Erick Erickson's Blog, page 87

I Hope Ron Paul Does Win Iowa

Over at National Review, Robert Costa writes that there is a very real chance Ron Paul could win Iowa.

Of all the candidates running for President, I have never been accused of supporting Ron Paul. But in this I do. I hope he does win Iowa.

I hope he wins Iowa for a variety of reasons, but first and foremost because Ron Paul has run a stellar grassroots campaign in Iowa. He's run a campaign there better than anyone and that hard work deserves to be rewarded regardless of what you think of the candidate and his positions.

Most candidates drop by, send some mail, and run lots of television and radio ads. Ron Paul's team has been organizing door to door in the state. That level of grassroots activity just might pay off and it would be refreshing to see old fashion grassroots pay off.

Beyond that, there are other reasons I hope Ron Paul wins that his supporters might not like.

I think a Ron Paul win in Iowa will drag out the Republican nomination process. Paul cannot, I do not believe, actually build enough of a coalition to be the nominee. But he can be a spoiler for other candidates, dragging out the contest so there's not a quick grab of delegates and the show's over.

Those candidates who do not have a lot of money will be forced to drop out and the rest of the candidates can finally get an airing in one of the million more debates that involves more substantive questions with more time to answer.

Lastly, I think outside of the grassroots game, Iowa voters are less and less representative of the Republican electorate as a whole, force candidates to do weird things like embrace ethanol and run commercials about attacks on Christmas, and a Ron Paul win in Iowa will hopefully once and for all compel the Republicans to consider ending Iowa's first in the nation status.

Romney Camp Attacks Newt Gingrich For Opposing George H. W. Bush's Tax Increase

Let's step into the Way Back Machine and go all the way back to 1990.

That year, George H. W. Bush decided to break his "no new taxes" pledge. You remember, "Read my lips," don't you?

Well, at the time Newt Gingrich was the Minority Whip of the United States House of Representatives. He was not the leader of the Republicans. He was the number two guy. And he initially said he'd support the deal, but twelve hours later, no doubt after consulting his colleagues, he decided to oppose the deal.

The deal, by the way, was made between George H. W. Bush and the Democrats. Newt was not exactly a consequential figure in the dealings largely because he was the number two man in a small minority, all of whom could have voted against the deal and it still would have passed.

Oh — and I dare you Romney guys to say anything about Gingrich changing his mind twelve hours later considering how Romney tends to change his mind twelve hours before entering a new election when a new position is to his advantage.

Here's Sununu still upset Gingrich fought raising taxes:

Sununu charged that 21 years ago, Gingrich "reneged" on his approval of the now-infamous (to Republicans) 1990 budget agreement with Democrats that included tax increases. Many believe Bush's reversal of his famous "Read my lips. No new taxes" pledge of 1988 cost him a second term.

Sununu said that as an agreement with the Democratic majority was being reached, "I specifically asked Newt Gingrich if he would support it, and he said, 'yes.'

"We then went to the President and told him we had" the support of both Gingrich and the chief Senate GOP negotiator Phil Gramm, "and then the White House put out a statement saying that there was an agreement."

But, Sununu said, "The next day, for whatever reason, and nobody has ever been able to explain it to us, Gingrich decided that he was going to oppose it.

"Twelve hours later, he decided it was to his own benefit to oppose the agreement."

It says something rather pitiful about the state of the Romney campaign that they have decided to attack Newt Gingrich for opposing a tax increase that wiped out the presidency of George H. W. Bush. Oh, by the way, it would have also taken out a lot of House Republicans except Ed Rollins was in charge of the NRCC and insisted they all run against George H. W. Bush and squishy Republicans. That move saved a lot of them.

The Most Important Fight For Conservatives in America

Forget the Presidential race. We can get back to it another day. This is the most important fight for the conservative movement in America right now and it happens next week.

Well, it was going to happen in January. But conservatives started gaining momentum. Naturally, Mitch McConnell had to go try to pull the rug out from under conservatives. Far be it for fresh ideas to enter into the hallowed corridors of Senate Republican power.

