Erick Erickson's Blog, page 76

From the Mail Bag

You just can't make these up.

From: rajantewari@gmail.com

Subject: Thoughts

Date: January 16, 2012 8:02:15 AM EST

To: erick@redstate.com

Your thoughtless and final analysis…

"the evangelical movement might have just sown the first seeds of division for 2016 — seeds that, like in 2008 and 2012, prevented evangelicals from getting one of their own the nomination."

When has the evangelical movement ever got one of their own the nomination?

Why does it really matter what they do and think?

The literally have no power anymore not even in small states like Iowa. Their candidate lost the gubernatorial primary.

I think they are very much bigots. When they slander and attack Romney and Mormons, why the hell would the Romney camp be receptive to them? The divisiveness and the hypocrisy, say one thing and do another, lie cheat and steal and then, remember we are all sinners we will be saved no matter what… Why do you think no one takes you seriously when no one takes this "anti-Christ" movement seriously.

Anti-Christ because their actions are destroying the kingdom for their own political gain. It's all about themselves and money. They sell Christ for money. They preach for hire. Preistcraft in its worst form.

Last Point, what if members of the LDS church and when I said members I mean to say all the LDS top Hierarchy from the top and down to local leadership, decided to publically have a "political conference" and uses their vast power influence and resources to get Mitt Romney elected.

I wonder what would come out of your mouth?

I wonder what would come out of the mouths of those bigoted members of the Priestcraft wing of the republican party.

I honest pray that Romney never builds a bridge with those hypocrites and bigots and in turn it will help him in the middle when he sticks his thumb at the worst of the republican party.

I hope you continue to lose sleep.

Last, I love the part when a majority of them knew that Romney is going to win, and they pretend that they have influence to get Santorum to be Romney's VP.

Haha, how do they plan to pull than one off? And Santorum is Romney's guy anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if Santorum dropped out before Newt and Perry who he would endorse. Not to mention his little buddy in Wyoming that is funding his little SPAC. Don't you know Santorum and Romney are family friends? And they have always been in this together since Huckabee and McCain teamed up on Romney. This was all decided when Meg Whitman, Santorum and Romney where campaigning together and realized why they lost and how to get Romney an ally in the Debate to get him past Iowa and South Carolina.

Tell your bigot friends to keep praying for Santorum, because just like you said in this article, a vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.

Thanks for making me laugh this morning, your article made my day.

P.S. Huntsman dropped out and Endorsed Romney before the Primary to get Romney more votes. How much money do you think Huntsman Sr. and the other Mormons that were on the sidelines waiting are going to give Romney know. And how many more points will Romney win by in S.C. now that Huntsman is out. What about Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho?

I hope you enjoyed my little article as much as I enjoyed yours…

Tewari

R. N. Tewari

The Evangelical Vote

"The evangelical movement might have just sown the first seeds of division for 2016 — seeds that, like in 2008 and 2012, prevented evangelicals from getting one of their own the nomination."

I had the privilege to attend the meeting of evangelicals in Texas this weekend. Due to pressing matters before me Saturday I could not make the Saturday portion, but was there Friday hearing the advocacy for the candidates, the run down, etc. I did not vote.

As with all meetings of Christian conservatives, we all pledge to have an off the record meeting and a handful of the sinners start leaking like sieves. It is aggravating and typically why I never say a word in these meetings.

Since a few have decided to leak so many details from the meeting as background and anonymous sources, I want to clarify a few things from my perspective and I will do it decidedly on the record.

The first thing you need to know is that taking shots at Tony Perkins for his statements this weekend is both ignorant and wrong. Tony was selected to speak for the group as a whole and he has done a tremendous job reflecting the views of the consensus whether they are his or not. He didn't really volunteer as much as he was chosen (I cannot have been the only Presbyterian there) and he has done his job ably.

The second thing you should note is that I personally view the state of the Christian conservative movement poorly. It is such an honor and privilege to be in the same room with James Dobson. Truth be told, I've been in the room with him several times and have yet to work up the courage to meet a man who has meant so much to my wife and me. Hopefully I'll work up the courage one of these days.

