Conservative Whining About Mitt Romney

The "true conservative" wing of the GOP is constantly whining about Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate, despite polls regularly showing that he has the best chance of anyone running to defeat President Obama. The latest is an article from Erick Erickson, with the ridiculous title of "Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins." Obviously conservatism isn't going to die whether or not Obama wins. Here's Erickson,

Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process.

So far Romney has appeared to be the most competent GOP candidate.

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.

So is Obama, and his election disproves Erickson's assertion.

To beat Barack Obama, a candidate must paint a bold contrast with the Democrats on their policies. When Mitt Romney tries, Barack Obama will be able to show that just the other day Mitt Romney held exactly the opposite position as the one he holds today.

Voters may not like Barack Obama, but by the time Obama is done with Romney they will not trust Mitt Romney. And voters would rather the guy they don’t like than they guy they don’t trust.

This is another weak argument. There are plenty of issues on which voters don't necessarily want a "bold contrast" on policy positions, they just want to see competent leadership. I think Romney's flip-flopping on issues is much more important to the GOP conservative base that views him as a RINO, than it will be to the general public. The general public isn't looking for a true conservative. Erickson goes on to argue why Romney is so bad for conservatism at large, arguments which I find unconvincing at best.

For someone that is supposed to be a political expert, it is strange that Erickson -- like many other conservatives -- doesn't seem to grasp that almost all presidential elections are not about who is the greatest choice, but who is the lesser of two evils. We have a two party system with two huge parties that both embrace a wide variety of views. Their nominees almost never please every faction and viewpoint within the party on every issue. As Republicans, we vote GOP because overall we expect Republican policies to be better than Democratic ones, even if a particular candidate isn't much to our liking. Furthermore, we have to go with the candidates who are available, not some magical candidate that stands for everything we like. If there was a great conservative Republican candidate running who looked like a better bet to beat Obama than Mitt Romney, Erickson's article attacking Romney would make sense. Since there isn't, and since despite everything Erickson says, Romney appears to be the best bet of the current GOP candidates to win, attacking and trying to undermine him is stupid and counterproductive. Conservatives who whine about Mitt Romney and say they won't support him might as well go ahead and vote for Barack Obama, since they'll be doing so by default.

Some conservatives, of course, will not go all in for Romney. These conservatives will be blamed by major Republican and “conservative” mouth pieces for not doing enough to help Mitt Romney. They will be alienated, blamed, and made the scapegoat for the failures of the establishment GOP.

They'll be blamed because they'll deserve the blame for not supporting the GOP candidate. It will have nothing to do with the GOP establishment. That's a total cop-out. We have a nominating process. It's just too bad that the conservative base couldn't put forth a competent electable candidate. If Romney wins the nomination he's the GOP candidate -- period. If you are a Republican who won't support him, you deserve all the blame you get if Obama wins reelection.

What Some Real Cuts in Government Might Look Like

I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I do like his economic plan that calls for cutting 1 trillion in spending in one year, as well as slashing the size of government.

a 10% reduction in the federal work force, ... lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% ... end taxes on personal savings and extend “all Bush tax cuts.” ... also allow U.S. firms to repatriate capital without additional taxes ... Mr. Paul would eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development.

My list of federal departments to be eliminated is similar: Education, Energy and HUD. But I'd shut-down the Department of Homeland Security rather than Commerce and Interior. Unfortunately there is as much chance of these cuts taking place as there is of Ron Paul being elected. The only way something like this will ever happen is if it's forced by some sort of economic collapse.

David Frum on Why He's a Republican

David Frum is much more of a big government Republican than I am, and I strongly disagree with his critique of current GOP positions on the economy. But his article gives some good reasons to be a Republican. Here are his main points with my comments.

The Republicans are the party of American nationalism. ... The flag-and-country themes of the GOP can be kitschy. They also are the indispensable basis of any idea of social cohesion across the vast continent.