I'm talking about the Senate Republicans' leadership fight for Vice Chairman of the Republican Conference. There is an election to fill that seat.

The election was to be held in January. The only declared candidate was Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin (HAFA Score 91%). But then Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri (HAFA Score 64%) announced this week he wanted the job too. Immediately after announcing his entry, Senator Mitch McConnell moved the election up from January to next week and began whipping votes on behalf of Senator Roy Blunt.

Both Senators Blunt and Johnson are freshman senators. But prior to 2010, Senator Blunt spent 14 years in the House of Representatives. Prior to 2010, Senator Johnson was the CEO of a private manufacturing firm in Wisconsin.

I like both senators tremendously, but for conservatives Ron Johnson is a no brainer here. Senator Blunt's thinking is the same thinking that has plagued Senate Republicans for a decade now — the same old ideas and same old strategies.

Ron Johnson is also one of the very unique bridge builders between conservatives and the establishment. He was the one Senate candidate in 2010 that both the GOP Establishment and Tea Party agreed on. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund, and RedState all aligned behind Senator Johnson in the primary.

One might think Senator McConnell and his colleagues would want to find some level of truce with conservatives and give them a seat at the table with Senator Johnson. Instead, they are ramping up the election to shut us out.

If we really want the Senate GOP to turn the corner, we need guys like Ron Johnson at the table. It is important that if you have a Republican Senator you call them today and ask them to support Senator Johnson for Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman.

Frankly, rejecting Johnson for a seat at the table will be a big sign that the Senate GOP needs further cleaning in the primaries.

My Endorsement for President

Yesterday I posted my confession about supporting Gingrich. Some people viewed it as a non-endorsement endorsement of Gingrich. Others viewed it as a rejection of Gingrich. Others viewed it as an endorsement of Perry or Huntsman. It was none of the above. I suspect I was too obtuse in that while trying clearly to express my concerns and publicly wrestle with getting my head around whether or not I could support Gingrich.

Over the course of the past few months, people have accused me of supporting Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Perry, and believe it or not, even Mitt Romney.

In truth, I support none of the above and as I am constantly called on these days to make an endorsement of one of the candidates, I suppose we have now reached the time for me to explain why I have no plans to endorse anyone.

First, I admit I have biases. I do like Newt Gingrich though as I noted yesterday, I have a real hard time wrapping my head around supporting him for the previously stated reasons. I do like Rick Perry too. He has been a tremendous friend to this site and I am personal friends with a great many people on his staff, some of whom used to write here. I also very much like Michele Bachmann. She has been a tremendously kind person to both me and my wife, thoughtfully checking in on us after the birth of our child, going out of her way to speak to me in a crowd, etc. I do not know Ron Paul, but his son is awesome. I do not know and have never met Jon Huntsman. I'm not exactly enamored with Rick Santorum.

Second, I have made it clear over the past month for reasons there is no need to rehash that I am firmly in the not Romney camp. In the early days of the 2008 campaign I endorsed Mitt Romney. My endorsement was made based on so many people I respect having endorsed him. But it seemed every other day I was trying to defend him changing his position on another issue and eventually got so frustrated and started doing my own research that I just gave up and threw in the towel. I can't get back on that train and I am frankly stunned so many never got off that train.

But the lessons of 2008, the first open Presidential primary season any of us here went through since the founding of RedState, were remarkable valuable to me both in doing my own research on candidates instead of relying on the opinions of others and also realizing that the moment I endorse any candidate suddenly my opinions on the other candidates have little value because everything is seen through the prism of the endorsement.

So 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. There are few honest brokers in this. I get accused all the time of being for one candidate or another. While I have my biases, I use the Horserace post and my other writings to call the race as I see it. Not endorsing anyone helps. You may or may not view me as an honest broker telling what I think of the candidates, but my aim is to get as close to that as I can, with previously noted biases taken into account.