But Dobson and the other men and women in the room exemplify my problem with the state of the Christian conservative movement — it is getting really old and I do not yet see authentic, strong voices rising up to succeed these pioneers. I take it as a good sign that these men picked Tony Perkins as their spokesman. In the generation that bridges the gap, Perkins is one of the few honest brokers and genuinely authentic good guys in the evangelical community and conservative movement as a whole.

A great deal of the passionate, younger voices of the Christian conservative movement are focused on Christ and not politics. While that's a far better position to focus on, I fear the Christian conservative movement is going to be handed down to a few good young men and women surrounded by others with less sincere intentions — people who advocate people and positions in furtherance of things other than Christ's Kingdom. The up and comers will have to rely on men like Tony Perkins to avoid irrelevance and charlatans both.

The third thing you should know about this weekend is just how well the Gingrich and Santorum camps handled themselves and how poorly the Perry and Romney camps handled themselves. I won't even get into the advocacy on behalf of Ron Paul, which didn't go well.

There was a decidedly sympathetic view toward Rick Santorum going into the meeting. He has been one of the leading advocates for socially conservative views. They like him on that. I was, frankly, stunned that even when some of the people chosen to speak objectively about the field pointed out that this will be an election about economics, the crowd really was focused on social concerns.

I won't go into quotes from the men who advocated for the various candidates. Even on the record here, I want to respect the organizers' wishes more than others have on background, but both Santorum's advocate and Gingrich's advocate (each candidate had someone to speak for them) did those men a great service. The Santorum pitch was largely focused on what he had done for the movement, including for the babies. The Gingrich pitch really reflected what Jonah Golberg wrote recently in his column about Newt. If you think the end of the world is nigh, you want the Churchill, not the technocrat.

Rick Perry had a lot of supporters in the crowd, but too few who thought he could win and many who want him to get out and endorse Gingrich or possibly Santorum before South Carolina votes. His advocate, a friend, was not as well prepared as the others, but many in the crowd did speak up for him.

The Romney advocacy did more harm than good and I think the biggest story to come out of this event has to be both the hostility between evangelicals and Team Romney and the absolute endorsement for "Not Romney."

If you are reading this from the media, I think the story you should tell is that Mitt Romney will probably become the nominee of the Republican Party with even less good feelings between evangelicals and him than John McCain had.

The problem for Team Romney is that the distrust of Romney is overwhelmingly about his record and shiftiness, but the Romney campaign fundamentally believes it is about his religion. When Team Romney concluded the pitch (read from an iPad seemingly without a passionate delivery) with an admonishment to not be an anti-Mormon bigot, it was game over. Several of the attendees felt like the Romney campaign was almost implying that they'd win without evangelicals and would expect everyone to line up when it was over even without Romney reaching out.

Note to Team Romney: when you are in a room full of Christian leaders like those who were in that room and who have all long been attacked by the left as bigots, it is unwise — no, it is damn foolish — to accuse them of being anti-Mormon bigots, something too many Romney supporters have descended to as the only possible explanation for daring to not get on board with Romney.

It's interesting that the outreach concerns are so universal. Inside the conservative blogosphere, among social conservatives, and among specifically the evangelical community there is a great deal of concern that, unlike John McCain, once the Romney camp has it in the bag they'll go off to woo independents and leave smoldering or un-repaired bridges back to the base.

As to the vote itself, there was a consensus, but not as strong as the reported vote would have you believe. According to several I talked to who were still there for the vote, it was divided with many thinking Gingrich is the only one who can win and many not sure they want to hitch a wagon to the Gingrich train. On this, there is no difference inside and outside the evangelical community.

What gets me is that given Rick Santorum's polling in South Carolina, his funding and campaign apparatus, the admonition from one influential person that Santorum doesn't have the campaign to run for President, etc. separate reports suggest a number of people present decided to vote for Santorum not to beat Romney, but to be Romney's running mate — something that most likely will not happen.

At this point, a vote for Santorum really does help Mitt Romney, but few are willing to acknowledge that. When given the chance to beat Romney, I was kind of shocked by the people who were already reconciled to his win, though that was not the majority view. Most want to fight till the end, fight to the convention, broker a convention, or do anything else to stop Romney. But by voting for Santorum, the group largely undercut more serious efforts waged by Gingrich to stop Romney and, even more troubling if Romney is the nominee and loses, potentially sets up a claim by Rick Santorum, a man who will have been out of office a decade by then, to be the 2016 front runner.

