Nukes for Nuts: Ron Paul Stands With Iran

Shorter Ron Paul: Give the world's bullies what they want and they'll go away...

Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are "acts of war" that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East...

...[Paul] said Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war...

"I think we're looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran," Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are "planning to be bombed" and understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon...

...the Texas congressman said that "we always seem to have to have a country to bash," linking the current saber-rattling against Iran to previous hawkish rhetoric that led to conflicts in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

"If you want to quiet things down," he said, referring to Iran, "don't put sanctions on them" because it's "just going to cause more trouble."

Ron Paul must think we're all crazy.

Update: a list of Ron Paul's goofs and gaffes at Hack Wilson.

Obama's Paths to Victory

Via HotAir

Ron Paul's Dangerous Smear

Blaming America first...

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo), and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims. This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

I struggle to understand how Ron Paul's incendiary insinuation is supposed to be helpful, but as Paul surges in the polls in Iowa, it's time to begin taking his delirious rants seriously.

Long after he finally leaves the White House, Obama will be remembered for his international "Blame America" tours. Ron Paul seems eager to build on that tradition.

Note: That strategy doesn't work.

Power To The People: Will and Delingpole

Two videos, one from American Power the other from Powerline. First the shorter one, the the longer one:

Via American Power

Via Powerline

Obama Destroys Romney's Health Care Argument

Mitt Romney has defended his expensive, ineffective, coercive health care program by stating that while he had hoped each state government would do to its citizens what he did to Massachusetts, other states were ultimately free to reject his approach.

When Obama copied Romney's plan and the Democrats forced the controversial ObamneyCare health insurance scheme on all 57 states, Romney hastened to declare that his godawful plan was intended for one state and one state only:

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another.

[emphasis added]

Now Obama has undermined Romney's flimsy argument:

In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories. 

The move would allow significant variations in benefits from state to state, much like the current differences in state Medicaid programs and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Obama's shrewd move is in perfect sync with Romney's purported values, allowing each state to experiment with crony health care statism in its own way.

Obama's community occupiers are not impressed:

The first thing you note is that this move is one more step towards Mitt Romney, who argues that RomneyCare might be fine for Massachusetts, but each state should be free to decide for itself how best to provide health coverage — or not.  The White House political geniuses ... apparently think moving towards Mitt’s incoherent position will leave one less reason to vote against Mr. Obama; others might conclude it’s one less reason to vote for him.

Obama's loyal minions are missing the point.  This is an easily reversible move that has one very important immediate consequence: It neuters Mitt Romney:

By giving states the discretion to specify essential benefits, the Obama administration sought to deflect one of the most powerful arguments made by Republican critics of President Obama’s health care overhaul — that it was imposing a rigid, bureaucrat-controlled health system on Americans and threatening the quality of care. Opponents say that the federal government is forcing a one-size-fits-all standard for health insurance and usurping state authority to regulate the industry.

 [emphasis added]

The Obama administration temporarily lends some of its newly-acquired health care power to the states while stealthfully destroying Mitt Romney's weak but crucially important argument on health care reform...

That's very clever.


Update (12.18.11): Prediction...

Obama will make full use of this in his campaign.

Update II: Edited for clarity.

Romney vs Newt in a nutshell...

Two moderate, big-government Republicans:

...one a bland businessman from an extremely blue state who used his power as governor to implement an expensive, coercive health insurance program...

...the other a controversial pedagogue from a red state who used his power as Speaker of the House to implement welfare reform.

Update:

“Romney’s signature achievement was Romneycare, while Gingrich’s signature achievement was welfare reform.” But, last night, I had a thought that tipped the balance in Romney’s favor. Both Romney and Gingrich have betrayed conservatism. But Romney’s betrayals came in a liberal state surrounded by liberals.

In the White House, Romney would be surrounded by beltway insiders and the liberal press, comfortably insulated from tea party pressure and red state heat.

How's that gonna play out?

Truth in Error

Team Obama: Give The Gift of Spite This Christmas

In a nasty fundraising effort for Barack Obama, OFA has sunken to an incredible new low, recommending spiteful Christmas gifts for conservatives:

Friend -- 

Everyone's got that special conservative in their life. 

Maybe it's your dad, who forwards you every chain email about the President's birth certificate, or your neighbor, who just put up a Mitt Romney sign. 

