack Obama's Latest Stimulus

Since February of 2009 when President Barack Obama began his aggressive push for stimulus into the American economy, he focused on one core area — infrastructure.

In fact, in his stimulus speech before Congress in 2009, his States of the Union in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and his Jobs Act speech of late 2011, the President repeated referred to spending government money to create jobs to fix America's infrastructure.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), leader of the Republican Study Committee, is confirmed to be leaning toward supporting the plan. His public pronouncements that he is leaning toward supporting the plan is leading House conservatives as a whole to support this new stimulus plan — a stimulus plan to create jobs fixing and expanding America's infrastructure.

The plan will most likely necessitate a federal bailout of the Highway Trust Fund, which is typically funded through the gas tax and is used to pay for highway projects. But Obama's new stimulus busts the cap on the trust fund and, like social security, gets into general fund money to pay for the spending binge.

With the House bill, as is typical of Barack Obama's legislation, spending will outpace income over the next five years by $69.6 billion. Moreso, as is also typical of President Obama's stimulus schemes, Washington would retain the bulk of control, even though the money would be going to state transportation projects. Federal strings and federal money will come with the legislation.

Oh, and if the House goes along with the Senate's version of this stimulus plan, Americans could see new taxes on their IRA's.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. President Barack Obama: "The Dependency President"

Government dependency is on the rise according to a new Heritage Foundation study. Americans can thank President Barack Obama for a huge spike in the numbers of Americans dependent on government resources, but both parties can share in the blame. If the federal government does not make government smaller and less intrusive, then there may not be much private sector wealth creation for government bureaucrats to take to redistribute to dependent Americans.

American are relying on government handouts rather than hard work for many of the necessities of life. One in five Americans rely on the federal government for housing, health care, food, college tuition and retirement resources. The 10th year of The Heritage Foundation government dependency study, the 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, proves that members of both parties need to take a hard look in the mirror and figure out a way to slow, then end, the creeping expansion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The State Department Staff at the Baghdad Embassy is Embarrassing Itself

A Tuesday New York Times article called "U.S. Planning to Slash Iraq Embassy Staff by as Much as Half" purported to describe the plight of U.S. State Department employees in Iraq, whose diplomatic efforts are being rebuffed by a host nation and government that has little use for them. According to the Times, the 16,000 employees (including 2,000 diplomats) at "the $750 million embassy building, the largest of its kind in the world, were billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between two countries linked by blood and mutual suspicion. But the Americans have been frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Is Syria Really "Different?"

While the recent increase of attention to the ongoing carnage in Syria is a welcome change from the Obama administration's collective state of denial over the past ten months, signals remain mixed, and our policy is unclear if not non-existent. This week alone, for example, we got the welcome news that the Pentagon is preparing military options on Syria for the President, but at the same time White House press secretary announced those options will not be exercised.

The waters have been further muddied by the President's insistence that there is no parity between the situation in Libya last year and what we face now in Syria. In Libya, the threat to civilians and opportunity to topple a vicious dictator were sufficient cause for Mr. Obama to engage the U.S. military, even without a pressing national security interest at stake. While it can be argued that once the U.S. engaged in Libya it might have been preferable to lead from the front to secure weapons stockpiles and guard against al Qaida encroachment, the fact remains that the world is a better place with Colonel Qaddafi gone, as Mr. Obama routinely reminds us.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Our Constitution is not Irrelevant, Justice Ginsburg

If you walk by the National Archives on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. you will most likely see a line of people waiting to get just a glimpse of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. These two aged documents are browned with time and sealed under layers of a secure glass enclosure in the domed lobby of the Archives. But they still manage to impress their visitors. The inked words of the Constitution, many of them carefully penned by Gouverneur Morris over 200 years ago, are now barely visible. While some foreign visitors may struggle to make them out, we Americans know them by heart. "We the people in order to form a more perfect union…" the Constitution starts, and what follows is one of the most awe inspiring and heartfelt treatises to freedom in the history of man. After all, this one document founded the most successful country the world has ever known.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. What the Heck is Wrong with Mitt Romney?