He could have thrown in unabashed patriotism and belief in American exceptionalism, as opposed to the fuzzy internationalism of many Democrats.

Republican policies of lower taxes, less regulation, and restrained social spending may be poor medicine for the immediate crisis. But they remain the best formula to support the longer-term growth of the economy – way better than the Democratic preference for high taxes and opportunistic economic interventions.

They aren't poor medicine for the current crisis, but otherwise he's correct. If you want higher taxes, more government bureaucracy, an ever-increasing maze of regulations, greater government interference with the economy, and more hand-outs of taxpayer money, vote Democrat. If you want less you vote Republican.

my preferred approach to federal budgeting starts with national defense. Defense and national security are the supreme priority of the state. Only after fully funding defense can you then worry about the appropriate level of spending for everything else, and the appropriate level and form of taxation to pay for that spending.

Exactly. When government cuts are under discussion Democrats look to cut the most important function of government first, while Republicans look to other less vital areas of government.

I intensely oppose any aid or subsidy to particular companies or firms except in cases of the most extreme national necessity, eg TARP. Solyndra is only the latest example of the zeal of Democratic administrations dating back to Jimmy Carter’s to solve America’s energy problems by inserting government into the business of “picking winners.”

Ok, but the GOP has its own issues in this regard. However, as in most cases, the GOP is the lesser of two evils.

he omnipresent system of racial preferences built since the late 1960s in hope of compensating for the effects of slavery and segregation is not only a moral inequity, but also a practical disaster. ... this system is one of the most basic political commitments of the modern Democratic party.

It also requires that the current effects of racism be exaggerated to justify the continuation of such policies, and creates a whole group of racialist agitators.

real progress on the environment almost always comes under Republican presidents.

I'd say rather that the GOP is a bulwark against radical environmental extremism, whereas significant elements of the Democratic party embrace it.

Public sector unions rank as one of the most important obstacles to the improvement of public services from education to transit. And the Democrats are the party of the public-sector unions.

Absolutely. Public sector unions are a blight on the U.S., and inextricably linked with the Democratic party.

Democrats were wrong on crime from the 1970s through the 1990s, and I’m still mad about it.

Republicans tend to be better on addressing crime, as opposed to making excuses for criminals, or blaming inanimate objects such as guns.

I believe that the elected Prime Minister of Israel is a better judge of Israel’s national security than the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs. Democratic administrations typically seem guided by the opposite theory.

Pretty vague reason. I could come up with a much more substantive distinction between the parties on foreign policy.

the GOP is the party more sympathetic to business concerns and challenges.

Understatement of the year there. As I write this, there are already some Democrats embracing the imbeciles of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, people who out of envy, stupidity and the desire for hand-outs rail against capitalism -- the greatest engine of wealth creation in human history. The GOP has its problems, but they pale in comparison to the fringes of the Democratic party.

Romney's Foreign Policy Speech

Mitt Romney gave a major foreign policy speech at The Citadel. Here are my comments on various parts.

America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.

This is an important point and one I want to hear from any presidential candidate. A strong America is not only good for the world in general, but more importantly it is good for America. I don't want a president who thinks the U.S. should fade into the background while some other power rises to dominance. Romney goes on to give a ringing defense of American Exceptionalism and then lists what he sees as specific threats. All of them require American strength.

there is one unifying thread that connects each of these possible threats: when America is strong, the world is safer.

Ronald Reagan called it “Peace through Strength” and he was never more right than today. It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation of an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies around the world.

American strength rises from a strong economy, a strong defense, and the enduring strength of our values.

He states 4 cores principles on foreign policy: 1. Clarity and resolve on our positions for both friends and enemies. This is something I advocate on a regular basis. 2. Promotion of open markets, representative government and human rights. This is pretty standard stuff, but I'd prefer an emphasis on advancing U.S. interests, and a realization that democracy and the promotion of human rights are not always in our interests depending on the situation. 3. Rapid reaction to events to defuse them before they require military action, and American military supremacy. I like the emphasis on military supremacy, but I'd rather hear that we are going to mind our own business and not feel like we need to interfere all over the world unless it is truly necessary for U.S. interests. 4. U.S. leadership in alliances and international actions/organizations, while retaining the right to act unilaterally. Sounds good.