Dealing with these folks can be ... frustrating. 

This holiday season, we're giving you a chance to have a little bit of fun at their expense. Let a Republican in your life know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign -- chip in $3 or more today. 

When you give to the campaign, simply enter your Republican friend's email address and they'll get a note letting them know that they motivated you to donate -- which will surely make their day. 

Not only that, but when you donate today, you'll be entered to win a chance to have dinner with the President and First Lady. Just picture how good it'll feel to let your honoree know about those dinner plans... 

Give your conservative friends the gift of knowing they've inspired you to donate. After all, actions speak louder than words. 

Please donate $3 or more today: 

https://donate.barackobama.com/Your-Inspiration 

Thanks, 

Julianna 

Julianna Smoot
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America 

P.S. -- Really want to fire up your GOP friends? Buy them a gift from the 2012 store. I recommend the birther mugs -- they get the message across pretty well.

Even on Christmas, Obama wants supporters to find conservatives and "get in their faces."

This is NOT a joke: via email (screenshot)

Ron Paul: 9/11 Prompted "Glee" in Bush Admin... Update: "There was a lot of pleasure..."

Ron Paul apes the paranoid left:

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because, 'Now we can invade Iraq.'"

This lends credence to those who say that Ron Paul is a neoliberal crank.

Update: (via Freedom's Lighthouse) Conservative radio host Mark Levin blasts Ron Paul for saying there was “glee” in the George W. Bush Administration following the September 11 Attacks on the United States...

Update II:

Ron Paul doubles down (starting at 5:17)...

Kelley: Do you really believe, Congressman, that there was "glee" in the Bush administration after 3,000 American citizens died?

Paul: They might not describe it that way, but there was a lot of pleasure...

Update III: Linked at Proof Positive!

At Some Point You've Been Subsidized Enough

Image via IowaDawg

I have to disagree with our good friend at The Lonely Conservative on this idea from the Wall Street Journal:

It’s so ironic that President Obama goes out on the stump day in and day out bashing the wealthy while providing them with subsidies that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Stephen Moore and Walter Williams propose The Millionaire Subsidy Elimination Act. Their intention isn’t to bash millionaires, and they aren’t calling for higher taxes – only an end to the transfer of wealth to those who don’t need it. Unfortunately, it’s a bipartisan problem.

The much bigger fiscal drain from the wealthy is on the federal expenditure side of the budget ledger: tens of billions each year in grants, loans, subsidies, guarantees and benefits pocketed each year by wealthy Americans as individuals and firms. Any campaign to downsize big government will only succeed if the needed deep cuts in spending are deemed by voters as equitable. In an era of $1 trillion-plus deficits and a $15 trillion national debt, we would like to think that a national consensus could be reached to eliminate handouts to individuals and companies with net incomes above $1 million.

[snip]

Last month Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) put out a report, “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,” that identified tens of billions of dollars of handouts to the wealthy. His report included farm payments under government programs to rock stars like Bruce Springsteen and former professional athletes like Scottie Pippen.

Rather than stand up against all this, Republicans recently allowed the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee home mortgages of up to $750,000. Not many in the bottom 99% can afford such homes.

[emphasis mine]

Sorry, I’m not keen on this idea.

The weird and perverse consequences of implicit marginal tax rates (income plus subsidies minus taxes) are already bad enough. Let’s not make them worse.

And let’s remember that people with high incomes aren’t always “rich” -- and wealthy people sometimes have low incomes.

End government subsides? Yes.

Target some arbitrary income bracket for poetic justice? No.

This comes dangerously close to Obama's “At some point you’ve made enough money" mentality.

Walter Williams is usually right on target. I’m surprised he has adopted the language of the Occutards to promote this idea.

We need to get away from the idea that government-funded “grants, loans, subsidies, guarantees and benefits” are appropriate in any form, even when they’re selectively redistributed like Marxist candy to the middle class. From that point of view, The Millionaire Subsidy Elimination Act falls woefully short.

Recommended reading:

The Dead Zone: The Implicit Marginal Tax Rate

Look who pays for the bailout: Meet the Henrys

Poor or Low-Income?