In a year when we could possibly see Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Scott, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and others, the evangelical movement might have just sown the first seeds of division for 2016 — seeds that, like in 2008 and 2012, prevented evangelicals from getting one of their own the nomination.

That brings up a problem with the evangelical movement within the political sphere — it is often poorly advised on strategy and cuts short term deals that undermine long term goals. But that's a topic for another day.

Morning Briefing for January 16, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

January 16, 2012

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

As we start here this morning, there is a wire story that Jon Huntsman is going to drop out of the Presidential race today. My gut reaction is that it does not have a huge impact on the race, though it might give Romney one extra percentage point or two.

The most hilarious component of this is that Huntsman's withdrawal comes on the heels of South Carolina's most prominent newspaper, The State, endorsing him. Never trust newspapers to get endorsements right.

1. The Evangelical Vote

2. The Great White Unknown

3. The Non-Producers

4. Can a Nonexistent Congress Issue $1.2 Trillion in Debt?

———————————————————————-

1. The Evangelical Vote

I had the privilege to attend the meeting of evangelicals in Texas this weekend. Due to pressing matters before me Saturday I could not make the Saturday portion, but was there Friday hearing the advocacy for the candidates, the run down, etc. I did not vote.

As with all meetings of Christian conservatives, we all pledge to have an off the record meeting and a handful of the sinners start leaking like sieves. It is aggravating and typically why I never say a word in these meetings.

Since a few have decided to leak so many details from the meeting as background and anonymous sources, I want to clarify a few things from my perspective and I will do it decidedly on the record.

The first thing you need to know is that taking shots at Tony Perkins for his statements this weekend is both ignorant and wrong. Tony was selected to speak for the group as a whole and he has done a tremendous job reflecting the views of the consensus whether they are his or not. He didn't really volunteer as much as he was chosen (I cannot have been the only Presbyterian there) and he has done his job ably.

The second thing you should note is that I personally view the state of the Christian conservative movement poorly. It is such an honor and privilege to be in the same room with James Dobson. Truth be told, I've been in the room with him several times and have yet to work up the courage to meet a man who has meant so much to my wife and me. Hopefully I'll work up the courage one of these days.

But Dobson and the other men and women in the room exemplify my problem with the state of the Christian conservative movement — it is getting really old and I do not yet see authentic, strong voices rising up to succeed these pioneers. I take it as a good sign that these men picked Tony Perkins as their spokesman. In the generation that bridges the gap, Perkins is one of the few honest brokers and genuinely authentic good guys in the evangelical community and conservative movement as a whole.

A great deal of the passionate, younger voices of the Christian conservative movement are focused on Christ and not politics. While that's a far better position to focus on, I fear the Christian conservative movement is going to be handed down to a few good young men and women surrounded by others with less sincere intentions — people who advocate people and positions in furtherance of things other than Christ's Kingdom. The up and comers will have to rely on men like Tony Perkins to avoid irrelevance and charlatans both.

The third thing you should know about this weekend is just how well the Gingrich and Santorum camps handled themselves and how poorly the Perry and Romney camps handled themselves. I won't even get into the advocacy on behalf of Ron Paul, which didn't go well.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The Great White Unknown

It is one of my overarching concerns with the myth of Mitt the Electable — Bain Capital and Romney's time in the private sector. Byron York sums it up here.

"There's no basis to reflexively defend Romney's record, because we don't know in any real detail what he did at Bain. But there's no basis to indict him, either, for the same reason."

There are seemingly two caricatures of candidates that play badly with the American people. One is the evangelical preacher out to save the world. The politician as tent revival preacher is a long caricatured American political staple going back to the ninetieth century and William Jennings Bryant among others.

The other caricature is that of the millionaire tycoon out to buy the election. This has been a staple of American politics since the turn of the 20th century and passage of the first campaign finance laws. Historically, neither caricature is popular or successful on the national stage.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The Non-Producers

Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom were pikers compared to the Government's "Green Energy" schemes.

