Knowledge is learning something every day.
Wisdom is letting go of something every day.
Zen Proverb
ROMNEY WINS IOWA!
The Iowa Caucus Results: Commentary
As I write this at 2:34 AM Wednesday, Mitt Romney (25%) nipped Rick Santorum (25%) by 8 votes (out of nearly 122,000 precinct votes cast). In separate news, it looks like Rick Perry is reassessing his campaign after finishing fifth, after Ron Paul's 22% and Gingrich's 16%. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the 2008 nominee, is expected to endorse Romney tomorrow.
I wrote subsequent discussion earlier, but let me be one of the few conservatives to point out that Romney, widely considered by many GOP conservatives as "unprincipled" and a moderate, is at a DISADVANTAGE in the caucus vs. primary system: how many "moderate" candidates get the activists needed to show up on a caucus night? The fact that Ron Paul doubled his national vote average shows the power of the activist supporters. So the anti-Romney media conservatives can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig: nobody, including Romney himself, expected a Romney victory in Iowa: over the past month, in fact, Romney has only led by a 1.3% advantage, and no pundit really thought Romney had a chance to win even a month ago.
I haven't watched Fox News that much over the last 6 weeks (the faithful reader may have noticed that I haven't published a rant on Fox News personalities in a while). I did turn on the coverage and quickly got a saturation talking point that Romney hadn't improved that much (in getting 25% of the vote tonight) over the result four years ago. I mean, how disingenuous is this crap? What part of most of last year being about mostly about who's the non-Romney? What about the FACT that Romney won only 1 of over 20 Iowa polls from roughly 10/10 to 12/10 and in only one of those polls (a University of Iowa poll which had Romney losing by 10 points to Cain) did Romney score as high as 25%.
In fact, let's quote the conventional wisdom and note, until the closing weeks, Romney himself didn't think he would win Iowa:
Through last summer and fall, Romney mostly stayed away from Iowa, rarely visiting the state and passing up chances to take part in Republican events. After spending about $10 million in Iowa in 2007-2008 and finishing in second place, Romney made a decision to stay away.Now there's no doubt Santorum at 25% tonight outperformed expectations as late as a month ago, but it should also be noted that Santorum notoriously spend more time in the state than any other candidate, and there is no doubt that his surge wasn't so much due to Santorum as a candidate as non-Romney conservatives departed faltering Gingrich and Bachmann campaigns, more in a last-minute attempt to keep Romney from getting the Iowa win.
I found almost all the Fox News Channel commentators, with the possible exception of Karl Rove, to be off-base. The Romney campaign can politically kill off Santorum without working up a sweat: Santorum is another career politician with a track record which has gone largely unnoticed. He voted for the Bridge to Nowhere and got clobbered by 18 points for a second reelection attempt to Bob Casey, as charismatic as watching paint dry. Obama would love nothing better than to rerun the 2006 campaign, and the incumbent is a considerably better politician than Bob Casey, whom beat Santorum. By RCP polls, Obama has a 1.6% average lead over Romney but over a 10% lead by Santorum. Electability is the most important issue, and Romney is the only GOP candidate to beat Obama in recent head-to-head battles. I think Santorum's near victory tonight is likely a flash in the pan. I think the real story is South Carolina, and it may well be that Romney wants to keep the rest of the split conservative pool intact.
What does this mean for my endorsement of Ron Paul? I'll have more to say about that shortly. Given the relentless media attacks over old news about comments of others printed in newsletters under his name and being pilloried over foreign policy, I think Ron Paul did well, finishing only 3 points behind Romney.
Brief feedback on the speeches by the candidates, I found Rick Perry's speech was graceful and touching; it was clear his intent is to withdraw. I really liked Mitt Romney's speech, especially his solid on message delivery on business and economics, and he simply looks and sounds Presidential in contrast to all of the other candidates.
Gingrich is articulate but erratic, and he seems to be embittered after his campaign collapsing when just a few weeks back, he thought the nomination was within his grasp. He is still a close second to Romney in the Gallup tracking poll, but blaming Romney for his drop in the polls is sheer nonsense. The "lies" translate to Romney supporters' spin on his record; there's no way he can deny being on retainer for Freddie Mac or the fact that a bipartisan House vote went against him on ethics charges. He has a generation of votes, and the fact is that few people serving for him as Speaker have come out and endorsed him. He also has high unfavorables with independents and moderates.
I did not like Santorum's speech. I don't mind a supportive family behind a candidate like Romney's wife and 4 of his 5 sons with him tonight (another one had work duties). Santorum pointed out his young daughter with a difficult health condition couldn't be with them and talked about her already outliving earlier life expectancy for her condition. That is a nice human interest story, but I don't think it was appropriate under the circumstances.
Steven Greenhut/Reason, "Jerry Brown’s Disastrous Plan for California":
Thumbs UP!
I love markups, translating progressive rhetoric to plain English. (Mark J. Perry routinely does this in his Carpe Diem blog.) This is a libertarian take on Brown's open letter to California voters, asking for a "temporary" class warfare tax hike and a minor boost in the state sales tax; the proceeds are guaranteed exclusively for use in education and public safety.
Before going further: what do I think of Governor Brown's plan? Thumbs Way, Way, Way DOWN! This is little more than the same progressive-as-usual Politics of Envy at play while paying genuine fiscal reform little more than lip service (because they really do believe, under their neo-Keynesian delusion, that fiscal policy cuts are counterproductive to economic growth) ; Brown uses the same trite progressive code words, e.g., "balanced" approach; he tries to sell class warfare tax hikes by linking the proceeds to popular state/local public functions (remember the similar Washington state initiative I-1098 that failed 2-to-1 in a "no personal state income tax" state last fall? And of course Obama's "America Jobs Act", with similar class warfare tax hikes and state/local bailouts for politically privileged public professions)
Brown has refused to make the really hard decisions---especially dealing with unsustainable pensions. The fact is businesses are moving away from California, not moving to it. California gained no new seats after the census for the first time in decades.
Another point I wanted to hammer home: this disingenuous charade of linking new spending with support of politically popular programs or personnel (like policemen, firemen or teachers). Repeat after me: MONEY IS FUNGIBLE; MONEY IS FUNGIBLE; MONEY IS FUNGIBLE. Brown talks about budget games (e.g., with planned increases)--absolutely true. But this is another budget game. The fact is, even if I guarantee all new revenues go to popular programs/professions, that allows me to shift dollars under the existing budgets for the very same areas. Remember my discussion of Senator Manchin's (D-WV) point on that as the West Virginia governor? The state bailout money from the stimulus bill of 2009 was not needed because they had already funded necessary positions but in effect the money got transferred into a rainy day fund. These budget gimmicks by Brown and other Dems are a variation on the same theme: they can redistribute budget dollars away from favored programs knowing they'll get it all back in the dedicated funding.
What Californians need is a government that will make more efficient use of the revenues it already has and not rewarded for frittering away tax dollars to satisfy crony unions and other progressive spending; the government is not entitled to a blank check, putting workers on an allowance and keeping the rest of their pay..
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Styx, "Lady". Rock god vocalist and Styx keyboardist Dennis DeYoung wrote this first song for his girlfriend, later wife Suzanne. [I have to laugh; I was on a lyrics website which attributed the song to Lionel Richie. No, that was the song with the same title which became one of Kenny Rogers' greatest hits.] Is it possible to write and perform a better rock ballad than this? One of my all-time favorite tunes. Every time I hear this song, I think of my first college girlfriend. I dedicate this to her, wherever she may be: love and happiness always!