2012 Republican Caucuses and Primaries

An outline of the Republican caucuses and primaries in 2012, with other helpful information below, via UVA Center for Politics:

An Advantage for Newt Gingrich via Google Ngram Viewer

Perhaps this illustrates the obvious, but I think this graph is an interesting way to look at one of Newt Gingrich's advantages (Newt in blue):

(larger graph)

Google Ngram Viewer doesn't go beyond 2008, but that might be just as well. Scanning the massive database at Google books for use of the Republican presidential candidates' names in this time frame, we get an indication of the relative size of the candidates' footprints at the starting line, before any of them began running for president officially.

For comparison, I included John McCain below (note... Gingrich changed to red):

(larger graph)

For greater perspective, I made a graph with Gingrich, Romney, McCain, Clinton and Reagan (Reagan in red in this one; time frame goes back to 1970):

(larger graph)

It's fascinating to note that Bill Clinton never really eclipsed Ronald Reagan, even while Clinton was still in office and Reagan had been out of office for a decade.

It's also interesting to note Reagan's curve prior to 1980 vs Clinton's prior to 1992 and Newt's prior to 2008.

Update: I almost forgot to include a graph with Barry O (Newt in Green):

(larger graph)

Of course we shouldn't try to read to much into all this (Google's Ngram Viewer is not without certain limitations), but the graphs provoke thought nonetheless.

Update II: Intro to Google Ngram Viewer...

Update III: Interesting words and phrases on Ngram Viewer...

• Liberty
• Republic (vs republic)
• Happy Holidays
• Flower Power
• Make love not war
• Compassionate Conservative
• Morning in America
• The Gipper
• Kinder, gentler
• Neoconservative
• Neoliberal
• gay marriage
• civil union vs gay marriage
• homosexual
• homosexual marriage
• landfill
• dioxin
• hole in the ozone
• ozone layer vs landfill
• climate change vs global warming
• illegal aliens vs illegal immigrants vs undocumented immigrants
• nuclear war
• Creator vs creator
• George Romney vs Mitt Romney

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Liberty%2Cliberty&year_start=1060&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

A State of Constant Fear

Image: Fellowship of the Minds

Remember this?

“…find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear…”

Herman Cain did not just fall, he was pushed.


There's a lesson to be learned.  Herman Cain went after the left with gusto.  Remember this?

In New Hampshire on Thursday, Cain accused the [OWS] protesters of "trying to destroy the greatest nation in the world..."

Going back a bit further, remember this?

Herman Cain, who has already formed a presidential exploratory committee for the next election cycle, alleged "stupid people are ruining America" on Friday at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference. 

"It's sad," he said in a speech at the annual event before going on to take aim at the left side of the political spectrum. "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country..."

If you keep talking like that, you're going to pay a price.

Remember this?

"What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left."

Herman Cain never stopped attacking the left. He paid the price for that. Too few on the right were willing to defend him. They knew they would have paid a price too.

What happened to Herman Cain is what the Democrats intend to do to whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be. They know they can’t win a debate on the economy or on President Obama’s record, so they will do everything they can to distract the voters’ attention from those matters, which should be decisive, and instead turn the focus to the GOP candidate and his or her alleged foibles.

More on that here and here.

I never expected Herman Cain to win the nomination. His biggest surge in the polls was much more than I ever anticipated.

But I like Herman, and before the Cain Train crashed, I had hoped Cain might finish strong enough to emerge as someone's running mate.  With Cain's charismatic and persuasive attacks on left-wing statism, the Jounolistas of the MSM could not afford to allow anything of the sort.


Your favorite candidate might be next.  Are you ready?

I Found The Path To Victory...

...and you can too!

I found a cool website that allows the user to tinker around with the states to configure any number of potential election scenarios.  The map is shown with 2012's electoral view in a tie, with Obama states in blue and Generic Republican states in red.

You can click on the map flip states to Republican red or Democrat blue depending on what you think might happen with any given match-up.  States also can be flipped to neutral so you can account for potential toss-ups.

Perhaps most importantly, the tally for the electoral college changes in real time as you make changes.

For deeper analysis, you can compare with previous years' results (e.g. 2004 and 2000).

When you're done, you can share your map with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc. with easy-to-use buttons on the page.

Here's my map for a narrow win for John Q. Generic Republican (with the map's URL below the image):

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=etB (revised 12.16.11)


I think more than one of the Republicans running for president could pull off something like this, don't you?