Frankly, if I thought the guy I endorsed was an idiot, I'd still say so as I have done so in the past. And as happened in the past, that guy's campaign team would irate me in trying to get me to spin for them. I don't plan on carrying any campaign's water.

Some of the front page writers have endorsed. Others will endorse. Some of you will be convinced I am endorsing or supporting a particular candidate. That's all well and good. But my intention is to vote for not Romney and that is the only intention I have had since settling into the position a while back that he would be a disaster of a nominee.

Lastly, and in all honesty, this field of candidates deeply depresses me. I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that we're on the verge of having God hand us 1980 all over again and this time making John Anderson the Republican nominee.

I can see a day soon on the horizon where I just give up and focus on House and Senate races instead of the top race.

Morning Briefing for December 8, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

December 8, 2011

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

1. The Most Important Fight For Conservatives in America

2. My Endorsement for President

3. Fast & Furious – ATF Weapons Scheme Designed to Push Gun Control

4. The Regulatory Climate is Affecting More Than Business

5. Don't Conflate Super-Long Unemployment Extension With Payroll Tax Cut

6. Mitt Romney flip-flops a grenade into illegal immigration debate.

———————————————————————-

1. The Most Important Fight For Conservatives in America

Forget the Presidential race. We can get back to it another day. This is the most important fight for the conservative movement in America right now and it happens next week.

Well, it was going to happen in January. But conservatives started gaining momentum. Naturally, Mitch McConnell had to go try to pull the rug out from under conservatives. Far be it for fresh ideas to enter into the hallowed corridors of Senate Republican power.

I'm talking about the Senate Republicans' leadership fight for Vice Chairman of the Republican Conference. There is an election to fill that seat.

The election was to be held in January. The only declared candidate was Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin (HAFA Score 91%). But then Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri (HAFA Score 64%) announced this week he wanted the job too. Immediately after announcing his entry, Senator Mitch McConnell moved the election up from January to next week and began whipping votes on behalf of Senator Roy Blunt.

Both Senators Blunt and Johnson are freshman senators. But prior to 2010, Senator Blunt spent 14 years in the House of Representatives. Prior to 2010, Senator Johnson was the CEO of a private manufacturing firm in Wisconsin.

I like both senators tremendously, but for conservatives Ron Johnson is a no brainer here. Senator Blunt's thinking is the same thinking that has plagued Senate Republicans for a decade now — the same old ideas and same old strategies.

Ron Johnson is also one of the very unique bridge builders between conservatives and the establishment. He was the one Senate candidate in 2010 that both the GOP Establishment and Tea Party agreed on. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund, and RedState all aligned behind Senator Johnson in the primary.

One might think Senator McConnell and his colleagues would want to find some level of truce with conservatives and give them a seat at the table with Senator Johnson. Instead, they are ramping up the election to shut us out.

If we really want the Senate GOP to turn the corner, we need guys like Ron Johnson at the table. It is important that if you have a Republican Senator you call them today and ask them to support Senator Johnson for Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. My Endorsement for President

Yesterday I posted my confession about supporting Gingrich. Some people viewed it as a non-endorsement endorsement of Gingrich. Others viewed it as an endorsement of Perry or Huntsman. It was none of the above.

Over the course of the past few months, people have accused me of supporting Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Perry, and believe it or not, even Mitt Romney.

In truth, I support none of the above and as I am constantly called on these days to make an endorsement of one of the candidates, I suppose we have now reached the time for me to explain why I have no plans to endorse anyone.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Fast & Furious – ATF Weapons Scheme Designed to Push Gun Control

Obama's tactics are becoming obvious. Whether it's destroying coal to prop up green, endlessly extending unemployment benefits to keep the public desperate so as to allow him to push through more entitlements, how he intends to bring his "fundamental changes" to the United States are about as veiled as laminate. He is a radical trying to institute change by manipulating the facts on the ground in order to create a narrative that allows his "solutions."