Sometimes – well, frankly, pretty often – Mitt Romney scares the crap out of me.

I'm already on record saying that I think he'd be a much better President than Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, and nothing that has happened in the last month has changed that. Both Gingrich and Santorum are completely devoid of either the temperament or experience to handle the job of chief executive of the massive Federal government, a point which Newt Gingrich in particular seems determined to reinforce every single day between now and Super Tuesday (at least). Additionally, both Gingrich and Santorum have been C- candidates (at best) in terms of building a national campaign organization and raising money, both of which are necessary to have any chance to get the job of President, if they want to prove that I'm wrong about their experience and temperament. I am as close to 100% certain as I can be that both would lose in a landslide to Obama.

The problem is that I'm coming close to reaching that same conclusion about Mitt Romney.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

7. Michael Medved Wants A Different Conservative Base

What is it with Salem Radio's major hosts? Geez. You want to find out what the Romney campaign thinks, flip on Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt or a number of the other Salem Radio hosts and you'll find a host fully in line with Mitt Romney and fully out of step with the bulk of the conservative movement.

In fact, it is striking to find Salem's radio hosts so in the tank for Romney when the top radio shows in the country from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Glenn Beck to Mark Levin to Neal Boortz to Laura Ingraham have all either stayed on the sidelines or gone largely against Romney.

And if being out of step with the larger conservative movement on this issue weren't enough, Michael Medved has decided to trot out the newest pro-Romney talking point with some serious condescension. You see, it is not Mitt Romney. It is you hicks, rubes, and idiots that are to blame. "Dammit, why won't you like him??!!??" Medved comes close to asking.

Mitt Romney has not changed. You people have! This follows an earlier Michael Medved lament where he threw out every straw man he could at both Rush Limbaugh and me in the name of defending his Massachusetts Moderate.

Most interesting, in that earlier opinion piece Medved claimed the Republican Party had to abandon conservatism to win in 2012. This time around, Medved claims Romney actually is a conservative. It's just conservatives have become radically conservative. He seems to be shifting positions as often as Mitt Romney.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Michael Medved Wants A Different Conservative Base

What is it with Salem Radio's major hosts? Geez. You want to find out what the Romney campaign thinks, flip on Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt or a number of the other Salem Radio hosts and you'll find a host fully in line with Mitt Romney and fully out of step with the bulk of the conservative movement.

In fact, it is striking to find Salem's radio hosts so in the tank for Romney when the top radio shows in the country from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Glenn Beck to Mark Levin to Neal Boortz to Laura Ingraham have all either stayed on the sidelines or gone largely against Romney.

And if being out of step with the larger conservative movement on this issue weren't enough, Michael Medved has decided to trot out the newest pro-Romney talking point with some serious condescension. You see, it is not Mitt Romney. It is you hicks, rubes, and idiots that are to blame. "Dammit, why won't you like him??!!??" Medved comes close to asking.

Mitt Romney has not changed. You people have! This follows an earlier Michael Medved lament where he threw out every straw man he could at both Rush Limbaugh and me in the name of defending his Massachusetts Moderate.

Most interesting, in that earlier opinion piece Medved claimed the Republican Party had to abandon conservatism to win in 2012. This time around, Medved claims Romney actually is a conservative. It's just conservatives have become radically conservative. He seems to be shifting positions as often as Mitt Romney.

To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht's "The Solution," it seems a lot of Romney's ardent supporters have viewed the base of the Republican Party and decided the base should be replaced with a new base rather than admit the their candidate is the problem.Many Romney backers, as indicative of Medved's latest column, do seem to want another conservative base instead of the one that exists since the majority of the one that exists keeps rejecting their candidate of choice.

To believe Michael Medved we must accept that Mitt Romney has not changed since 2008, but rather the party has changed. Except Romney has morphed on immigration (again), taxes (again), has scaled back his language on conservatism and is, in fact, running very much as John McCain did in 2008.

