Erick Erickson's Blog, page 90

Morning Briefing for November 30, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

November 30, 2011

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

This is not worth a full post, so I just want to put it here. In the past 24 hours, I've had a lot of people ask why so many Herman Cain supporters would abandon him over this adultery allegation and not the harassment stuff. Well, it's because people didn't really believe the harassment stuff. But what's more, a lot of these same people are wondering why people would jump from Cain over this adultery stuff to Gingrich who is on his third wife, having cheated on Wife 1 with Wife 2 and cheated on Wife 2 with Wife 3.

A caller to my radio show last night summed it up better and more succinctly than me. He said it was not the adultery. After all, we are all sinners. We all like sheep have gone astray. What it is is the incompetence of the Cain campaign's handling of these several stories. The caller's voice quivered with anger. He was angry at Herman. He felt betrayed, not because of what Herman may or may not have done, but because this caller backed Herman as the man who could run America and fix its problems, when in reality he can't even run a campaign and fix his campaign problems.

That's why, as Herman falls, Newt rises. Written off for dead by many, including me, he has been able to fix his problems in a way Cain has not.

1. Obama's Labor Department Looks To Take The 'Family' Out of Family Farms

2. 'The Most Volatile Republican Race in Decades' Is Actually Well Settled

3. Are Conservatives Ready to Forgive Newt Gingrich His Sins?

4. Five Things You Need To Know About New Hampshire

5. DNC Discrimination Against Non-Union Business Challenged By NC Lawmakers

———————————————————————-

1. Obama's Labor Department Looks To Take The 'Family' Out of Family Farms

Let's establish this right out of the gate so as not to confuse issues: It is wrong when corporations use child labor. Forgetting the law for a moment, whether it is here in the U.S. or overseas, children are children, and corporations should not exploit children. Got it? With that said, this is not about corporations, this is about families and farms. More specifically, family farms and the overreach of the federal government.

For centuries, even before there was Willie Nelson and FarmAid, farming throughout the world (including here in the United States) has largely been a family affair. That is, parents and their children (when not in school) work from dawn until dusk to put food on the family table, and the tables of others.

Recognizing this, when child labor laws were developed in the last century, there was an exemption built in for family farms. Now, however, the concept of the family farm may be getting gutted if the Obama Labor Department has its way.

Under a proposed "dramatic updating" of the nation's child labor regulations, the Department of Labor is considering eliminating many of the tasks that children and young adults do on their family's farm.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. 'The Most Volatile Republican Race in Decades' Is Actually Well Settled

The race is so volatile because the race is well settled as we get 38 days from Iowa. The race is settled against Mitt Romney. The question, however, is who the alternative is going to be. And if one does not hold up, it will fall to Mitt Romney.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Are Conservatives Ready to Forgive Newt Gingrich His Sins?

I think in the next few weeks conservatives must ask themselves if they are ready to forgive Newt his sins. I'm not talking about his adultery and wives. I'm not really even talking about his ego. What I am talking about is only tangentially related to his sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.

It was, after all, Newt Gingrich who advocated for an individual mandate long before Mitt Romney ever did. Gingrich has, like Clinton before him, been a "third way" fan of new fangled ways to do things. The conservative warrior people tend to think Gingrich is, often is not. Newt has a fascination with the shiny in policy and technology, hence the latest oppo drop on Newt that he once praised Donald Berwick, the Obama appointee chosen to oversee the death panels and shoving of grandparents over the medical cost savings cliff.

To be fair to Gingrich, he was offering legitimate praise to Berwick way back when and Berwick's own writings that Newt praised would be damning to Obamacare. But it is the first of many attacks.

The real issue for Gingrich is that he is the Great American Sisyphus, always rolling his political rock up a hill only to see it go tumbling back down. And unfortunately for many, when Newt reaches the top of the hill and his political career starts its roll back down the hill, many others get rolled over in the process.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Five Things You Need To Know About New Hampshire

I was the sole general chairman of the New Hampshire campaign of Pat Buchanan in the winter of 1995-6.