Bialystock and Bloom plotted to make millions with a guaranteed Broadway flop. Against all odds, Springtime for Hitler became a runaway hit, and The Producers went to jail.

But at least Mssrs. Bialystock and Bloom produced something of value – a hit musical.

Our Green Initiative produces flop after flop, but precious little energy. Instead of throwing the perpetrators in the hoosegow, we keep reelecting them.

Case #1, reported by John Hayward at Human Events: Solyndra Wants to Pay Six-Figure Employees Huge Bonuses.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Can a Nonexistent Congress Issue $1.2 Trillion in Debt?

Pursuant to the Budget Control Act, brought to you by the GOP leadership's sellout, Obama notified Congress yesterday that the federal debt is approaching the statutory ceiling of $15.194 trillion. [The actual total debt is already $15.237 trillion, but a small amount is not subject to the limit.] As such, he is calling on Congress to grant him another $1.2 trillion in debt, conveniently enough to last him until after the election, with the possibility of saddling his successor with a tough decision over yet another debt limit increase. It is really more of a notification than a request. Obama will automatically receive his $1.2 trillion supercharged credit card unless two-thirds of Congress votes to disapprove of the request within 15 days.

In just three years, he has accrued $4.6 trillion in debt, more than Bush amassed during his entire eight-year tenure. Now he will add another $1.2 trillion by the end of his first term, and, thanks to the horrendous budget deal, which was cheered on by the same outlets that are now fawning over Mitt Romney, there's nothing we can do about it.

But here's the question: If Congress is in recess and cannot fulfill its responsibility to advice and consent, as the President has suggested, how can Obama fulfill his obligation of submitting a certification to Congress?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Great White Unknown

It is one of my overarching concerns with the myth of Mitt the Electable — Bain Capital and Romney's time in the private sector. Byron York sums it up here.

There's no basis to reflexively defend Romney's record, because we don't know in any real detail what he did at Bain. But there's no basis to indict him, either, for the same reason.

There are seemingly two caricatures of candidates that play badly with the American people. One is the evangelical preacher out to save the world. The politician as tent revival preacher is a long caricatured American political staple going back to the ninetieth century and William Jennings Bryant among others.

The other caricature is that of the millionaire tycoon out to buy the election. This has been a staple of American politics since the turn of the 20th century and passage of the first campaign finance laws. Historically, neither caricature is popular or successful on the national stage.

Within the Republican Party, the least successful of the two has been the millionaire tycoon caricature. Dan McLaughlin noted the other day

Look back over the years at the list of wealthy Republican candidates who put their wealth ahead of their limited records in public office. The California GOP has had the worst record: Bill Simon, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Michael Huffington, and Bruce Herschensohn all flopped. The positive example is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who proved a disaster for California conservatives in office. Simon, a good and decent man and fairly conservative, faced an opponent with approval ratings so terrible on Election Day that he was recalled just months later – yet the Democrats tore Simon limb from limb with attacks on his private business record. Republicans in other states or at the national level have often found such candidates to be electoral failures or totally unreliable in pursuing our party's principles in office: Herman Cain, Mike Bloomberg, Carl Paladino, Linda McMahon, Jack Ryan, Pete Coors, Pete Dawkins. (Ron Johnson and Rick Scott being rare exceptions, and Scott only won after a searing campaign against his business record). An understanding of private business is a valuable thing for public officials, but it's no substitute for experience pursuing good public policies; Jon Corzine was a success in business before he ran New Jersey into the ground, and the most successful businessman ever to be president was Herbert Hoover. It's entirely valid for Republicans to ask whether we are buying ourselves a similar set of headaches with Romney.

There are a lot of unknowns with Bain Capital — good and bad. With a firm caricature locked in the American psyche of millionaire tycoons out buying elections and the Obama money machine ready to spin a narrative, I really do fear the GOP is rushing headlong into political suicide with Mitt Romney as the nominee. Should he be the nominee, I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt I will be.

Couple that with the already well set narrative of Romney the opportunist and the Democrats will have a field day with the millionaire who will say, do, or pay anything to buy up the Presidency.