If you want to share your own generic or candidate-specific map with the rest of us, I'll post it below...


PS: This chart is very helpful.

UPDATE: John wants to think big. Very, very big:

Is Mitt Romney Re-electable?

Romney's disapproval ratings (click to enlarge)

For reasons that have not been explained well to me, Mitt Romney has been assumed to be a highly electable candidate for the office of the president of the United States.

Thankfully, some people are beginning to scrutinize that assumption.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Romney can win the GOP nomination and then go on to beat Barack Obama. That would lead us to another important question: Is Mitt Romney re-electable?

Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts would raise some concern about that question. You see, Mitt Romney only served one term as governor, and looking at the precipitous drop in his approval ratings might cause one to wonder whether Romney would know how to get himself re-elected.

Mitt Romney won the Massachusetts gubernatorial election in 2002 with less than 50% of the vote (49.77%). With an underwhelming victory of that magnitude, it's no wonder Romney chose not to run for re-election.

Romney might have us believe that he could have won a second term if he had wanted it, but by the time Massachusetts voters had picked Romney's Democratic replacement in November of 2006, Romney's approval ratings were down to the low 30s and his disapproval ratings were as high as 65 percent!

Among all of the governors in the 50 states, Mitt was ranked #48 in popularity.

Why is Mitt Romney considered a safe choice for the GOP nomination?

Worst Recovery Since The Depression, $1T Down The Drain

Image: Victoria Taft

As usual, the government's "cure" turns out to be worse than the disease:

...the CBO now says it's possible that the stimulus had virtually no meaningful effect on growth and employment despite its massive price tag. 

All this comes after the CBO increased that price tag to $825 billion from its initial $787 billion — a 5% hike. 

Adding insult to injury, the new report also says the stimulus will hurt economic growth in the long run because of "the resulting increase in government debt." Each dollar of additional debt, it reports, "crowds out about a third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital."

[emphasis added]

"Occupy Black Friday" Rage: Haters Gonna Hate

OC Register

The Other McCain explains the intellectual deficiencies and irrational hate upon which "Occupy Black Friday" is founded:

...why should Occupiers focus on Wal-Mart? Why not Sears, Best Buy, Target, Costco, or Dollar General? Aren’t all of those “corporations”? Aren’t they offering Black Friday specials? Aren’t the stockholders and executives of those companies as avidly in search of profits as Wal-Mart? Isn’t it only Wal-Mart’s spectacular success that makes them an especial focus of anti-capitalist rage? 

[snip] 

Why Wal-Mart? Because the Occupiers are ignorant, that’s why. Their arguments against capitalism appeal to the worst emotions — envy and self-pity — of people who fail under the free-enterprise system because they haven’t made the effort to understand the free-enterprise system.

READ THE REST

If Wal-Mart Occupiers want to start a civil discussion about the Fifth Amendment, or if they want to complain about the injustice of ObamaCare and other such foolishness, I might start listening to what they have to say. Until then, they should get out of the way.

Mitt Rewrites The History of RomneyCare

If you like this video please share it on Facebook, Twitter, your blog or via email:

Mitt Romney hasn't been compelled to defend his record on health care. Now is the time to make that happen. Voters will be going to the primaries and the caucuses in just a few weeks.

If you learned something from this video, help me get the word out!

*Learn more about RomneyCare here, every fact presented in the video (and much more) is addressed in detail with numerous links: http://is.gd/RomneyCare

RELATED: Only about 30% of Republican voters say they know enough about RomneyCare to have an opinion.

x-posted

UPDATE: Linked by Smitty at The Other McCain! Thank you.

UPDATE II: Linked by Pundit and Pundette! Thanks.

UPDATE III: Linked at Rational Nation USA. Thanks!

UPDATE IV: Video posted at American Power. Thank you!

UPDATE V: Tweeted by Legal Insurrection, Ryan WN Garcia, Monica G, Yun Sun Cho, Ric and Richard McEnroe. Thanks!

UPDATE VI: Video posted at BBCW and Dueling Barstools, thanks, Clay and Ryan!

UPDATE VII: Posted (with pithy commentary) at The Humble Libertarian. Thanks, Wes.

UPDATE VIII: Posted at NotMittRomney.com. Thanks, Ali!