Now comes the news that the gun walker scandal known as "Fast & Furious" in which thousands of guns were permitted to cross the Mexican border, ostensibly to help the ATF track the guns to "big fish," may have actually been used as a justification for new and stricter gun laws.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. The Regulatory Climate is Affecting More Than Business

The chorus of CEOs and business leaders saying that regulation is choking business and growth had a new addition yesterday: CEO Clarence Otis, Jr. of Darden Restaurants, Orlando, Florida's only Fortune 500 company and the parent company of Olive Garden, Red Lobster and LongHorn Steakhouse.

This is interesting to me for a handful of reasons. The first is that a quick look at campaign donations from Otis shows that he has historically been a supporter of Democrat candidates, including Obama himself. He gave the maximum donations ($2,400) to Democrats in his home state. Democrats like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ron Klein and Kendrick Meek. Granted he supported a Republican (sort of) last year by contributing to Charlie Crist's campaign, but that was the only one since late 2007.

In 2008 he contributed thousands of dollars on multiple occasions to the campaign of Barack Obama as well as giving over $28,000 to the "Obama Victory Fund." He's even been invited to some of those high profile meet and greets that the President has from time to time, though there is little evidence that he actually listens to the people he meets with.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Don't Conflate Super-Long Unemployment Extension With Payroll Tax Cut

The outcome of the impending payroll tax imbroglio seems to be clear. With Republicans offering spending offsets and Democrats demanding tax increases, my safe premonition is that, for better or worse, the simple tax cut extension will pass, albeit without either "offset" plan. Due to some divisions among conservatives, such an outcome seems to be intractable at this point.

At this point, we must focus on unemployment benefits with a unified message. My concern is that all of the proposed GOP packages conflate the passage of the payroll tax cut with UI extension. We all know that Democrats will abjure all Republican proposals to pay for the package, most notably, cuts to the federal workforce. The only thing this package will do is telegraph a public message to Democrats and the voters that Republicans agree to the premise of extending unemployment benefits.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. Mitt Romney flip-flops a grenade into illegal immigration debate.

How do I put this? Actually, that's easy: with malice aforethought. Below are two key quotes of Mitt Romney with regard to his discussion with the Washington Examiner about illegal immigration:

"I listened to Lindsey Graham the other day… I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush…"

Yeah. As The Examiner put it – succinctly – "Lindsey Graham. Jeb Bush. If you are an "attrition-through-enforcement" conservative on illegal immigration, then this answer is probably setting off alarms."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

My Confession

The problem with Mitt Romney is the inconsistencies in his record. The problem with Newt Gingrich is the consistency of his record.

I will support either of these men against Barack Obama. Either would be better. (Quick: My new favorite website)

I support Gingrich over Romney because Gingrich fights and I don't ever have to doubt where he stands on an issue. I trust Gingrich even if I don't agree with him.

But I don't know that I can support Gingrich. I really don't. That is my confession. In Romney v. Newt, I support Newt. But in Newt vs. the rest?My problem is very basic.

In all honesty and candor and recognizing we all fall short of the glory of God, I do not know that I can support a man who is on his third wife having cheated on his two prior wives. It is very much more the adultery than the marriages. Many of my friends have marriages that do not work out.

But, if a man cannot be faithful to his vows made before God related to his marriage, how can he be faithful to the constitution he swears to God to uphold?

Maybe Gingrich moving his letter from the Baptist Church to the Catholic Church made a real difference. I don't view it as a conversion when one moves from one Christian denomination to another. But still . . .

I just don't know. Beyond his marriage, Gingrich supported Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, Harriet Miers, Dede Scozzafava, Bob Bennett, Freddie Mac, and on Glenn Beck just yesterday largely defended the individual mandate.

But in all honesty, I am really hung up on the three marriages with the affairs in between. It goes directly to a man's character in a way the others do not. Those are politics. This is something bigger. But it is, I think, reflected in his positions elsewhere on life issues, government expansion, etc.

A buddy of mine on twitter, when I first raised this, noted that Obama and Carter have both had one wife, Reagan had two, and Jefferson and Franklin had mistresses.