I was alone because my co-chairman, faced with unmoving single-digit poll numbers, had fled for the Dole campaign.

I remember Pat's consternation about our seemingly stagnant poll numbers. And yet, when New Hampshire voters began focusing on the election, those polls became meaningless. Just a few weeks before the primary.

The "pitch fork" brigade carried New Hampshire. And I am convinced that had there not been shenanigans in South Carolina, a GOP under a Buchanan banner would have defeated Clinton and rewritten history — unlike — the sleazy stand-for-nothing Dole.

So — what do you want to know about New Hampshire?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. DNC Discrimination Against Non-Union Business Challenged By NC Lawmakers

Several weeks ago, I told you the story of John Monteith, a Charlotte, NC business executive that had been told his company could not bid on work related to the Democratic National Convention because the printing firm he worked for was not unionized.

In fact, the union pressures surrounding the DNC are so great that there have been doubts that non-union employees will even have a job during the week the Democrats descend on the Queen City.

The mayor of Charlotte, Anthony Foxx, denied that any discrimination existed against non-union shops. The Convention's host committee denied it as well.

Luckily, as one local newspaper put it, "Conservative blogs and the N.C. Republican Party are fueling concerns." Those concerns have led to a resolution proposed by NC lawmakers [text below] asking that the DNC respects North Carolina's right-to-work laws and puts the focus on local business, not collective bargaining.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Herman "Sugar" Cain and Working Whites #EERS

I'm live for three hours tonight starting at 7:06 pm ET. I'll be talking about Herman "Sugar" Cain and Obama ceding the working middle class to the GOP.

You can listen live right here on the WSB live stream.

Call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

'The Most Volatile Republican Race in Decades' Is Actually Well Settled

"The race for the GOP nomination is well settled at this point. It is settled in 'Not Romney's' favor. The reason the race is so volatile is that 'Not Romney' is not on the ballot"

I keep hearing from the Washington Chattering Classes, Team Romney, and the White House that the race is over and Romney's the nominee. To be fair, I think Romney will, at present, be the nominee. But as I'm starting to see stronger signs that he is not going to be the nominee, the White House, Team Romney, etc. are building more expectations that he will be the nominee.

But occasionally we hear views from those living in reality. On Wolf Blitzer's show yesterday, Gloria Borger, Mary Matalin, and Joe Johns were in agreement with reality — this is the most volatile Republican race in decades.

The only thing constant in the race has been Mitt Romney stuck in second place. Everyone else has bounced up above him, fallen back, and seen another bounce above him.

For normal people in fly over country that is a troubling sign. For folks in Washington, many of whom on the Republican side have a financial interest in MItt Romney being the nominee because of a potential appointment, consulting contract, etc., it is just the precursor to settling for Romney.

Notwithstanding the beltway conventional wisdom, however, I am beginning to see the beginning of the end of Romney as the viable nominee and, more importantly, for people wondering why the Republican primary seems so volatile this year the answer is staring at everyone in the Real Clear Politics polling average.

The race is so volatile because seventy-five percent of the Republican base does not want Mitt Romney as the nominee.

Consider that most people did not start paying attention to the race until the end of summer, around Labor Day. Now look at the RCP polling average since that point.

[image error]

Romney has been in the lead three times: before Perry's rise, between the Perry fall and Cain rise, and between the Cain fall and Gingrich rise. That's it. Each time, the non-Romney candidate gets ahead of him.

But what's more, consider how Romney has never, since November 3, 2010, gotten more than 25.5% of the polling average. And he only recently broke above 25.0% of the polling average only to fall back down to 21.3% within weeks.

The race is so volatile because the race is well settled as we get 38 days from Iowa. The race is settled against Mitt Romney. The question, however, is who the alternative is going to be. And if one does not hold up, it will fall to Mitt Romney.

