Mitt Romney drops out of campaign

He made the announcement at CPAC, saying that staying in the campaign would just delay the launch of McCain’s national campaign against the Democratic nominee.  Good tactical choice, in the sense that the Republican race is going to need all the campaign cash it can get, and spending more on the nomination process probably doesn’t make much sense.

I waver back and forth on McCain.  Every time I think I might start to stand him, he goes and says something stupid.  He’s like a boyfriend who’s really fun to date until he shows up drunk to your little brother’s birthday party.  You want to like him, but can’t decide whether it’s really worth it to forgive him.

Well, America, don’t blame me.  I supported Fred Thompson.

 

McCain wins Florida

Who would have thought, back in August when his campaign was floundering, that McCain would be the Republican front-runner in January?

McCain does have some advantages over the other candidates worth addressing. First and foremost, despite his tendency to piss off Republicans with his “maverick” identity, he doesn’t alienate any one branch of the Republican party. He is, at the very least, acceptable to social conservatives, acceptable to economic conservatives, and probably more than acceptable to national security conservatives. This is in sharp contrast to Rudy Giuliani, who alienated social conservatives, and Mike Huckabee, who displayed nothing but contempt for the Club for Growth wing of the party and a dearth of foreign policy knowledge.

Despite some serious flaws on issues like immigration and campaign finance reform, he is at least not in any danger of breaking the Reagan coalition. His foreign policy credentials are sound, his record on abortion is good (Planned Parenthood regularly gives him a rating of zero on their legislative scorecard, which says good things about him in my view. Your enemy’s enemy, and all that), and he has a strong record fighting wasteful spending. The stumbling block for a lot of economic conservatives will be his original vote against the Bush tax cuts, and the rhetoric he used to argue against them (he made some classic class warfare arguments).

McCain also has more experience as a legislator than his Democrat opponent would, though it’s unclear whether that will be in his favor or not. After all, it seems that Obama’s lack of record is working in his favor, because he can say whatever he wants about change and a new kind of politics without anyone realizing that his actual issue positions are old-school Democrat.

Here’s my big problem with McCain: he’s been a leader in the Senate, and he’s taken some conservative positions. But he’s never combined the two and been a conservative leader. The big pieces of legislation he’s pushed are outright conservative apostasies: McCain-Kennedy immigration and McCain-Feingold campaign finance.

Also, McCain recently admitted to not knowing much about economics. I guess it’s good that he’s honest, but I’d really like for my president to be economically literate, because so many bad ideas originate from a poor understanding of economics. Like, say, handing out $600 checks to ward off recession.

Speaking of recession, I found a NY Times Op-Ed suggesting that repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a great way to stimulate the economy. The really priceless part was here:

But if they were repealed in a year, the Bush tax cuts could spur a burst of economic activity in 2008. If people knew that their tax rates were going up next year, they’d work to make sure that more of their income is taxed at this year’s lower rates. Investors would likewise have a giant incentive to cash out their capital gains now to avoid paying higher taxes later. In 1986, stock sales doubled as taxpayers rushed to avoid the capital gains tax rate increase scheduled for 1987. If people pour their stock gains into yachts and fast cars, that’s pure fiscal stimulus.

Isn’t having everyone sell large amounts of stock all at the same time something we generally try to avoid? And wasn’t there a stock market crash in 1987?  Don’t we emphatically not want a stock market crash?  And why are we assuming that the money removed from the stock market would be used to buy fast cars and yachts? People are trying to avoid taxes, therefore they will buy luxury items? Huh?

Finally, some wisdom to round things out for the day, we have Thomas Sowell commenting in the economic stimulus package.   A particularly priceless observation:

 Both political parties seem determined that the federal government should create a “stimulus package” of things designed to cushion a downturn in the economy.

That alone should be enough to make us remember that “the devil is always in the details,” because things that are bipartisan are often twice as bad as things that are partisan.

A bipartisan intervention is virtually guaranteed to be a grab bag of inconsistent policies thrown together in order to get the votes of people with contradictory ideas of what ought to be done.

Well said.

 

Fred Thompson ends presidential run

And I’m now a girl without a candidate. So, do I bother to pick a new one, or just wait and see what the primaries hand me?

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican who talks like John Edwards. So, barring some pretty drastic climate change, Mike Huckabee is out of the question. I also couldn’t vote for a man who lets 9/11 Truthers and white supremacists speak for him, so Ron Paul is out of the picture.