In all honesty, I don't know what that has to do with my point. Mitt Romney is on his first wife and I'd take Gingrich over him. Sometimes marriages do not work out and we get remarried. I get it. Sometimes amoral people are good leaders. I get it.

But when you've cheated on your first wife with your second and you've cheated on your second wife with your third, and your policy positions in the past decade have been all over the place, how do I first know you won't cheat on me politically and how do I reconcile my desire for a President my kids can respect with your life?

I feel guilty for feeling this way, but I just don't know that I can support him in the primary. Over Romney? Sure. Newt won't be nearly as devastating down ballot as Romney if things go wrong for the GOP. But over Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry in alphabetical order?

I hope for a Perry rebound. He's on his first wife still and has the most consistent record of conservative policies. And we hate the same people and institutions. We have the same general world view.

But if Perry is not ready, I have to say I may have to seriously reconsider saying I'd never, ever, never vote for Jon Huntsman. He is more consistently conservative than either Newt or Romney, more pro-life than either, and a far more competent executive than either. He and Perry also are very real and sincere family men. Jon Huntsman clearly adores his family and I have concluded, despite my own misgivings about him, that he would govern more consistently to the right of Mitt Romney than even his campaign team would have us believe.

I'll support the nominee. Any of the Republicans will be better than Obama, regardless of the number of wives.

I'm just not yet at a position where I think I can look myself in the mirror and be comfortable knowing I voted for a guy on his third wife who cheated on the first two. Honestly, it is more the cheating than the number of marriages. And even after moving his letter from the Baptist to the Catholic church, it seems he may have settled down on the marital front, but he's still cheating on conservatives.

I'm having a very hard time this election trying to find a winner. I'm having a hard time trying to get used to the idea of Newt Gingrich as the guy with whom we will confront Barack Obama. The debates would be awesome. But the rest?

At what point does winning so badly mean willing to risk one's principles or one's soul?

Morning Briefing for December 7, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For December 7, 2011

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

1. My Confession

2. Obama Says It is Good to be in Texas While in Kansas

3. Expectedly, AFSCME Endorses Obama, Vows To Spend $100 Million On 2012 Election

4. Debunking the Election Myths of the Republican Establishment

5. GOP Should Launch Offensive in Payroll Tax Fight

6. Obama Administration Uses EPA to Buy Favor and Harm Cars

———————————————————————-

1. My Confession

The problem with Mitt Romney is the inconsistencies in his record. The problem with Newt Gingrich is the consistency of his record.

I will support either of these men against Barack Obama. Either would be better. (Quick: My new favorite website)

I support Gingrich over Romney because Gingrich fights and I don't ever have to doubt where he stands on an issue. I trust Gingrich even if I don't agree with him.

But I don't know that I can support Gingrich. I really don't. That is my confession. In Romney v. Newt, I support Newt. But in Newt vs. the rest?My problem is very basic.

In all honesty and candor and recognizing we all fall short of the glory of God, I do not know that I can support a man who is on his third wife having cheated on his two prior wives. It is very much more the adultery than the marriages. Many of my friends have marriages that do not work out.

But, if a man cannot be faithful to his vows made before God related to his marriage, how can he be faithful to the constitution he swears to God to uphold?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Obama Says It is Good to be in Texas While in Kansas

Were it Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, all we'd hear about for the next week is that they went to Kansas and said it was "Good to be back in Texas." Except it wasn't Perry or Bachmann. It was Barack Obama not using the teleprompter.

Like the 57 states.

Except Barack Obama is a genius.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Expectedly, AFSCME Endorses Obama, Vows To Spend $100 Million On 2012 Election

A few weeks ago, you were provided with a PowerPoint overview overview of the battle ahead in 2012 and what must be done to become a Force Multiplier.