We must also ignore the fact that more of the base was focused on Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson in 2008 than on Romney. Medved may have been consistently for Romney as a lot of Republican oriented opinion leaders have been, but the base never was. Romney supporters who claim Romney has been wholly vetted forget that in 2008 all eyes were on Giuliani till his collapse, shifted quickly to Fred Thompson, and then spent a good deal of time dealing with the unexpected rise of Huckabee.

Romney is only just now being more fully vetted by conservative voters. A lot of the opinion leaders who supported Romney in 2008 and reject him now supported him in 2008 as a way to stop McCain and also did not expect the post 2008 Romney to revert to a brand of Massachusetts moderation.

In fact, it is largely accepted that Mitt Romney is running from McCain's play book this time while in 2008 he ran against and to the right of John McCain.

That the base of the party sees it, resents it, and has redoubled their distrust in Romney because of it, Medved not only does not see it, but drips with condescension at the base because of his willful blinders.

About the only thing we can learn from Michael Medved's piece is that the Romney campaign serves up some powerful kool-aid. But hey, at least now Medved doesn't think we should abandon conservatism in favor of moderation. No, now it is that Mitt Romney has always been conservative and the rest of us are just too radical now.

A Big, Big Win for Santorum . . . Errr . . . CPAC

Mitt Romney had a horrible, horrible night. Early yesterday, Mitt Romney's campaign called Missouri a "beauty contest" and said to focus on Colorado. We did. Wow.

I've said since Sunday that yesterday would be the first day of voting that Mitt Romney's "poor" comment to Soledad O'Brien would have an impact. It typically takes a week for comments like that to be digested by voters. Six days after Romney opened his mouth, Rick Santorum swept the night.

From Missouri to Minnesota to Colorado the Republican electorate sent a very clear signal — they want conviction over electability. They do not like Mitt Romney. They see Santorum as authentic. They see Mitt Romney as a fraud. Rick Santorum swept the races. Romney, the front runner, got crushed by conservatives.

The pattern has held up from Iowa to South Carolina to Florida to Nevada to last night. In every county that saw increased turn out, Not Romney won. In counties with decreased turnout, Romney won most often, but not always.

The real winner last night is CPAC – the conservative political action conference. At the end of this week, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich will, in that order, address the crowd. Conservatives in the heartland last night rejected Mitt Romney as inauthentic. CPAC will be a must win speech for Romney.

Considering how often Mitt Romney has lost in the past decade, you'd think he would have given a better concession speech last night. He did not and will need to up his game for his CPAC speech. He must now seriously woo the conservatives he thought he would not need.

But what of Romney vs. Santorum? My prediction is that Romney has nothing to lose and will go negative. He will suddenly become as noxious as his supporters are on twitter and in the Washington Post. It will backfire on him. He will seem Newtish and Newt's recent complaints about Romney's negativity will be looked at anew.

Gingrich is a big loser after last night. But I think the untold story is just how terrible Ron Paul did. He had a caucus strategy that has failed across the board. He has won no states. His strategy is failing him.

What a night.

Morning Briefing for February 8, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

For February 1, 2012

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

1. A Big, Big Win for Santorum . . . Errr . . . CPAC

2. Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees

3. Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar

———————————————————————-

1. A Big, Big Win for Santorum . . . Errr . . . CPAC

Mitt Romney had a horrible, horrible night. Early yesterday, Mitt Romney's campaign called Missouri a "beauty contest" and said to focus on Colorado. We did. Wow.

I've said since Sunday that yesterday would be the first day of voting that Mitt Romney's "poor" comment to Soledad O'Brien would have an impact. It typically takes a week for comments like that to be digested by voters. Six days after Romney opened his mouth, Rick Santorum swept the night.

From Missouri to Minnesota to Colorado the Republican electorate sent a very clear signal — they want conviction over electability. They do not like Mitt Romney. They see Santorum as authentic. They see Mitt Romney as a fraud. Rick Santorum swept the races. Romney, the front runner, got crushed by conservatives.