Other than that certainty, I don’t know which remaining candidate I can best stand to vote for.

Mitt Romney has the Massachusetts health care plan hanging over his head, not to mention the fact that he’s not terribly electable. And since I’m already sacrificing principle, there’s no point in sacrificing electability.

Giuliani would be bearable were it not for his authoritarian tendencies and shakiness on social issues. I’m also having trouble getting past the marital indiscretions. We don’t need another Clinton episode, and I’m firmly convinced that a man who will lie to his wife will have no qualms about lying to the rest of us.

Romney and Giuliani spent a lot of time late last year squabbling over who was worse on taxes and who was worse on immigration. The impression I came away with was that both candidates were sub-par on both.

At least McCain is a fairly honorable sort, and may have a shot at winning the election. He was also right about strategy in Iraq, for which he deserves credit. I do like that he’s into cutting out earmarks. But earmarks aren’t even half the government spending battle - we need entitlement reform and Thompson was the only one willing to talk about it seriously. Finally, his stances on the Bush tax cuts, amnesty (especially the part where he didn’t seem to realize what exactly was in the bill) and campaign finance reform are really big stumbling blocks.

I don’t want to hear any more fighting about who most resembles Ronald Reagan. Here’s what I do want to hear:

• I want the candidates to talk seriously about entitlement reform. Earmarks are easy compared to entitlement programs, and my generation can’t wait much longer for a fix. The longer we wait, the more painful it’s going to be. And I’ll be damned if I let Congress raise my Social Security taxes to pay for benefits I’m never going to see.
• I want to know what kind of judges we’ll see nominated, and how the candidate plans to get them through a nasty confirmation fight. I want specifics, not just “strict-constructionists.” Get a campaign staffer to dig up some names, so I know the candidate is on the right track.
• I want to know what the candidates’ economic plans are. And “making the Bush tax cuts permanent” is not a sufficient answer. What about a reduced corporate tax rate, or a corporate tax replaced with a revenue-neutral carbon tax? What about a new, simplified tax system? A permanent and complete end to the marriage penalty?
• I want to hear the candidates talk about the actual principles behind conservative ideas. Because a checklist of positions isn’t enough if they don’t understand why they’re doing it. One of the (many) things I like about Fred is that he gets Federalism, and the ideas behind limited government, not just the talking points.

With Fred out, I’m going to have to do some more research and try to figure out what they’re all promising. Last time I checked, the candidates had very vague positions, rather than explicit policy agendas, which, as previously noted, is not good enough.

I get the feeling that 2008 is not going to be a fun year to be a Republican.

 

New Theme, New Winner, and a Take on Reagan Republicanism

New themes are what you get when you take a blogger, give her meaningless academic work to do, then sit her down at a laptop. I also thought the light blue was a little girly (which isn’t necessarily bad, but it was the shade of blue that looked weak and passive. Not exactly Amazonian), and didn’t work with the header at all. I’m liking this one more. Maybe. For now.

Speaking of indecision, Romney beat Huckabee in Michigan. The Republican primary voters are like a girl at a high school dance who will tolerate dancing with each boy just once, but isn’t impressed enough to ask for a second from any of them.

And speaking of the Republican primary, Reagan biographer and all-around conservative dude Craig Shirley wrote a great little history of the Reagan Revolution (for those of us who haven’t read his book) and how the modern Republican party has fallen away from that legacy. An excerpt:

Today’s Republicans are really reconstructed Tories, defending the status quo from on-high on the firm belief that power flows downward. True American conservatives have always believed that power flows up from the people and the status quo must always be challenged. They believed individual Americans rule their government, the government does not rule the people. The Constitution is a check on government, not the people.

You’d think this would be a pretty easy philosophy to follow, but somehow the dunderheads of the Republican Congress (and our President) don’t quite seem to grasp that government does not exist to solve everybody’s problems. And it certainly doesn’t exist to provide them with a permanent place of employment for as long as they want it, or a throne from which to hand out benevolence (to either the ragged masses or their special friends).

The issues may have changed (i.e. we aren’t fighting the commies anymore), but the approach to governing ought not. In my semi-perfect world, the election and ensuing disasters of Clinton’s or Obama’s elections will ignite some of the old limited government spark in the party. It’s times like these we have to remember that sometimes it takes a Jimmy Carter to get us a Ronald Reagan.