Romney even lays out some specific actions he would take including strengthening the navy, prioritizing the deployment of a missile defense system, cybersecurity, deterrence against Iran, support for the so-called Arab Spring, a free trade economic policy toward Latin America, a full review of the situation in Afghanistan, greater support for Israel, closer ties with the UK, and talks with Mexico toward cooperation on their drug problems and bilateral security.

I'm in favor of strengthening the navy, our first line of defense and power projection. But as much as I support missile defense, I don't think we can afford it right now. I would not make deployment a priority. I've called for a policy of deterrence vs. Iran, and I'm all for free trade in general. I'd like to hear exactly what he means by supporting the Arab spring. I'm highly skeptical. I strongly support Israel, but don't think we should be increasing foreign aid to anyone any time soon, even allies. In fact, it would have been nice to hear about some cuts in aid, particularly in aid to places with hostile regimes or populations.

Despite my differences, overall this speech reinforces what I already thought about Mitt Romney -- that he is fairly solid on foreign policy.

Conor Friedersdorf Doesn't Know Much About Conservatives

Anyone who has read Conor Friedersdorf's columns at the Atlantic already knows that he's a regular critic of conservatives who doesn't actually know much about them. His latest column, called "The Heresies of Chris Christie," makes that abundantly clear. Regarding Christie's speech at the Reagan library, Friedersdorf writes,

he also made four key assertions that are now heretical within the Republican Party, and the significance of his speech is almost entirely wrapped up in those passages of politely stated dissent.

Unfortunately for his premise, none of those assertions are "heretical" to Republicans.

First, Friedersdorf thinks that political compromise is "anathema" to Republicans, "who regard compromise as tantamount to selling out principle." Republicans are not opposed to reasonable political compromise and never have been. The question is what is reasonable. If the compromise is in fact a selling out of principle, which some compromises are, then yes, many Republicans would oppose that, just as Democrats oppose selling out their principles.

Second, he makes a big deal out of Christie's comments on American Exceptionalism, apparently reading into them much more than was there, and creating a strawman regarding how conservatives might view them. Christie was primarily arguing from an economic perspective that U.S. exceptionalism requires us to lead by example. If our country is a fiscal mess, it ceases to be much of an example to the rest of the world. There are very few conservatives that would take issue with Christie on that point.

Third is more of the same. Christie argues that if America is a mess, and we can't fix our own problems, it lessens our influence. This is not even close to being "heretical" to conservatives, let alone Republicans in general.

And finally, Friedersdorf seizes on this passage,

"We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion," he said. "Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home - foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come."

Very few conservatives would disagree with those points, especially since they can be interpreted various ways, particularly with regard to limiting ourselves to what is in our national interest. There's certainly nothing there that would rise to the level of "heretical."

Friedersdorf has demonstrated on many occasions that he is a poor political analyst. In my opinion he's a pretentious, intellectual lightweight who has nothing more than a simplistic, caricatured view of conservatives and the GOP in general. There are actually plenty of things conservatives don't like about Chris Christie, such as his pro-gun control views, for example. It would be very easy to write an accurate article about why conservatives aren't thrilled with Chris Christie. Others have even done so.

Michele Bachmann's Idiotic Attack on HPV Vaccines

Wouldn't it be nice if public figures learned to keep their mouths shut rather than making blanket statements regarding things they know nothing about? I know that's not going to happen. Here's Michele Bachmann last night on the HPV vaccine. She referred to it as "what potentially could be a very dangerous drug." What is her expertise on evaluating the safety of vaccines?