The pattern has held up from Iowa to South Carolina to Florida to Nevada to last night. In every county that saw increased turn out, Not Romney won. In counties with decreased turnout, Romney won most often, but not always.

The real winner last night is CPAC – the conservative political action conference. At the end of this week, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich will, in that order, address the crowd. Conservatives in the hearthland last night rejected Mitt Romney as inauthentic. CPAC will be a must win speech for Romney.

Considering how often Mitt Romney has lost in the past decade, you'd think he would have given a better concession speech last night. He did not and will need to up his game for his CPAC speech. He must now seriously woo the conservatives he thought he would not need.

But what of Romney vs. Santorum? My prediction is that Romney has nothing to lose and will go negative. He will suddenly become as noxious as his supporters are on twitter and in the Washington Post. It will backfire on him. He will seem Newtish and Newt's recent complaints about Romney's negativity will be looked at anew.

Gingrich is a big loser after last night. But I think the untold story is just how terrible Ron Paul did. He had a caucus strategy that has failed across the board. He has won no states. His strategy is failing him.

What a night.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees

While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court.

After three years, Obama's mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama's appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama's indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar

People like to say, "Ron Paul's got a great domestic program, it's just his foreign policy I don't like." Really, people only say that because they don't take the time to understand what Ron Paul's domestic program is all about, or at least the more insane details thereof. One particular example of this is Ron Paul's view on monetary policy.

Paul, who likes to present himself as some sort of Constitutional scholar, has said in his last several concession speeches that "the Constitution still says that only gold and silver can be legal tender!" This absolutely absurd reading of the Constitution is universally rejected by anyone who can read English. Let's look at Article 1, Section 10, from which Ron Paul draws his support.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The People's Money

At RedState we have become quite familiar with Scott Rasmussen's polling on the political class and every day Americans. There is a great disparity between the two. In my book Red State Uprising I relied on Scott Rasmussen's polling heavily, including this nugget:

A July 23, 2010 Rasmussen survey found "75% of Likely Voters prefer free markets over a government managed economy. Just 14% think a government managed economy is better while 11% are not sure." But, among those considered the political class, which trascends party lines, "a government managed economy [is preferred] over free markets by a 44% to 37% margin. . . . [A]mong Mainstream voters, 90% prefer the free market. Outside of the Political Class, free markets are preferred across all demographic and partisan lines."

Now Scott Rasmussen has taken the next step and written a book called The People's Money. The subtitle is "how voters will balance the budget and eliminate the federal debt." He goes straight into the great divide between the political class and most Americans.

Turns out all that polling that shows Americans are a rather conservative lot is true. It also turns out that the public is willing to make cuts and is willing to tackle social security and medicare.

The catch is that voters are necessarily in favor of a lot of movement conservative reforms to social security, etc., but are much more closely aligned to the conservative movement than to the left.

It makes a really fascinating read and could be a blueprint to get the serious discussions moving on our nation's fiscal solvency. I am not nor have I ever been a fan of poll driven political platforms. But seeing where voters are and what they think provides a lot of insight and can help politicians build a workable platform to solve our serious problems.

You can get Scott Rasmussen's The People's Money right here. It is a very thought provoking read.

Morning Briefing for February 7, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

February 7, 2012

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

1. The Sweet Meteor of Death 2012

2. 'Act of Valor': Exploitative, Opportunistic, or Just Good Clean Fun?

3. The Highway Bill: A Road to Cave City

———————————————————————-

1. The Sweet Meteor of Death 2012

As I said back in December, I have no plans to endorse a candidate for President of the United States. I wrote, at the time, "I would prefer instead to tell you exactly what I think about each of the candidates, good or bad, and let the chips fall where they may."

Since then, I have routinely been asked who I would endorse. Today, after a lot of reflection on this race, I can honestly say my position has not changed and I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades' sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race. . . .