This may cheer Romney's supporters, and it is likely, but I fear there will be sever damage to the GOP down ballot with a Romney nomination. If voters are not excited about their guy — and 75% of them are not excited by Mitt Romney — that lack of excitement will trickle down ballot limiting any coat tails.

The Washington GOP establishment may have fallen for Mitt Romney, but they are both foolish and naive to think they can beat something with nothing. Mitt Romney is, in fact, a great big nothing — malleable into any shape you want, a void into which you can place any policy position. That's a problem nationally, but it is also a problem down ballot with coat tails.

The race for the GOP nomination is well settled at this point. It is settled in 'Not Romney's' favor. The reason the race is so volatile is that "Not Romney" is not on the ballot making a Romney nomination not just possible, but probable.

Herman Cain and the Big Picture

I would much rather talk about how Barack Obama is screwing the country with disastrous policies, but instead we are yet again forced to talk about who Herman Cain might have had sexual relations with.

Yet again his staff (pun alert!!!!) has let him down. His attorney's statement reads like a non-denial denial, which would be fine for a Democrat, but after Bill Clinton the GOP tends to get held to a higher standard on these things, rightly or wrongly.

A woman claims that she and Herman Cain had a thirteen year affair — I've only been married eleven years. If the woman is to be believed, even while Herman Cain was battling Stage V colon cancer, he was carrying on with her behind his wife's back.

The woman — not a lady — claims it "wasn't complicated." She knew he was married and did it anyway.

As a personal aside, I know Dale Russell the reporter who broke the story. We don't always see eye to eye or agree, but he is a sharp reporter who wouldn't do a story like this if he did not believe Ms. White.

The phone number shown in the news story on Fox 5 Atlanta is Herman's personal cell phone number. So this woman clearly did know Herman and have his personal number. Herman likes the Four Seasons restaurant on 14th Street in Atlanta. This lady clearly dined with him.

Whether Herman had an affair with this lady or not is largely besides the point at this point. For months I said Herman had no path to victory because of two things (1) money and (2) staff. When he found the money he got on a path to victory. But his staff knocked him off it.

The last time we saw the communications director refuse to issue a denial to Geraldo despite repeated attempts by Geraldo to get a denial and we saw the campaign manager making all sorts of baseless accusations.

This time, to his credit, Herman Cain told Wolf Blitzer he would wait until the story ran and all the facts were out there. It was a wise thing to do. But while Herman was on CNN saying that, his attorney issued his statement that all but admitted there's a there there.

Herman Cain believed he could be President of the United States. For a time, I believed Herman Cain could be President of the United States. But I don't know that much of Herman's staff ever really thought he could. Too many never seemed in it to win it. They seemed in it to make some money off Herman's run and a name for themselves. Well, they've sure made a name for themselves — "incompetent."

Can we get back to taking the fight to Barack Obama?

Morning Briefing for November 29, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

November 29, 2011

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

1. Herman Cain and the Big Picture

2. Fact Check: Ron Paul is Wrong About Defense Spending

3. Retirements: An Early Reading On The 2012 House Race

4. Absentee ballots and campaign shakedowns in Miami

5. Things to Cut?

———————————————————————-

1. Herman Cain and the Big Picture

I would much rather talk about how Barack Obama is screwing the country with disastrous policies, but instead we are yet again forced to talk about who Herman Cain might have had sexual relations with.

Yet again his staff (pun alert!!!!) has let him down. His attorney's statement reads like a non-denial denial, which would be fine for a Democrat, but after Bill Clinton the GOP tends to get held to a higher standard on these things, rightly or wrongly.

A woman claims that she and Herman Cain had a thirteen year affair — I've only been married eleven years. If the woman is to be believed, even while Herman Cain was battling Stage V colon cancer, he was carrying on with her behind his wife's back.

The woman — not a lady — claims it "wasn't complicated." She knew he was married and did it anyway.

As a personal aside, I know Dale Russell the reporter who broke the story. We don't always see eye to eye or agree, but he is a sharp reporter who wouldn't do a story like this if he did not believe Ms. White.