Anyway, I recommend you read the whole piece by Shirley.  There’s a lot of food for thought.  And some reflection on why Huckabee is such a disaster.

 

Human Events Endorses Fred Thompson

Good choice, folks.  In terms of electoral practicality, the Republican party needs a candidate who can unite several distinct groups of conservatives: the tough-on-terror crowd, the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives, to over-simplify.

Huckabee only holds appeal for the second group.  And while Giuliani is good for the foreign policy hawks, and mostly acceptable to the fiscal conservatives, he’ll alienate the social conservatives.  Romney is only marginally trustworthy on any of the three: while some will be convinced that he really believes that principles, that might not be enough to energize the base in November.  McCain, who got a big boost from New Hampshire, is more experienced that Giuliani on foreign policy but has shown too great a willingness to compromise other issues.

That leaves Fred Thompson.  And as the Human Events endorsement points out, Thompson has strongly conservative opinions on the issues that separate Republicans from Democrats.  Even more importantly, he has put forth serious policy proposals in contentious areas like fiscal policy and Social Security Reform.

Fred Thompson doesn’t just talk the conservative talking points, he actually understands Federalism.  Any goombah can talk about keeping Clinton’s hands off our guns.  But it’s a rare candidate who understands and applies the principles of conservatism and federalism rather than just the pre-fabricated policy positions, which seems to be what the rest of the field (except Ron Paul) is doing.

 

A vote for Hillary is a vote for four years of awful speeches

Don’t believe me? Check out her N.H. victory speech. Some of my favorite snippets:

Over the last week, I listened to you and, in the process, I found my own voice.

I felt like we all spoke from our hearts, and I am so gratified that you responded. Now, together, let’s give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me.

Way to sound more like Lifetime original movie than a U.S. Senator. Spoke from your hearts is right - as opposed to from your brains.

I’ve met families in this state and all over our country who’ve lost their homes to foreclosures, men and women who work day and night but can’t pay the bills and hope they don’t get sick because they can’t afford health insurance, young people who can’t afford to go to college to pursue their dreams.

Apparently, New Hampshire is just one big sob story, which has been waiting for a savior like Clinton to come along and dry its tears with some more government hand-outs.

The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you.

Any story worth telling has an antagonist, and the Democrats have several industries to choose from when looking for a villain. Thank God I have Hillary Clinton to save me from predatory drug companies that dare to make enough money that they can reinvest in more life-saving cures. Those bastards and their Research & Development costs are ruining this country.

I’m beginning to think that a Clinton presidency will be somewhere between a group therapy session and a breadline. We’ll all get to talk about our problems and our feelings while we wait for our next handout.

In other news, the Chamber of Commerce is getting sick of new-age Huey Longs shitting on business, big and otherwise, and is gearing up for a fight.

 

Clinton wins N.H. primary

The senator from New York took 39% of the vote with 89% of precincts reporting, narrowly defeating Obama’s 36%.

And the very same evening, my unsuspecting roommate and I were attacked by a three-inch cockroach with the look of a killer in its eyes.

Coincidence?  Or proof that the forces of evil have been unleashed in the world?

As a side note, my roommate and I have an agreement worked out wherein she vanquishes the roaches while I hide in my room.  In return for doing the dirty work, she gets to laugh her ass off at me later.

 

Two smart guys, and a feminist’s look at 2008

Up first is Thomas Sowell commenting on the presidential race:

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Yikes.  And demagoguery it has been, this entire primary.  Liberal commentators love to pull out the “Republicans run on fear” card whenever an opportunity presents itself.  Is it really more honorable to run on class envy, as the Democrats all seem to be doing?  None of them could be called anything approaching moderate when it comes to economic issues: without fail, they embrace higher taxes on the “wealthy,” protectionist trade policies and more government hand-outs.

The second smart guy is Arnold Kling, who compares the FairTax, which Huckabee has endorsed, to a consumption tax that he described about 4 years ago as an alternative to our current tax system.

Kling also puts forth the idea of a “semi-Fair” tax system, which would include elements of both an income tax and a sales tax:

The idea of freezing the income tax while leaving the sales tax up for grabs politically is to try to increase the public’s sensitivity to the cost of Federal programs. Right now, politicians can treat high-earners as an ATM machine, always there to dispense cash for “targeted tax cuts” or foolish spending programs.