Morning Briefing for January 13, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

January 13, 2012

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

1. Our Task Moving Forward: Focus On Congress

2. The Great Bloomberg Booze Backlash of 2012

3. The New York Times Ponders: "Are We Biased Enough?"

———————————————————————-

1. Our Task Moving Forward: Focus On Congress

Irrespective of the outcome of the presidential primaries, it is highly unlikely that we will nominate a reliable and consistent conservative. Unfortunately, with the exceptions of Coolidge, Goldwater, and Reagan, we never do. Not on a presidential level. This year we might nominate someone who is not a conservative at all. Perforce, our most important task going forward (aside for defeating Obama) is to win majorities in both houses of Congress.

What is even more essential is that we elect enough reliable conservatives – ones who will keep their campaign pledges – that we will not be relegated to the minority in those majorities. With the prospect of electing an unpredictable Republican president, in conjunction with tepid leadership in Congress, it is vital that we choose Republicans who will stand on principle, not benchwarmers who will merely serve as yes-men for leadership.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The Great Bloomberg Booze Backlash of 2012

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg probably needed a stiff drink last night, after an article ran at the New York Post earlier in the day reporting that the mayor was planning to curtail alcohol sales in the Big Apple. The city health department's Partnership for a Healthier New York City was considering initiatives to slash the number of businesses that were licensed to sell liquor.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The New York Times Ponders: "Are We Biased Enough?"

The lefties on Twitter are very upset with their favorite paper, The New York Times. They've even started a hashtag (#NewNYTSlogans) attacking them for the apparent lack of dedication to truth that the paper has exhibited of late in its pages.

An article titled, "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" is what has sent them into full fledged mock mode and, as best I can understand it, they believe that the Times has basically acknowledged that the truth and fact checking are not top priorities in The New York Times newsroom.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Some Birds Say 'Drop In.' Other Birds Say 'Drop By.' We Vultures Say 'Drop Dead.'

I have been accused of giving Rick Perry the term "vulture capitalist." I've used it on CNN a few times to say that's how the Democrats would describe Mitt Romney.

Rick Perry has used the term of late too. It is a description Americans can relate to and while it does not affect our cold, capitalist hearts, it works mighty effectively with independent voters.

If you don't believe me, ask Mitt Romney. It is Mitt's own consultant who made the term quite popular in an attack on Republican Meg Whitman in the 2010 California gubernatorial election leveled by her primary opponent Steve Poizner. It was too little, too late for Poizner, but the Democrats picked it up and ran with it in the general election.

What goes around comes around circling in the air.

The Horserace for January 12, 2012

It's a different horserace of sorts this week and from here on out. Gone are the individual prospects of each candidate. We have the real front runner now — Mitt Romney. The question remaining is which candidate, if any, can cause Mitt to stumble.

No non-incumbent has ever swept Iowa and New Hampshire within a Republican Primary until Mitt Romney. He did it while getting less votes in 2012 in Iowa than he got in 2008, but with substantially more votes in New Hampshire, including among independents.

With 1.80% of delegates selected for the Republican nomination, Willard Mitt Romney looks like he is going to sweep the field. It is striking how these things get wrapped up so quickly. By March 6th, which is this year's Super Tuesday, 40% of the delegates will be selected. The other 60% won't be selected until after after Super Tuesday. But we may have the nominee by then.

There is, however, still time for someone else to make a come back. A poll released just today by Insider Advantage as Newt Gingrich within two points of Mitt Romney in South Carolina. Gingrich's affiliated Super PAC has decided to throw everything possible at MItt Romney in an effort to stop him.

Since the advent of the modern elections calendar, the nomination for President typically does end by Florida. The delegates are winner take all and both momentum and money flow to the person who wins South Carolina. Since 1980, no Republican has gotten the nomination for President without winning South Carolina. Conventional wisdom suggests it is Mitt Romney's race. It is.

But conventional wisdom is overlooking one thing.

This year is different from all prior efforts to get the Republican nomination. The Republican National Committee changed the system. What had been winner take call races are now partly proportional and partly winner takes call.

Between now and March 3rd, the last event before Super Tuesday, only 15.20% of all delegates to the Republican National Convention will be selected and the vast majority will be proportional.