The phone number shown in the news story on Fox 5 Atlanta is Herman's personal cell phone number. So this woman clearly did know Herman and have his personal number. Herman likes the Four Seasons restaurant on 14th Street in Atlanta. This lady clearly dined with him.

Whether Herman had an affair with this lady or not is largely besides the point at this point. For months I said Herman had no path to victory because of two things (1) money and (2) staff. When he found the money he got on a path to victory. But his staff knocked him off it.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Fact Check: Ron Paul is Wrong About Defense Spending

During last week's foreign policy debate, Ron Paul won accolades from the crowd when he professed that there are no real pending cuts to the military, just reductions in baseline spending. Here is the full quote:

"Believe me. They're cutting — they're nibbling away at baseline budgeting, and its automatic increases. There's nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they're not going — the budget isn't going up as rapidly as they want it to. It's a road to disaster. We had better wake up."

This statement is absolutely false. Sequestration will indeed reduce military spending from 'actual dollar amounts' of FY 2011 spending levels over the next seven years.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Retirements: An Early Reading On The 2012 House Race

I assume that polling for Congressional races one year before they occur has little predicative power in races for perennially competitive seats. Thus, the Generic Congressional Vote numbers will probably offer little perspicacity between now and next Summer. Like an investor who tracks what corporate insiders do prior to investing or divesting in a stock, I find the recent trend of retirements in the House to be a potentially useful indicator.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Absentee ballots and campaign shakedowns in Miami

So, I confess, I had to look up who Luther Campbell was, aside from a guy who came in fourth in a race for county mayor in Miami-Dade County. He was a somewhat high-profile music promoter, fronting for groups like 2 Live Crew. But it is his electoral experience, as described in his column in the Miami New Times, that draws our attention today. He describes some of the more ugly experiences that someone like him has when trying to put together a campaign in Miami and the strange offers he gets.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Things to Cut?

Paul Krugman wants to tax all sorts of things and in his zeal to tax (coupled with his partisan hackery) he chooses to ignore the GOP was willing to raise taxes on the Super Committee.

Krugman wants to tax the rich, tax financial transactions, tax pretty much everything. It has become the Democrats' mantra: tax, tax, tax.

But they still can't deal with this question: if we raise taxes on everybody earning $200,000.00 a year or more to the Democrats' preferred level, whatever that level might be, we still won't have enough to close this year's budget deficit, let alone actually start whittling away at the national debt. So what do we cut?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Things to Cut?

Paul Krugman wants to tax all sorts of things and in his zeal to tax (coupled with his partisan hackery) he chooses to ignore the GOP was willing to raise taxes on the Super Committee.

Krugman wants to tax the rich, tax financial transactions, tax pretty much everything. It has become the Democrats' mantra: tax, tax, tax.

But they still can't deal with this question: if we raise taxes on everybody earning $200,000.00 a year or more to the Democrats' preferred level, whatever that level might be, we still won't have enough to close this year's budget deficit, let alone actually start whittling away at the national debt. So what do we cut?

But wait, there's more.

Historically, tax revenue into the federal government has averaged 18.5% of GDP. It has gotten as high as 21%, but only during the major economic boom and dot com bubble of 1998. It didn't last long. The historic average returned.

The historic average existed both before and after the Bush tax cuts. That's right. The rate of revenue into the Treasury was not significantly impacted by Bush's tax cuts. The biggest impact on tax revenue has been the loss of American jobs.

As Marco Rubio said earlier this year, we don't need new taxes. We need new tax payers.

So again, if we raise taxes and it won't even close the budget deficit and if we raise taxes and still average out at about 18.5% of GDP, what should we cut to close the deficit and what should we do to get Washington's spending back to 18.5% of GDP?

The Democrats won't answer that because at the end of the day they, like the GOP, agree with Dick Cheney. To them, deficits don't really matter. It's all politics.