Newt: Go to Church, Pay Taxes, Get Amnesty (VIDEO)

It's a simple formula: Go to church, pay some taxes ... get your amnesty!

Bonus points for having grandchildren and for breaking the law for at least 25 years:

If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.

I smell a straw man.

Here's a longer clip for context.

When Newt Gingrich gave his pro-amnesty opinion, I fired off a few tweets:

Who knew that you can't enforce laws if it will inconvenience families? There are lot of people in jail who apparently didn’t get that memo.

The Lonely Conservative calls it "Newt's Heartless Moment," referring to Rick Perry's famous anti-enforcement gaffe.

On the plus side, the MSM will probably reward Newt by cutting back on the smears for a couple of days. (UPDATE: Within two hours of the debate's end, the fawning begins.)

"He's a good little Newt!"

UPDATE II: Gingrich mentioned the Krieble Foundation's "Red Card Solution."

More of Newt's immigration statement:

Should Mitt Romney Switch Parties?

The one-term wonder from the People's Republic of Massachusetts doesn't like to, uh, win -- at least not when it comes to beating Democrats:


Gee, Mitt, are you worried that "victory" over Democrats evokes the notion of Jimmy Carter surrendering the White House to Ronald Reagan in 1980? I know you don't want to emulate Reagan, but how far will you go with that attitude?

Folks, the weak-kneed Romney we see today is the toughest Romney we'll ever know. After he wins the GOP nomination, he'll be back at the campfire singing Kumbaya with Democrats faster than you can say "ObamaCare."

If the GOP wants a man in the White House who will compromise with Democrats even before the negotiating begins, Romney is the one.

Hat tip: Legal Insurrection

The Tea Party Budget

I haven't examined the details, but this topline graph is intriguing:

Let's take a look at this.

Via Instapundit

Newt Gingrich & Herman Cain Go Way Back

As Gingrich signals an interest in a Newt/Cain or Cain/Newt ticket, it's interesting to note that Gingrich and Herman have a history that goes back at least 16 years:

Among the personalities and books and events that have “influenced” or “changed” or “left an indelible impression on” the thinking of the Hon. Newton Leroy Gingrich... are, by his own accounts, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Isaac Asimov, Alexis de Tocqueville, Tom Clancy, Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent, Robert Walpole, William Gladstone, Gordon Wood, Peter Drucker... “the great leader of Coca-Cola for many years, Woodruff,” an Omaha entrepreneur named Herman Cain (“who’s the head of Godfather Pizza, he’s an African-American who was born in Atlanta and his father was Woodruff’s chauffeur”)...

OWS Only 99% as Popular as Public Defecation & Tuberculosis

Public defecation, rapes, theft, tuberculosis, arson ... these are a few of the wonderful things that have grown from the militant left wing "Occupy" movement (a wave of protests infamously celebrated by Barack Obama and Princess Pelosi.)  Surprisingly, -- wink, wink -- the filth, violence and disease is less popular than crowds of middle-aged tax payers standing around in patriotic garb complaining about politicians:

...asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43–37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40–37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable — from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43–34, to siding with the Tea Party 44–40.

As usual, the Democrats at PPP who came up with these numbers have buffered the bad news with what appears to be a liberal slant...

The PPP poll included an excessive number of liberals (27%).  Gallup puts libs at only 21%

Also of note, the PPP poll had fewer moderates (31%) compared with Gallup (36%).

Liberals should probably be happy that the OWS protesters are "drowning out" their own message. Their incoherent anti-American left wing agenda is probably only about 99% as popular as human waste.



UPDATE... VIDEO: Tea Party vs OWS (via Nice Deb) ...

Coming to Grips With Grim Reality

My thoughts on the grim reality of the 2012 elections, as initiated in an online discussion:

Yes, we're in trouble. When we elected Obama, I almost gave up hope. That Obama's approval numbers still aren't in the low teens concerns me greatly.  And I get no comfort from the current state of the GOP.  The Republican party is unprincipled and rotten to the core. 

Republicans haven't learned the hard lessons of 2006 and 2008 because they don't want to learn them.  They LOVE watered-down statism. And they present themselves as little more than a semi-competent alternative to the socialist buffoonery of the Democrat party. 