“I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Fla., after the debate and tell me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter,” Bachmann said.

“It can have very dangerous side effects. The mother was crying when she came up to me last night. I didn’t know who she was before the debate. This is a very real concern, and people have to draw their own conclusion,” she said.

So one uninformed person blames her daughter's vaccination for retardation, and Bachmann takes it on faith and runs with it. I wonder if Michele Bachmann has ever heard that correlation does not imply causation? Does she have any idea how dangerous it is for public figures to discourage people from using vaccines based on unscientific accusations that they cause retardation, autism or other conditions? In reality, there is no evidence that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation, or are any more dangerous than other vaccines, as the linked article points out.

It's one thing to question whether vaccines should be mandated for children of certain ages. It's quite another to hear a story or two and jump to conclusions about something without bothering to get the facts. I haven't been a fan of Michele Bachmann anyway, but this incident lowers my opinion of her even further. Fortunately it is unlikely that she will get the GOP nomination.

Obama Smears Congressional Republicans as Unpatriotic

President Obama used labor day to engage in some demagoguery, and implied that Congressional Republicans are unpatriotic partisans who put their party above the country.

Obama said that with widespread suffering, “the time for Washington games is over” and lawmakers must move quickly to create jobs.

“But we’re not going wait for them,” he said at an annual event sponsored by the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO. “We’re going to see if we’ve got some straight shooters in Congress. We’re going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party.”

Here's a hint Obama, opposing your policies doesn't mean someone isn't putting the country first. The president's remarks are typical of the double standard in politics. Despite the fact that a significant minority of the left is actually unpatriotic or outright anti-American, on the rare occasion that some prominent figure on the right dares point out any example, there will be howls of outrage regarding questioning someone's patriotism. But questioning the patriotism of those on the right when they refuse to sign on with a leftist political agenda is quite alright. If you haven't been paying attention, here are a couple more examples.

The president has a clear record of making things worse. His policies haven't worked, and there is no reason to believe that more of the same will work any better. The best thing Republicans can do for the country is block Obama's proposals and policies, and submit their own instead. Hopefully we can count on the Congressional GOP to do just that and not be swayed by ridiculous attacks.

Much Ado About Nothing -- Gun Raffle Edition

The Pima County Republican Party held a raffle in order to raise money for get-out-the-vote efforts. The raffle prize was a Glock 23 pistol. Raffling off guns is fairly common and normally passes without much reaction, except from the more rabid gun-haters. But in this case Pima county happens to be the same one in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Even though deranged lunatic Jared Loughner shot her, many people appear to think the inanimate object, a similar type of Glock handgun was to blame. Since she was shot with a Glock handgun, the Glock brand must be tainted with evil. How dare those Republicans raffle off the same brand? This just proves how evil Republicans are, or at best, that they are totally insensitive jerks.

To those of us who don't assign some sort of taint to brands of inanimate objects because they happened to be used by killers, this is much ado about nothing. From a purely political perspective, the raffle was a bad idea, precisely because this sort of reaction should have been entirely predictable. But that doesn't mean the reaction is justified, or based on anything more than the usual stupidity regarding guns.

Laughing at the Left - Imaginary GOP Vote Suppression

There's an entirely predictable article in Rolling Stone called, "The GOP War on Voting." It's hard to read it without laughing out loud.

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.

Naturally any good leftist conspiracy theory wouldn't be complete without false accusations of racism. When you read the article you find that the so-called war on voting is entirely imaginary. It consists of, wait for it, requirements that people have proper identification before voting. Isn't that horrifying? The rest of the article rests on the pretense that voter fraud doesn't exist. Since it doesn't exist, we don't need to bother with even the most minimal requirements for identification. Never mind that doing pretty much anything else involving the government requires proof of identity. You have to show an ID just to get into the federal building near where I work. Here in New Jersey, the ID requirements for a drivers license are ridiculously complicated and annoying. But it's just too much to ask that people show an ID before voting. It must be a racist GOP conspiracy to suppress the Democratic vote.