With the Obama re-election campaign in full swing since January when ex-SEIU political director Patrick Gaspard left the White House to help run the campaign through OFA, union bosses have expectedly begun lining up their endorsements.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Debunking the Election Myths of the Republican Establishment

Ramesh Ponnuru, one of the more respected pundits of the establishment right, recently penned a widely-circulated article that took issue with the notion that Republicans lost their way during the Bush years to their political detriment. He argued that conservatives have created a false narrative, based on a bad reading of history, that "ideological purity, especially on spending, had caused those [electoral] losses," in 2006 and 2008. As a result, the party continues to lose more than it should and is failing to focus on the "real problems" facing the country.

This is an odd bit of revisionist history coming from someone known to be on the right, especially since the implicit lesson for Republicans is to be less ideologically pure and move to the center. Yet, it is interesting that Ramesh claims that "this consensus still moves the party." It doesn't.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. GOP Should Launch Offensive in Payroll Tax Fight

After decades of monstrous lies about Social Security, Democrats have finally blown the cover off their stratagem. They have always proclaimed that our payroll taxes were held securely in a trust fund in order to purvey retirement checks for each pay roll tax contributor. Moreover, they emphatically promised that as much as $2.6 trillion in unspent tax revenue had accrued in the trust fund. Now, with their push for a defacto permanent payroll tax cut, they are shedding all effort to conceal their Social Security mendacity.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. Obama Administration Uses EPA to Buy Favor and Harm Cars

I've said before that when the Democrats propose a tax credit it's called a "business incentive" and when a Republican proposes a tax credit it's called a "loophole." This game of semantics only works because of a complicit media which is more than willing to apply the Democrat designated classifications to ensure the correct narrative.

In reality, all sides are using fancy words to avoid the one word that best describes what is happening: subsidization.

Subsidies aren't necessarily inherently bad. There can be subsidies that work in favor of economic growth or better opportunities for the disadvantaged. But more often than not, subsidies are used as a way to prop up industries that serve other agendas. Like elections for instance.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Rise of Newt #EERS

We've got a full show tonight on the Erick Erickson Show. You can listen live via WSB's live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK. During the show I follow the twitter hashtag #EERS.

Topics will include whether students at Georgia Tech should be allowed to carry guns, the rise of Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama confusing Kansas and Texas, and more.

Consider this an open thread.

Obama Says It is Good to be in Texas While in Kansas

Were it Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, all we'd hear about for the next week is that they went to Kansas and said it was "Good to be back in Texas." Except it wasn't Perry or Bachmann. It was Barack Obama not using the teleprompter.

Like the 57 states.

Except Barack Obama is a genius.

Getting to a Brokered Convention

The level of angst over this year's crop of candidates really is amazing. Honestly, I think it says more about Mitt Romney's failure to seal the deal with conservatives between 2008 and 2012 than anything else.

But Steve Moore has this nugget in the Wall Street Journal's Political Diary today:

Efforts are underway by some wealthy Republican donors and a group of conservative leaders to investigate whether a new Republican candidate could still get into the presidential race. The talk is still preliminary and somewhat wishful, but it reflects dissatisfaction with the two leading candidates, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Conservative leaders are looking into whether it is feasible for a dark horse to get on the ballot in select states. The deadline to qualifying for the ballot has passed in Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, and New Hampshire. But a candidate could still get on the ballot in states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Michigan and Texas. At the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, voters write in their choice, so there is no formal filing deadline.

The chatter about potential new entrants include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, businessman Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

In other words, this could drag things out to a convention or a candidate could come on so strong that the first few states past Iowa wouldn't matter. The other name being floated? Jeb Bush.

I'd take DeMint or Bush in a heartbeat, but let's be clear what this is: wishful thinking.

We go to war with the army we have and we go to the ballot box with the field we have. As much as I wouldn't mind a brokered convention, I don't think it will happen — though miracles do still happen.

Also, I should note that a candidate getting in now might hit the Rick Perry problem and not actually be ready for prime time. A candidate, likewise, getting in at the convention would have to weather the media storm and inquiry in a way that the present candidates have not because that candidate would be the nominee and have bypassed everything now.

Don't hold your breath. But prayer does work.