I don't know what the current crop of Republicans will do for us...except maybe they'll slow down the rate of destruction just a little bit. 

So here we are, probably stuck with Mitt, Perry, Cain or Newt. 

As far as I'm concerned, Mitt's a moderate Democrat. Where I live, Democrats are often more conservative than he is.  What's the point in replacing a Dem with a Dem? 

Same analysis for Al Gore's old buddy, Rick Perry. He'd make a fine Democrat governor in my state.  With hair so pretty, Rick Perry is simply a poor man's Mitt Romney with W's southern drawl.   

What about the Hermanator? 

Cain is Cain. WYSIWYG. His heart seems to be in the right place most of the time. But I'm no longer willing to try to believe that he's "in it to win it," as he so often tells himself. 

I'm convinced that Cain is as at least as intelligent and competent as Barack Obama -- and he can communicate at least as well off tele-prompter -- but unless he develops the communication skills of a Ronald Reagan and a mastery of the issues comparable to that of Newt Gingrich, there's no way the Obama MSM won't annihilate him on the way to the White House.  There's just too much at stake.  If the Democrat party stands to lose even 25% of the black vote, Whig-esque oblivion will be just around the corner. 

That brings us to Gingrich, the "not Romney" du jour. 

Gingrich is a big-government moderate with some conservative tendencies.  He can be an idiot, but at least he always knows what he's talking about. And I think a conservative Republican congress could keep him in check.  That might not be easy, but it's probably doable. 

My biggest worry with Newt is that he seems to yearn for approval from the wrong people.  So he'll be too easily influenced by the Journolist MSM.  But I've been slightly reassured by his willingness to attack the media lately.  We'll see how long that lasts. 

Anyway, I think the smart money is on Romney or Newt at this point. My apologies to anyone who has their heart set on other candidates, but I don't think any of them will make it.  I'll eat my hat if they do. Mark my words.

Having said all that, and having gone on record as being adamantly opposed to Mitt the centrist socialist, I'm beginning to lean to Newt at this point.  Yes, he sucks lemons -- and he's only modestly better than Romney -- but I'll take what I can get. Mike Pence and Nikki Haley aren't running this year.

What do you think?

UPDATE: I think Jacobson is generally correct here.

Brain Freeze: Can We Trust This Man to Run The Country?

There's been a lot of talk about brain freezes in the news lately. Can we trust brain-frozen politicians with the world's most important work?

Rush Limbaugh:

We got the Iranians with nukes. We got Occupy Wall Street. We got an economy going to hell in a handbasket. We got Fast and Furious. We got the attorney general saying, "I'm not gonna apologize," and then he writes an apology letter and shows it to the media first. And this is the lead item on ABC's World News Tonight complete with a look at the science that explains show stopping brain freeze, which translates me, "Okay, we're gonna show you official science about why Rick Perry is an absolute blooming idiot. And we're not gonna have to say it. We're gonna get a scientist in here to say it for you so that you have no doubt that this guy is a stupid, dumb idiot. The lead item on ABC's World News Tonight. And when they finally got to the report by reporter John Berman, he mentions three politicians in addition to Perry who also look stupid, who all happen to be Republicans.

(emphasis added)

Inevitable Nominee Falls to #3

What does it say about a candidate when he can only muster third place in the polls after running for five years? With only seven weeks until the Iowa caucuses, this is how it's shaping up for Mitt Romney:

Cain leads the field with 20 percent but is in a statistical dead heat with Gingrich, who gets 19 percent. Romney gets 14 percent.

Only 9% say they're "definitely" voting for Romney.

Beautiful Video From NotMittRomney.com #tcot

This is beautiful on many levels. The end is devastating. Watch:

Ali Akbar rocks! Check out NotMittRomney.com now.

Hat tip: LCR

Erick Erickson's Scathing Post on Mitt Romney

Go ahead: Ask Mitt anything because he'll tell you just what you want to hear
Graphic c/o ExposeMittRomney.com

Cross-posted from the Left Coast Rebel

The truth hurts. Mitt Romney stinks and is no conservative. And it's not that I am still debating whether he is a liberal or a Country-Club republican; it's that he simply stands for nothing and says whatever needs to be said to whatever group wants to hear.