Why Mitt Romney Will Be A Terrible Nominee

The Democratic Party decided a while back that Romney is going to be the nominee so they aren't waiting to define him as John Kerry. What is it about guys from Massachusetts?

An enterprising campaign should do a bumper sticker with a pair of flip-flops and "Not Romney" on it. Oh, that might be the Obama campaign's next fundraiser.

By the way, my interpretation of this hit is pretty straight forward. The DNC is gambling that Romney will be the nominee, but they also know there is a lot of angst with the GOP. By hitting Romney now they can potentially drag out the pain of the Republican Primary before doing what every Democrat and Beltway Pundit in America thinks — settling for Romney, a guy they will have already defined as a flip-flopper.

Morning Briefing for November 28, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

November 22, 2011

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

Welcome back. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving and started the Christmas season engaged in the annual first religious rite of the season, i.e. untangling Christmas lights without using the Lord's name in vain.

— Erick

1. North Carolinian Nathan Shafer arrested for threatening life of Gov. Nikki Haley (R, SC)…

2. 'It's Time To Close The NLRB For Renovations'

3. What Peak Oilers Won't Tell You About Peak Oil

4. The Unelectable Mitt Romney

5. Union Leader Endorses Gingrich for President

6. #OccupyWalMart Protesters Occupy Handcuffs On #OccupyBlackFriday

———————————————————————-

1. North Carolinian Nathan Shafer arrested for threatening life of Gov. Nikki Haley (R, SC)…

…but the white guy insists that it's not a big deal that he publicly posted a promise to murder an Indian-American female governor if nobody else does.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. 'It's Time To Close The NLRB For Renovations'

According to The Hill, unions and their Democrats in Congress are apoplectic over the fact that Brian Hayes, the lone Republican on Barack Obama's National Labor Relations Board, has (allegedly) threatened to resign in protest over the union appointees at the NLRB deciding on Wednesday (Nov. 30th) to force ambush elections on companies and their employees. Due to a Supreme Court decision, where the high court ruled there must be a minimum three NLRB members to affect a quorum, with only three current members, a resignation at the NLRB would incapacitate the union-run agency.

Notwithstanding Democrats fleeing from their jobs in Wisconsin earlier this year, oddly, neither the union bosses nor their paid shills in Congress seem to realize (or if they do, they're not publicly admitting it) that the idea of incapacitating the NLRB came from their own playbook.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. What Peak Oilers Won't Tell You About Peak Oil

M. King Hubbert is the father of Peak Oil theory. In a 1956, he paper correctly called the timing of the peak in U.S. crude oil production in the early 1970s.

Neo-Malthusians and Progressives make sure you know about Hubbert's pessimistic outlook for conventional crude oil. They made Hubbert a household name, the only oil technologist whose name they use without adding "sellout" or "whore".

But here's what they never tell you about what Hubbert's wrote…

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. The Unelectable Mitt Romney

I believe that contrary to what the Establishment would have us believe that Mitt Romney is actually the least electable candidate in the GOP primary.

The above photo features a younger Mitt Romney (in the center, naturally) when he was part of Bain Capital. Get used to seeing it. It will be on busses and billboards across the nation if Romney wins the nomination. And it will be the image people take into the voting booth on Election Day.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Union Leader Endorses Gingrich for President

The New Hampshire Union Leader, New Hampshire's largest newspaper endorses Newt Gingrich for president.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. #OccupyWalMart Protesters Occupy Handcuffs On #OccupyBlackFriday

Apparently, the Black Friday Occupation isn't working out so well for some #OWS protesters in Oklahoma City [#OccupyOKC].

After standing in the middle of the check out lanes and attempting to convince the WalMart workers to give up their jobs (jobs are slavery now, according to #OccupyOKC) and the shoppers to quit shopping, they tried to make a run for it and, based on the final scene, appear to have gotten the opportunity to occupy a jail cell.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Michael Medved Rejects Conservatives and Embraces Romney

I wrote that if Mitt Romney wins conservatism would lose. Michael Medved has taken to the Wall Street Journal to prove my point, as well as call out both Rush Limbaugh and me. Through his various straw men, Michael Medved does two things.

