A man should never be ashamed
to own that he has been in the wrong,
which is but saying that he is wiser today than he was yesterday.
Alexander Pope
Political Potpourri
I was listening to ABC This Week and nearly fell out of my seat laughing at Rick Santorum's hubris in arguing that he is "more electable" than Romney based on a few scattered polls. Romney has an impressive ground game and he has not used it yet on Santorum--YET. The Romney campaign is savvy, and the proof is in the pudding: Bachmann, Perry, and Cain are down and out, Gingrich is now taking his second fall from grace. Santorum is attempting to argue that he has finally survived to be the non-Romney alternative. He had excuses for placing low (again) in another contest, in Maine. I think the Romney campaign is setting Santorum up for a fall. Santorum has decades of votes to defend; he's part of the problem in Washington, not the solution.
I think Romney has a moral imperative to take Santorum out of the race; it's not just that Santorum lacks managerial experience and is just as incompetent as Barack Obama. What has me absolutely disgusted is this media conservative obsession with ideological purity: the fact of the matter is that the Dems will have enough votes to filibuster regardless of election outcomes this fall. Who do you think is going to more likely to negotiate the best bargain with the Democrats? Never mind the fact the last thing we need this fall is fighting the culture wars again, and Santorum is a lightning rod. We need to keep the conversation on the unsustainable national debt and chronic overspending, and I guarantee Romney knows both RomneyCare and ObamaCare in detail that would make Obama's eyes glaze over. There is no one I would rather serve as my policy wonk in a debate than Romney.
I think the GOP conservatives are being totally manipulated by the media conservatives into believing a caricature of Romney. My own policy views are more consistent with Paul than Romney. Let's face it: unless we're running, we can't guarantee any candidate will fit with our own agenda. I've been a consultant; I've read accounts of how Romney approached the RomneyCare issue. I'm telling you--you have to look at the process and not some superficial talking points. Unlike Obama, Romney was in charge from the jump and was actively engaged through the process, and he had to somehow get a bill through a legislature nearly 90% Democrat. He won't have to worry about that in Washington, and he'll be able to use that leverage. All that Santorum, Gingrich, Palin et al. do is hypocritically rehash a handful of trite talking points, but remember when Pelosi said the Congress would have to vote for the bill to see the surprises inside? Just one recent detail (the funding of birth control) showed just the kinds of details that never got hashed out in Congress. The ability to see those kinds of things under the surface is exactly what makes Romney the right man for the job.
And I just don't understand how inept the Romney campaign is. They are letting these know-nothing radio jocks define Romney as some spineless double talker. Someone who spent decades dealing with turnaround businesses (and yes, sometimes that includes making difficult decisions to lay off part of a work force) and new business development has to be tough-minded, not wishy-washy.
Yes, for the good of the party and the country, Romney needs to crush Santorum's campaign, the sooner, the better. Santorum at the head of the ticket not only guarantees a loss to Obama but possibly the turnover of Congress to the Dems AGAIN--which simply this country can't afford. There's a reason Santorum only had a single digit percentage of support over most of the past year.
There are a number of things to discuss with respect to the RomneyCare/ObamaCare distinction, but the fact of the matter is that when you have limited resources and a struggling economy like Obama has had, you don't take on new entitlements. I've already argued that Romney needs to run an anti-Washington campaign--it's not only Obama whom can run against a Congress he once served in; in terms of the vision thing, I think Romney needs to talk about restoration of old-fashioned values, no longer looking to an overextended federal government for solutions, but to free individuals to design their own.
Looking at the latest RCP polls, it's clear Santorum has some momentum, but I don't know if these numbers reflect the effects yet of Romney's double-win on Saturday. Santorum has closed within 2 of Romney in the daily tracking poll, but PPP has yet another oddball poll up in Michigan, showing Santorum with a 15-point lead. (If Santorum was to beat Romney in the state where his father was governor, it would be highly embarrassing.) And then there's the mysterious polling in Georgia where Romney is a strong second and Santorum a weak third (to leader Gingrich) in the Mason-Dixon poll, but in the Landmark Rosetta Stone poll yesterday, Santorum was a strong second and Romney was a distant third--we are talking about a mid-teen swing in the polls. Obama's approval ratings have drifted to the upper 40's, a consequence I think both of some improving economic statistics and infighting among his GOP opposition.
It's the Same Old Song
First, a word from my favorite Motown group:
Sigh! Here's the CNN alert: "Obama unveils $3.8 trillion 2013 budget calling for tax hikes on rich, more spending on infrastructure and teachers." Class warfare, state/local bailouts. All of this was discussed in February 2009 through the current state of affairs. Obama, having already achieved a hat trick in trillion dollar deficits, has made sure there'll be a fourth.
Reason.com/Gary Chartier Interview
"Markets Not Capitalism": Thumbs UP!
I should note that the authors have made their book of essays available for free download. (Hats off to Stephan Kinsella for providing the link.) In case you are wondering, Chartier is on the other (left-wing) side of libertarianism from Ron Paul. (Of course, the "not capitalism" part might have given it away, but I could also tell you the subtitle is "Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty".)
Let me be clear: I do not share Chartier's leftist political orientation, and do not agree with his attempts to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of capitalism; for example, probably 90% of corporations do not work with the lobbyists on Capitol Hill and are not vested in public policy decisions. The reason I give my thumbs up has to do with his criticisms of barriers to labor entry in the health care industry, his suggestion of abolishing the public education monopoly, and his condemnation of crony capitalism/industrial policy. I do applaud him for realizing that the government spends money on things we don't necessarily want or need. I wanted to show not all leftists have a fundamental belief in costly, corruptible regulations. In fact, in an interesting post on Ron Paul (whom he finds flawed because of Paul's pro-life views, his more restrictive stance on immigration, and acceptance of the state regulation of marriage, among other things), he has this to say about Obama:
Barack Obama clearly wants to serve George W. Bush's third term. His record of support for war, for the various abuses of the national security state—including surveillance, assassination, secrecy, and indefinite detention, and for bailouts and other forms of corporatism make him largely indistinguishable from his predecessor. And his willingness to legitimate evils that could previously have been framed as GOP aberrations as the products of a bipartisan consensus is especially troubling. A Gingrich, Romney, or Perry term in the White House would be a disaster. So would another Obama term.
I disagree with his assessment of Romney, whom I see more as a problem solver than a politician. And I disagree with his arbitrary dismissal of streamlining government efficiency and various half-measure GOP attempts at privatization, vouchers, etc.; I will simply point out here critical decision making often occurs at the margin.
Like most leftists, Chartier seems oblivious to the left's own special interests (e.g., unions, environmentalists, etc.) and is fixated on monopolies (including intellectual property), income inequality, racism, etc. He rails against Ron Paul's views of (more stringent) immigration, state marriage regulation, pro-life on abortion, etc. I don't like his rather superficial analysis of the immigration issue (with weak border security a key issue in the post -9/11 world), and I don't know a single pro-life activist calling for the prosecution of women aborting their preborn children.
It's unfortunate that Chartier never escaped the groupthink of progressive thinking in academia. He thinks that Obama has sold out to corrupt interests. I think the issue has less to do with corruption than with bad economics and misguided, even delusional statist expectations
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Guess Who member Randy Bachman: BTO, "Taking Care of Business"