On March 6h, Super Tuesday, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, the Virgin Islands, and Wyoming will all go vote in a mixture of primaries and caucuses that will also be mostly proportional. That day the candidates will pick up 24.90% of the delegates for this year's Republican National Convention, bringing the total delegates selected since Iowa to 40.20%

From March 10 until the Utah Primary on June 26, 2012, 59.80% of delegates will be selected.

A candidate could run a very grassroots campaign against Mitt Romney between now and April when the full slate of winner take all races start. But such a person would have to have a pile of money either within their campaign or with a related Super PAC. The candidate would also have to sit back a bit and let the media vet Mitt Romney, along with the Democrats, in the way we all know is going to happen.

It is possible, but not probable. Right now, the only person who seems capable of doing that is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has a well funded Super PAC and has had a good bit of money flowing to him as the alternative to Mitt Romney.

Jon Huntsman's campaign is a non-starter. Ron Paul cannot build a majority coalition largely because of his foreign policy views. Rick Santorum does not have the money. Most everyone has given up hope in Rick Perry's ability to come back barring a miracle.

That leaves Gingrich. And he is just the stubborn sort to do it. Mitt Romney is only the guaranteed candidate if Republicans want him to be. I personally think he will be a disastrous general election candidate. But every day he inches forward makes it harder for anyone else to catch up.

In defense of capitalism

Sweet Lord in Heaven, every time I try to tune these clowns out they hack me off and drag me back in.

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. Anyone who says otherwise needs to be prepared to defend Bain Capital more than once relying on the government to cover their butts on deals and even being bailed out by the government under Mitt Romney's watch — not exactly free market.

There are legitimate criticisms.

But as Rush Limbaugh said, as always correctly, the criticisms of Romney should come from the right, not the left. Attacking him for profiting in the free market has gotten out of hand on the right. I appreciate that the Democrats will raise the attacks and I appreciate that Romney is going to need to defend himself. Better now than in the general.

I am a bit appalled by the sudden decision that it is verboten to level any attack at Romney because of Bain. Just as we can go after people in politics, corporations should not be immune from criticism. Mitt Romney tells us they are people too. It's just that we should attack Bain for relying on the government as we attack Solyndra and GE for doing the same.

I would, however, note that a great many of the people (but not all) screaming at Perry and Gingrich for attacking Romney "from the left" on Bain were staggeringly silent when Romney was attacking them from the left on entitlements.

Then there is Mitt Romney. The best defense he has so far offered about his time at Bain is that he did what the President did with General Motors. Except few on the right agree with what the President did and think the free market should have done it. In fact, that's probably the best criticism of Romney — he seems to see no difference in the private sector and the public sector and has been all too willing to commingle money and responsibility between the two.

This isn't Mitt Romney's first time headed down this road. Back in 2003, he attacked the very position he's now wrapping himself up with to defend himself. At the time, he said

"There are some, if you will, classical Republicans, and I don't want to be political here. The classical Republican approach is to say you know what makes America so great is our great corporations. And if we just clear the decks so that corporations can be more successful and give them more money, and make it easier for them to succeed. Well, then we will do even better on the world stage. I don't happen to subscribe to that traditional Republican caricature."

So all you people defending Mitt Romney's corporate activity as unassailable because by God the business of America is business and what not, remember he once made clear he didn't much care for you guys.

The GOP has gone off the reservation. Capitalism should be defended. That does not mean everything Romney did at Bain Capital must be defended. And it sure as heck does not mean we should suddenly be okay with the President's handling of General Motors.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin wants Romney to release his tax records and provide proof of his job creation numbers. God bless her. Just when this was starting to look like a coronation with 2.01% of delegates selected . . .

Morning Briefing for January 12, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

January 12, 2012

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

1. In defense of capitalism

2. Rick Santorum: A Massively Expanded Welfare State is 'The Genuine Conservatism our Founders Envisioned'

3. To Our Friends at (The) National Review

4. An Open Letter to Jim DeMint

———————————————————————-

1. In defense of capitalism

The GOP has gone off the reservation. Capitalism should be defended. That does not mean everything Romney did at Bain Capital must be defended. And it sure as heck does not mean we should suddenly be okay with the President's handling of General Motors.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin wants Romney to release his tax records and provide proof of his job creation numbers. God bless her. Just when this was starting to look like a coronation with 2.01% of delegates selected . . .