The Republican Party is putting itself in the hands of the economy. With Mitt Romney as the nominee, we will be forced to hope for a deteriorating economy because, while I will vote for him and think he is vastly better than Barack Obama, the fact is he has made no case for himself against Barack Obama except that he can do a better job on the economy.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. 'Act of Valor': Exploitative, Opportunistic, or Just Good Clean Fun?

I've been engaged in a twitter discussion with some good friends and acquaintances (and, being that it's twitter, with some folks I don't know from Adam) about the upcoming film Act of Valor. The film, for those who were comatose during the Super Bowl ad blitz, is a Navy recruiting video on major steroids that features several active duty SEALs and Special Warfare Combatant Crewmen in uncredited roles.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The Highway Bill: A Road to Cave City

Last week, several House committees favorably reported the $260 billion 5-year House GOP highway bill to the full body. This 846-page behemoth is now headed to a floor vote sometime next week. Simply put, conservatives oppose the House leadership's highway bill (H.R. 7) because it continues the failed top-down federal approach to transportation spending, while precluding devolution to the states for at least another five years. Moreover, it eschews the pay-as-you-go funding mechanism of the Highway Trust Fund (eerily similar to the Social Security Trust Fund!) by permanently authorizing a higher level of spending than the fund's corresponding revenue source; the federal gas tax.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Sweet Meteor of Death 2012

As I said back in December, I have no plans to endorse a candidate for President of the United States. I wrote, at the time, "I would prefer instead to tell you exactly what I think about each of the candidates, good or bad, and let the chips fall where they may."

Since then, I have routinely been asked who I would endorse. Today, after a lot of reflection on this race, I can honestly say my position has not changed and I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades' sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race. Only the sweet meteor of death seems capable of stopping both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I can take the easy way out and not endorse because while I recognize politics necessitates compromise, I would have to compromise my intellectual honesty too much to choose any of the remaining candidates. Tonight, on my radio show, I put my weight behind the sweet meteor of death. You can listen to my reasons why here.

The Republican Party is putting itself in the hands of the economy. With Mitt Romney as the nominee, we will be forced to hope for a deteriorating economy because, while I will vote for him and think he is vastly better than Barack Obama, the fact is he has made no case for himself against Barack Obama except that he can do a better job on the economy. And let's be clear — no Republican should hope or appear to be hoping for a deteriorating economy. It's just that with no other justification for his election other than electability based on the ability to fix the economy, if the economy fixes itself, suddenly there is no justification for Mitt Romney's electability.

My sincere and honest hope is that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race as long as possible to deny MItt Romney enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination. I do not think either Santorum or Gingrich have much of a better shot against Barack Obama, but I do think they are at least running on bigger ideas than Mitt Romney — ideas that still translate and survive an improving economy.

For months I have said I am for "Not Romney." It is not because I think either Gingrich or Santorum have a better shot at winning than Romney, but because I still hold out hope for a broker convention to save us from ourselves.

I may be a Republican, and at one time an elected Republican, but I have always needed more than just a letter of the alphabet next to someone's name to get me excited. Newt Gingrich excites because he picks fights with all the people I think need to be fought, including Mitt Romney. God bless him for that. But I am under no illusion that makes him capable of beating Barack Obama without a deteriorating economy.

Rick Santorum excites me because, while I think he is a big government and compassionate conservative, he is willing to defend traditional mores in this country in a way few are. HIs bold stand for faith and tradition is honest and refreshing, but it also makes for a massive liability in a general election when he has so little to show voters on other fronts.

As for Romney, he does not excite me and has largely run his campaign making sure conservatives know he can get the nomination without them. That's all well and good, but he certainly should not expect me or other conservatives to do anything for him in the general election other than, hopefully it won't just be me, showing up to vote for him. That's about all I plan to do for the man.

I'll support the Republican nominee for President. I'll defend him from meritless attacks and I will oppose Barack Obama. Any one of our candidates is better than Barack Obama. But God help us if any one of them is the nominee.

Until we reach the magic number 1144, which is the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, I hold out hope that someone or some meteor saves us from ourselves.