And you know where standing for nothing gets us during these perilous times: more, more, more socialism like we see today. It is the path that Washington has thrust upon the nation and someone with no convictions or core will simply continue that trajectory.

This is something that us Tea Partiers (and indies, libertarians and conservatives) fear the most about the man: unlike Reagan and the tea party candidates elected last year, he has no core.

On this note, RedState's head cheese Erick Erickson lists most of the reasons that have brought us to this conclusion, writing:

Should Mitt Romney win the Presidency, conservatives will find this pattern play out repeatedly. Romney will head in a direction conservatives do not like and they will bitch and moan repeatedly and maybe, just maybe, he’ll part his hair in their direction.

Scathing.

More:

Mitt Romney is not the George W. Bush of 2012 — he is the Harriet Miers of 2012, only conservative because a few conservative grand pooh-bahs tell us Mitt Romney is conservative and for no other reason.
That is precisely why Mitt Romney will not win in 2012. But no worry, once he loses, Republican establishment types will blame conservatives for not doing enough for Mitt Romney, never mind that Mitt Romney has never been able to sell himself to more than 25% of the GOP voters. It’s not his fault though, it is the 75%’s fault.

The worst of it. Meet Mitt running for president, aka Mitt Inc.:

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.
I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.

But, something that I disagree with:

Conservatism is already dying. Republicans on Capitol Hill are about to raise taxes on the American people with this Super Committee, but they’ll say they are just “raising revenue,” not taxes. Conservatives will give them a pass as they have on virtually every other major issue. Conservatives keep giving passes to people who shouldn’t be given passes because conservative in Washington have been there so long, they’d much rather get invited to the cocktail parties and avoid awkward encounters.

I don't think that conservatism is dying. In fact, the ethos of self reliance, responsibility, the abundance of free markets and the founding concepts of this nation (like the banner at the top of this site) have never been more desired by the public. It's the republican party that is dying (and has been since the end of Reagan's presidency). There's is a big difference: The republican party is not conservatism. If anything (as you see with leadership such as statist John Boehner and the other clowns in leadership positions), the party has done almost irreversible damage to the conservative political cause. For they tell conservative America what they want to hear (to get elected) then do the precise opposite and offer the nation no true alternative to the socialist democrats.

In other words, the legacy of "conservative" George W. Bush.

Erickson sees this too:

Washington, D.C. conservatives will also rally around Mitt Romney, just as they kept doing over and over and over with George W. Bush even after steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the GM Bailout, and TARP. At some point the public will cease taking conservatives seriously when the most prominent conservatives — those in Washington who pose as the faces, voices, and writers of the conservative movement at large, keep throwing their lot in with a guy who keeps selling out the very principles conservatives claim to hold dear.

Unfortunately, Erickson's conclusion is laughable at best:

I’m starting to think I need to walk it back on my rejection of Jon Huntsman. Because I’m starting to think even he would be more faithful in his conservative convictions than Mitt Romney.

Then again, he may have a point: perhaps even John Huntsman would be more faithful in his convictions than Mitt Romney. And that is truly pathetic.

Check out NotMittRomney.com and spread the word. Head over to RightKlik for more on the pretzel candidate.

Via Memeorandum.

Herman Cain Discusses Sex Flap on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!'

FWIW (see discussion below video):

Not exactly what I'd expect from a guilty man. But let's keep an open mind. What's Sharon Bialek side of the story? Here's how I understand it. Correct me where I'm wrong:

Boy meets girl and her boyfriend.

Boy invites girl and her boyfriend to party.

Girl and boyfriend go to the party.

Girl loses job.

Boyfriend tells girl to call boy (boy can pull strings?)

Girl calls boy to meet for coffee.

Boy meets girl for coffee.

Boy gets creepy with girl.

Girl says to buzz off.

Creepy boy buzzes off.

Thirteen or fourteen years fly by.

Creepy boy runs for president!

Girl seeks out creepy boy for personal confrontation.

Creepy boy seems creeped out.

Rumors percolate.

Girl pursues justice, tells world all about creepy boy.

Girl's explanation:

I’m all about doing the right thing, about justice being served. I wanted to do this because those that know me, know I don’t back down from controversy and things. I felt I needed to do this for the other women that couldn’t or wouldn’t regardless of what happens And I know you’re right. There’s going to be a lot of backlash and I’m going to have to suffer through that. And I’m sure that I’m not going to be portrayed as you know, different things. So, um, I’m willing to handle it. I’m a tough girl.