First, he claims that the GOP will win by being centrist, not conservative.

Second, he claims "electability" cannot be an argument against Mitt Romney.

Let me deal with the second point first. It is the one Medved danced around and the one that gets to the heart of Romney's flaw. He has lost every single race he has ever run in except one and then could not run for re-election in 2006 because he was sure to lose and couldn't take getting to the Republican Presidential primary field having his immediate prior election count as a loss.

On Medved's second point, he posits as proof the GOP must reject conservatism in favor of centrism with the fact that McCain ran ahead of Republicans at the state and congressional level. Two can play that game. On Romney's electability, an argument Medved must necessarily gloss over to prove his guy is the guy who can win, consider Jonathan Last's point:

Romney was preceded by Jane Swift, Paul Cellucci, and Bill Weld.

Weld was elected in 1990 with 50.19 percent of the vote. He won reelection in 1994 with 70.85 percent.

Cellucci, who stepped in for Weld, won his own term in 1998 with 50.81 percent of the vote.

Swift, who stepped into office for Cellucci, did not run because the state party pushed her aside for Romney in 2002.

I'm not suggesting that a Republican winning the governorship of Massachusetts isn't impressive–it is! But it's worth understanding that Romney's 49.77 percent of the vote in 2002–a generally very good year for Republicans nationally–was the worst showing for a Republican gubernatorial candidate in the state in a decade.

So in a very good year for Republicans, Romney's win was "the worst showing for a Republican gubernatorial candidate in the state in a decade" and in the best year for the GOP in 40 years, 1994, Mitt Romney was 17 points behind Ted Kennedy.

If past performance is the best indicator of future success, Mitt Romney will not be very successful.

But let's deal with Medved's first point — that conservatives have to give up conservatism to win.

I'd note that Medved's argument shows exactly why we cannot nominate Mitt Romney. I reject that we will lose with a more conservative candidate, but I flat out know and this piece confirms that if Romney gets the nomination his supporters will sell out conservatism convinced doing so is necessary to win. How much damage will Mitt Romney do to conservatism if he is the nominee? Consider Medved.

Rush Limbaugh's favorite slogan, "Conservatism wins every time," is more a statement of wishful thinking than an accurate summary of electoral experience. It's true that Ronald Reagan's inspiring, comprehensive conservatism brought two sweeping victories (in 1980 and '84). But the same supremely gifted candidate lost two prior runs for the presidency (in 1968 and 1976) to two charismatically challenged, moderate rivals, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Yeah, damn that Ronald Reagan. He should have sold out and he'd have been more successful. That is, in fact, what Medved seems to advocate — selling out.

The notion that ideologically pure conservative candidates can win by disregarding centrists and magically producing previously undiscovered legions of true-believer voters remains a fantasy. It is not a strategy.

I don't know anyone who has actually made that argument. What I and other conservatives advocate is that we must draw a contrast with Obama. Conservatism sells itself in such a contrast. We woo centrists, moderates, and independents on our ideas. When Reagan won in 1980 he moderated his tone, but he did not moderate his positions.

Medved points to Goldwater as proof that conservatism gets rejected by voters. Well, Goldwater sold conservatism as destroying the welfare state, cutting off social security checks, etc. Goldwater ran as a bomb thrower. It was not Goldwater's positions, but his willful selling of his positions as proudly turning out the poor and elderly that allowed Johnson to build a wedge against Goldwater.

Michael Medved, though, uses turnout data in 2008 to try to make his case:

Moreover, in the general election Mr. McCain ran ahead of the Republican ticket in every region of the country. He drew 7,750,000 more votes than did GOP candidates for the House of Representatives, winning 45.7% compared to 42.5% for his GOP running mates. Mr. McCain captured 49 congressional districts where the Republican candidates who ran alongside him lost. If GOP nominees had performed as well as Mr. McCain in those districts, the Republicans would have won a House majority of 227 and John Boehner would have become speaker two years earlier.