In actuality, the leftists at Rolling Stone want as much voter fraud as possible, because they expect criminals, illegal aliens and anyone else without valid ID to vote Democratic. Since they can't come right out and say that, they have to try and put a new spin on the same tired old propaganda about the GOP suppressing votes.

The GOP's Top Three Contenders

There's a front-page article at the LA Times site that identifies what it calls the GOP's "Top Tier" of candidates: Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. It's still very early and things might change radically, but as of now I agree with the article's premise. Here are my premature thoughts on them as candidates, both for the nomination and the general election.

Michelle Bachmann I think Bachmann has a shot at the nomination, but that her chances fell dramatically with the entry of Perry. On the other hand, I think Bachmann's status as a "true conservative" is rock-solid. If Perry falters, or starts to be seen in a more negative light among the GOP faithful for whatever reasons, Bachmann might surge in front of him.

As for the general election, I have my doubts that Bachmann can win. The demonization has already begun in the media, and her religious and strong social conservative views are going to be a turn-off for many independents. Unlike Perry, she can't balance that out by pointing to her record as the governor of a state with economic success. Her strength there is mainly in the form of ideas and principles, rather than many concrete actions. Like candidate Obama, she's underqualified for the presidency. There are going to be many people who don't want to risk seeing another inexperienced president flounder incompetently for four years. I think Bachmann is a dark horse at best -- at least for now.

Rick Perry. He just got in, but right now I think Perry is the favorite for the nomination. First, he's a governor. Like Romney he has the executive experience and record to run on. Second, unlike Romney, he isn't seen as a squishy Republican too close to things like Obamacare. Third, barring some sort of drastic changes before the election, the economy is the number one issue. Perry can point to actual results from his policies in Texas. I think he's acceptable to the base, certainly more so than Romney, and the perception that he has a better chance to win should give him the edge over Bachmann. But it's real early for him. There's no doubt that Democrats and the Democratic-biased media (and probably GOP competitors too) are already frantically digging for things that damage Perry. As we learn more, his position could change dramatically.

My first impression is that Perry is a strong candidate in the general election. But I see one big problem. Bush Derangement Syndrome is still strong in the U.S. Is it too early to elect another GOP governor from Texas that can be painted as Bush-like? It might be. If he gets the nomination I expect a full-on effort from Democrats to portray him as another Bush, but even worse. I can see that strategy working to keep Obama in the White House.

Mitt Romney. Romney's advantages in the nomination are his money and the possibility that the GOP establishment might decide that it's his turn. But his base support is weak. Many hardcore Republicans do not view him as very conservative. On the other hand, he's tested as a candidate. It's unlikely that any scandal or other disqualifying revelation is going to knock him out of the race. He might get it by default as the most solid, serious candidate. He might also get the nomination by the John McCain path, winning big in open primaries and gaining unstoppable momentum, especially if Bachmann, Perry and some of the lesser candidates split the hardcore GOP vote.

Of the three I think Romney is the most electable in the general election. He projects competence and leadership in contrast to Obama, and is fairly moderate and able to appeal to independents fed-up with the last four years. I don't think he's a lock to win though. Obama isn't good at much, but he is good at raising money and getting elected. Whichever GOP candidate emerges is probably in for a tough fight.

Good Advice From Fred Thompson

Former senator Fred Thompson has some good advice for the House GOP in the debt-limit situation. He's a little premature in declaring victory, since nothing has been agreed upon, but he believes that Republicans have forced a situation where Democrats will have no choice but to agree to some cuts, without tax increases, in order to raise the debt ceiling. Here's the key advice at the end of his open letter.

We will never achieve entitlement or tax reform with a doctrinaire liberal in the White House. Any agreements to do so in “out years” would probably be unenforceable even if agreement were achieved. And we can only do so much while controlling one half of one branch of government. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House Republicans, you have laid some great groundwork to rectify both of those situations. Now it is the time to accept a well-won victory and move on.