Related: Bialek accusations, assuming they are true, in no way vindicate Politico

The Race Card: To Play or Not To Play?

William Jacobson makes the case for not playing the race card, arguing that when conservatives play the race card, it only emboldens and encourages the professional race card players of the Left, ultimately giving the Left more ammunition.

Here is my response:

I suppose “not playing the race card” means that the player refrains from making accusations indiscriminately. I assume that we always want to call the Left out when they are really indulging in [unambiguous] racism and bigotry.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, you’ve made a good case for not making race-based accusations willy nilly.

On the other hand, I’m not sure if there’s anything we can do to get the Left to play the race card less. And our restraint becomes our vulnerability.

If we outlaw the race card, only outlaws will have the race card.

Sometimes you fight fire with fire.

I’d also note that if everyone plays the race card all the time, at some point people become more skeptical — à la The Boy Who Cried Wolf. And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing (e.g., as we’ve seen with skepticism over sex harassment charges).

What do you think?

Dan Reihl Goes Hysterical Over Herman Cain Flap

Ninety Herman Cain stories (and counting) since Sunday night, and what does Politico have to show for it? This, for one:

...that so many conservatives, driven by nothing more than negative emotions, would allow themselves to be drawn in by a jive talking huckster with silly cobbled together at the last minute plans designed more for pizza box sloganeering, than governing a great nation, is embarrassing...

This isn't a serious political movement right now, it's a clown show, one with which I'm coming to resent being affiliated...

I'd rather sit out 2012, than join in that humiliation that speaks to little more than the conservative movement's current bankruptcy when it comes to a serious and viable political leadership.

Alinsky Rule 5 success!

Dan, you're overreacting. Not a single vote has been cast yet. The voters are still vetting Herman Cain. They're still vetting Mitt Romney for that matter. Over 70% of Republican voters don't know enough about Romneycare to render an opinion. How many years has Romney been running now? And yet we're supposed to think that the Conservative Movement is crumbling because conservatives are still intrigued by the fresh face in the crowd?

Herman Cain: Bellwether

Despite the fact that he's has been embroiled in scandal and controversy all week, Herman Cain still leads in the polls. And he's raising loads of money.

How is this possible?

Herman Cain has never held elective office, he struggles to explain his positions on important issues, and he's met with derision from powerful commentators on the left and the right.

Why has he continued to rise?

Perhaps Cain is exactly the sort of candidate we should have expected this election cycle.

For the past several years, the American voter has rebuked the political establishment at almost every opportunity. Republicans were punished in 2006, and again in 2008 -- and this was followed by a swift kick in the teeth for the Democrats in 2009 and 2010.

Along the way we've wrestled with The Combine over candidates like Sharron Angle and Arlen Specter at one end of the spectrum and Marco Rubio and Lisa Murkowski at the other end.

Of all people, perhaps Chris Matthews captured the sentiment best with this bit of commentary a few weeks before the 2010 elections:

I saw the strength of the flames that consumed him and will consume many others this rapidly approaching election night. I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn't know it would come from the right and center.

2010 could be the first year in modern times when being in office in Washington and part of Washington is the worst possible credential when facing voters. I don't know how far the fire will burn. Based upon last night's returns, I expect it has a long way to go. It could topple the House and, yes, the U.S. Senate. It could bring the defeat of people who feel even now they are not endangered. It could produce an election night spectacle of name brand politicians standing before stance supporters saying their careers are kaput.

Why is this happening? Because this economic system is failing to produce the security and opportunity people have come to expect in this country. In this middle-class country, the middle class are scared and when people are scared, they get angry. They sense a rot at the top and are ready to chop it off.

If the plan of those in power to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can't vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed -- I expect the voter will say, "Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out there, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down as you have? If that is what you're telling me, that I have no choice, well, Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait -- stay up late election night and see what I have done."

Matthews was right, and it appears that the spirit of 2010 has not yet passed. Our elite politicians and pundits have lost credibility. Americans are marching to the beat of their own drums now.

Whether he wins or loses in the end, Herman Cain is a bellwether for the prevailing anti-establishment attitude.

RELATED: Legal Insurrection

x-posted at LCR