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Rick Santorum: A Massively Expanded Welfare State is 'The Genuine Conservatism our Founders Envisioned'

Despite strident opposition from supporters who maintain that Rick Santorum is a "true conservative" in the mold of – you guessed it – Ronald Reagan, the already huge mountain of evidence that he is, at heart, a 'big-government conservative' continues to grow.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. To Our Friends at (The) National Review

So with New Hampshire behind us (and with any luck, never again in front of us), and with my tendency to be overloaded with life to the point at which I catch up on things I meant to write two to fifty-two weeks after they are timely, I wanted to say something about the controversy which was and is best described as "National Romney Online."

For those of you who don't keep up on conservative tendencies to engage in circular firing squads, a summary is in order; for those of you who couldn't give a rat's anus, best just to skip this diary altogether.

In short, National Review — which backed Mitt Romney in 2008 after months and years of not-so-coyly talking him up — and which has not, in fairness, endorsed anyone as a publication yet, is perceived to be carrying water for the Mittster this time around. The battle was joined when Ramesh Ponnuru — arguably the brightest of National Review's lights, and the editor with the greatest credibility among mainstream conservatives — endorsed Romney, albeit not without qualifications; the battle escalated when the publication as a whole went full-metal William Foster on Newt Gingrich for a thousand and one sins against conservatism and electability. In passing, the magazine took shots at Ron Paul (who hasn't?), Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry; then took time to praise Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, whose only apparent problem was a lack of executive experience. The didactic tone at the end of the piece seemed almost calculated to irritate any reader not yet enraged by the closing of the piece.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. An Open Letter to Jim DeMint

By the numbers, we are yet very early in the presidential primaries. 1144 delegates are needed to sew up the nomination, and depending how you count these things, Mitt Romney has maybe 13 delegates after finishing Iowa in a de facto tie with Rick Santorum and thumping Ron Paul in New Hampshire last night. But presidential primary races are often about perception: like wars, you more often win them by convincing the other side that further resistance is futile than by total, to-the-last-man annihilation. And so the coming South Carolina primary is widely recognized as the last realistic chance to stop Romney, or at least visibly slow his momentum and eliminate the divisions among conservative candidates that have thus far precluded a unified opposition. Romney has been lining up endorsements (including SC Governor Nikki Haley), money and favorable press from conservative journalists to create an air of inevitability that he hopes will end this race by Florida, if not South Carolina. I think it is fair to say that a great many grassroots conservative activists view the prospect of a Romney candidacy with varying shades of dismay.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

If I understand this right, I have a question

If I understand this right, Bain Capital profited from the creative destruction of capital. It went in, found the unappreciated or hidden value in companies, restructured and/or chopped up companies, and returned the valuable parts to health.

It did it across the board.

And if I understand it right, attacking Bain Capital or Mitt Romney for what Bain did is unacceptable as an attack on capitalism. Now, this bit may be a bit over broad as I suspect there are things Bain did that conservative might attack, including itself taking government money in the past.

But that's the gist, right?

Bain participated in capitalism, revitalized defunct companies, spun off as needed, and from the ashes of creative destruction of capital made a profit, saved or created companies, and saved or created jobs therefore let's not attack Romney for his time there.

If I have that right (and I largely agree with it), I have a question.

If Mitt Romney saw, knew, profited from and participated in the creative destructive of capital, why did he advocate the government passing the troubled asset relief program ("TARP")? Why not let the creative destruction of capital solve the problem and potentially make a profit off it?

It seems to me, considering his continued involvement with Bain, though indirect, Bain and other private equity groups and others in the private sector could have handled the messiness without government involving itself, deciding some were too big to fail, and now potentially setting up a scenario where people take undue risks thinking the government will do it all over again.

And if the answer is that they are different functions or what have you, then is making the comparison between what Romney did with Bain and Obama did with General Motors a comparison that can hold water? One, after all, is a private company profiting from the creative destruction of capital. The other is the government taking over a business.

Just a question.