Instead, the idea would be to fix the amount of “soak-the-rich” taxation permanently, with all of the variation at the margin coming in the sales tax. Thus, if a politician wants to raise spending or institute some form of “targeted” tax cut, the sales tax rate has to rise, and everybody has to feel it.

Compared with the FairTax, the semi-Fair tax would not reduce taxes on high earners–some of them might even face higher taxes. However, it would reduce taxes on work and increase taxes on consumption. That combination might encourage more saving. In addition, if the rules about keeping the income tax invariant and paying for new spending with sales tax increases could be made to stick, the bias toward higher government spending might be greatly reduced.

Now the question is how to get America to buy it.  As a self-described Huckabe-hater, I get the feeling that Huckabee endorses the FairTax as a way of winning over fiscal conservatives, not because he actually believes it’s good policy.  After all, the results of such a tax don’t really match up to his populist rhetoric.

And finally, Gloria Steinem opines that if Barack Obama were a woman, he/she would never be considered a contender for the nomination, because sexism is still more deeply rooted than racism.  In one sense, I agree.  If you wander around the liberal blogosphere enough, you notice that the same liberal men who hold themselves and others to the highest standards of racial political correctness are often blithely sexist, remarking on female commentators appearances rather than their ideas, and the like.

On the other hand, I don’t think that she’s asking the right question, or even using the right example.  I don’t think Barack Obama would be considered a serious contender if it hadn’t been for one good speech that thrust him into the spotlight, and a talent for crowd-pleasing rhetoric that has kept him there.  He is an anomaly in the process, not the sign of any real trend.

I  also think that Steinem seriously overstates Clinton’s qualifications:

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.

I’m not convinced that being First Lady is the equivalent of having real executive experience. Nor do I think it’s a particularly great example if she manages to win the presidency considering the fact that her success has been so dependent on her husband’s name and career.   It’s not a particularly compelling argument to say that men get a free pass on being unqualified while women have to prove more.  Liddy Dole managed to become a senator, for God’s sake, and was at one point a serious presidential contender.

 

Obama and Huckabee win in Iowa

With 98% of precincts reporting, Barack Obama and John Edwards both beat Hillary Clinton (though Edwards only narrowly).  Not sure whether this will mean anything, considering how large her lead is in other states.  It does dent the aura of inevitability a little, but probably not enough to endanger her chances of winning the nomination.

On  the Republican side, we have Mike Huckabee winning with 34%, Romney coming in second with 25% (really disappointing for the campaign when you take into account the money he’s been pouring into the state).  McCain and Thompson are tied for third with 13%, though with 85% of precincts reporting, Thompson had about 300 more votes.  Ron Paul managed to get 10%, which, when paired with a Huckabee win, proves that the awful winter weather of the Midwest has driven the people of Iowa to insanity.

I probably don’t need to re-state how much I dislike Huckabee, but I’ll do it anyway: I think he’s the weakest Republican in a field of disappointing candidates.  He has no good ideas, no principles worth following, no real knowledge of the world and only the shallowest understanding of how government and religion ought to function together.  Let me put it this way: if the 2008 election came down to Clinton and Huckabee, I’d stay home.

 

Huckabee’s Breakfast Club foreign policy

Anyone looking for another reason to dislike Mike (other than his economic liberalism, ethics violations and taste for freeing rapists) would do well to read what he has to say about foreign policy:

The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

Now I understand!  All these years, I’ve been trying to interpret foreign policy as a series of complex interactions based on economic, moral and political considerations.  If only I’d realized before that the world functions just like high school, and all we need to do to stop the rest of the world from disliking us is quit showing off.

Here’s how I see this working:

We’ll make friends with Iran, the lonely, rebellious outcast kid, by just including him a little more in the cool stuff we do, like having nuclear weapons.  And we have to stop calling him mean names like “axis of evil” and administering wedgies to all of his friends (Iraq and Afghanistan). Once he realizes that we really do respect him, he’ll stop acting out.   Once France sees how nice we are to Iran, she’ll finally stop looking down on us and maybe let us tutor her in economics.

And just like in the Breakfast Club, by the end of Mike Huckabee’s presidential years, the world will have discovered that “we’re really not so different after all:”