I think he's exactly right. Block tax increases, get some spending cuts, and raise the debt ceiling to avoid default and/or credit rating downgrade. With Obama in the White House, and Democrats controlling the Senate, grandiose reform plans that really address the deficit & the debt are just not feasible. Democrats do not want to cut spending. They want to spend more. Republican focus right now should be to block Obama from further increasing the size of government and its spending, and on the 2012 elections. Serious fiscal reform will require a Republican president and more Republicans in Congress.

Reality vs. Democratic Scare Tactics

In the past I've repeatedly laughed at those who accused the GOP of so-called "fearmongering," and pointed out that scaring voters with worst-case scenarios (and outright falsehoods) is a standard political tactic used by both sides. We've seen dishonest scare-tactics used repeatedly by Democrats in the struggle over the debt ceiling, with the most dramatic being President Obama's attempt to make seniors believe that might not get their social security checks because of those evil, irresponsible Republicans. Scaring seniors is a time-honored Democratic political move.

There's an excellent article at Reason.com by Veronique de Rugy called, "The Facts About the Debt Ceiling." It counteracts the myths being spread point by point. The bottom line is that the U.S. can use various fiscal maneuvering to stave off a default, even if an agreement isn't reached. The August 2 deadline is arbitrary. Eventually there has to be an agreement, the debt ceiling has to be raised, or spending has to be cut dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that despite the GOP's valiant stand, the last option is the least likely.

The Myth of Republican Intransigence on the Debt Ceiling

The Democratic narrative is that Republicans are being intransigent and unreasonable regarding the debt ceiling. This myth is debunked in a good article by Michael D. Tanner called, "The Intransigent Meet the Unserious."

Republicans have clearly drawn a line in the sand, opposing any tax increase. But Democrats have been even more unbending, resisting any serious structural reform of entitlements or deep spending cuts, while insisting on huge tax hikes as part of any deal.

There is no reason that a deal on raising the debt ceiling has to include tax hikes -- other than Democratic insistence. In addition, the planned cuts aren't even that significant, yet Democrats still demand tax hikes.

the deal that the Republicans are currently offering would actually allow federal revenue, federal spending, and the national debt all to increase over the next decade. They have abandoned structural changes to entitlement programs — anything like Paul Ryan's Medicare reform is off the table — and appear to have dropped calls for a balanced-budget amendment or a spending cap.

This is radical? This is intransigence? If only.

The whole article is worth reading as a contrast to Democratic propaganda.

Mitch McConnell: Typical Weasel Politician

The GOP establishment is not more much interested in tackling the nation's financial problems than Democrats, who are totally uninterested. This is particularly true in the Senate, where Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP senators are considering a new plan to weasel out of any responsibility, purely in the interests of political expediency.

the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.

In effect lawmakers would be surrendering the very power of approval that the GOP has used to force the debt crisis now. But by taking the disapproval route, Republicans can shift the onus more onto the White House and Democrats since a two-thirds majority would be needed to stop any increase that President Barack Obama requests.

McConnell and his cohorts are well aware that Obama and the Democrats don't want to make any sort of serious cuts, and that the only reason cuts are even under consideration is because of the threat of the debt ceiling. The party of big government isn't about to cut government in any substantial way. But rather than forcing the president to make cuts, they'd rather just give up -- as long as they can do it in such away as to place the blame solely on Obama.

Good Advice for Republicans

Here's Bruce McQuain at Questions & Observations on what Republicans should say to Obama's tax increase demands.

“Mr. President, when the government has proven that it can indeed cut spending and cut it drastically, and it has done everything it can conceivably do in that regard, if there is a revenue problem at the bottom of it, then we can discuss tax increases. But until such a time that it is proven – through action, you know actual cuts – that the government has done all it can in the area of spending cuts, there’s nothing further to discuss in terms of tax increases.”