Contested statewide races for governor and U.S. Senate seats told a similar story, with Mr. McCain running ahead of the Republican ticket in 61% (28 of 46). In most of the few cases where statewide candidates outperformed Mr. McCain, the GOP ran veteran office holders (Lamar Alexander in Tennessee, Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, Susan Collins in Maine, Jon Huntsman in Utah, Jim Douglas in Vermont) with even more pragmatic, centrist reputations than Mr. McCain. Across the country, his performance justified the main practical rationale for his nomination as he won literally millions of votes that other more stridently conservative candidates failed to get.

Just as a short cut to the larger point, I think Medved is mixing apples and oranges. 2008 was a terribly bad year for the GOP across the board, following up on a terribly bad year in 2006.

It is true that McCain ran ahead of many, many Republicans in many other races, but let's also not forget that he had to put Sarah Palin on the ballot to get conservatives to even take him seriously.

Let's also not forget he was running against Barack Obama. No one else was. McCain picked up Democrats and independents who might just have voted for Hillary Clinton, but could not stomach Barack Obama. Let's also not forget that as people go further down the ballot, voting falls off. In many cases in most years votes fall off from the top race on the ballot to those of House races. In states across the country, state wide races are typically listed ahead of other races. House races, not being state wide, are below President, Governor, and others. Likewise, some people do just go vote for President. It is a consistent pattern. Saying McCain drew 3.2% more votes compared to U.S. House candidates may be because he was less conservative or it could be fall off in voting or it could be Sarah Palin.

We're talking 3.2% in an otherwise terrible year for Republicans. But Medved notes McCain also ran ahead of statewide Republicans in 61% of races with only Republicans with "pragmatic, centrist reputations" running ahead of McCain. The word Medved explicitly did not use was "incumbents." The people he explicitly cites were incumbents.

In other words, people with higher name identification did better than people with lesser name identification. Moreso, the Republican nominee for President of the United States did better than the Republican nominee for Governor of various states up for re-election. That does not mean that John McCain's centrist positions won. That means John McCain was running for President of the United States as opposed to Public Service Commissioner for District 4 or some such.

But back to Medved's specific point — the GOP needs to abandon its conservatism and go with centrism. I'd point out that McCain bounced after the GOP convention and with Palin's addition, both of which energized conservatives. Then there is the point Medved does not make and kind of throws a wrench in his argument.

In 2008, Rudy Giuliani led John McCain headed into primary season. So you had the two guys perceived as "not conservative" leading in a party dominated by conservatives (putting aside that John McCain is and has always been pro-life, unlike Mitt Romney). Why? Because the primary and general election in 2008, at least for Republicans and a significant number of independent voters, continued to be about the future conduct of America in the War on Terror. Those races where McCain ran ahead of other Republicans? Forget ballot drop off, incumbency, etc. None of those people were actually on the ballot to be Commander-in-Chief. John McCain was.

Michael Medved posits that moderation or centrism wins. I reject that and I don't think Medved makes a very persuasive case. The Republican Party won 1988 as Reagan's third term and the nation rejected George H. W. Bush and his moderate tax hikes in 1992 for a guy who ran proclaiming the era of big government over. If you look at the history of Republican candidates in just the past few decades, the GOP nominated George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Only two of them ran as conservatives and won and when George H. W. Bush rejected that, he lost.

Conservatives are not out to run ideology pure candidates who blow off the center. They are out to run a candidate who will sell conservatism in a way that draws in the middle. The GOP will not win with Mitt Romney, who starts by blowing off the Republican base and its values to begin with.

But good for Michael Medved giving the party line. And thanks for pointing out just who ready and willing Romney supporters are to throw conservatism under the bus.

Welcome to RedState at Thanksgiving

There is no morning briefing today. I'm filling in for Neil Boortz. You can listen live right here.

There'll be posts up today, just a bit slower than normal.