Exactly. Let's hope Congressional Republicans stick to that position. I'm not entirely confident they will.

The GOP Should Stand Firm Against New Taxes

President Obama came out today spouting the usual Democratic demagoguery about the debt ceiling and calling for Republicans to agree to new taxes. In return he made vague promises.

he is willing to cut spending on a range of programs by more than $1 trillion, to trim the defense budget and to look for ways to control entitlement costs.

Every member of the GOP should know by now what Obama's promises are worth. Any Republican paying even the slightest bit of attention should also be aware that Democrats don't want to make even the most minor cuts -- except to defense of course. If Republicans were stupid enough to go along with the president, new revenue would just provide Democrats with even more reason to resist making substantial spending cuts. The GOP should continue to block new taxes of any kind until the president and Democrats in Congress sign off on significant cuts to government spending -- real ones, not empty promises. Once government spending starts falling, then there will be time to talk about ways to increase revenue. Voters in 2010 didn't elect Republicans to help Obama pass new tax hikes.

Tim Pawlenty's Middle East Speech

My first impression when reading stories about GOP presidential contender Pawlenty's speech was negative, and after reading the whole thing I think it's a mixed bag -- with the bad outweighing the good. First, the good:

• The criticism of Obama's foolish "engagement" policy is on point
• Recognition that strong U.S. support for Israel gives a better chance for peace than a pretense that we are some sort of neutral broker.
• Threat to cut off Palestinian aid.

And the bad:

• a strong fetish for democracy promotion, and a seeming failure to understand that democracy is other countries is not necessarily in the U.S. interest.
• call to pressure friendly nations over human rights issues
• a way too optimistic view of Arab uprisings
  
• offhand dismissal of realpolitik in favor of what I consider unwarranted optimistic idealism

Overall I'm not thrilled with Pawlenty's ideas as advanced in this speech. What he calls isolationism can be better categorized as realistic assessment of American interests. There was some talk of U.S. interests in the speech, but not nearly enough. In purely political terms, the speech appears to indicate that he has knowledge of Middle East policy and coherent, if unconvincing ideas. But in my opinion various portions of his speech could easily have been spoken by George W. Bush or Barack Obama. And that's not a recommendation.

Amazing Stupidity at the GOP Leadership Conference

The Washington Post reports.

A President Obama impersonator was pulled off the stage Saturday at the Republican Leadership Conference, after telling a string of racially themed jokes about the president. ... He proceeded to tell a series of off-color jokes poking fun at Obama’s biracial heritage and a gay member of Congress.

That's just great. Democrats already claim that the slightest Republican criticism of Obama is based on racism. Let's give them some ammunition. The moron who booked this guy should be fired immediately.

Liberal Inadvertently Tells People to Vote Republican

E.J. Dionne, a liberal Washington Post columnist inadvertently explained why given the choice between Republicans and Democrats, people should vote Republican. In his article covering the GOP debate, Dionne writes disparagingly,

it was striking that the ideas on offer were largely conservative boilerplate: There is no problem, it seems, that can’t be solved by cutting taxes, slashing government and eviscerating regulations.

Dionne doesn't seem to realize that Republican mantras compare quite favorably with Democratic solutions to most problems: raising taxes, bigger government, and increased regulation & bureaucracy.

Way Too Early - Debate Conclusions Edition

I have to laugh when I read all the analysis in the wake of the first Republican presidential debate. Most of it seems to ignore the fact that it's June 2011, nowhere near even the primaries, let alone the general election. Jumping to conclusions based on one minor event so far out is ridiculous, but that hasn't stopped pundits and bloggers.

Apparently the general consensus is that Michele Bachmann did well, Tim Pawlenty did not, and everyone else was relatively unremarkable. Will this debate have any serious effect on the Republican nomination? I doubt it. There's an eternity in political time still to go before the GOP selects its candidate.