Disqualified for President

[Peter]

TIA Daily • May 13, 2011

COMMENTARY

Disqualified, Part 1: The Man with Two Brains

It's finally time to start taking a look at the 2012 Republican presidential candidates. We're just over six months away from the Iowa Caucus, and we're reaching the point where anyone who wants to run for the nomination is going to have to declare his intentions, start fund-raising, and build a political organization, if he hasn't done so already.

But at this point, it's too early to settle on a favorite—I have one, but I'm not fully committed yet—because not all of the likely candidates have declared, and because we still need to hear a lot more from them and see them in action.

What is possible, at this point, is to start crossing candidates off the list. We don't know who is the best candidate yet, but we know which ones have already disqualified themselves.

For better or for worse, this turns out to be most of them. On the one hand, I suppose this makes the task of selecting a favorite easier; on the other hand, it increases the chance that an unacceptable candidate might win the nomination

Let me run down the list of the disqualified, then offer a final note on my tentative favorite.

• Mitt Romney

This is a case where I don't have to say anything that isn't being said elsewhere. At this early stage, Mitt Romney has the best-financed campaign with the best organization, and the mainstream media has been treating him as the presumptive front-runner. Yet his campaign is imploding before it has really begun, and the reason can be stated in one word: RomneyCare.

The top agenda item for Republicans in the 2012 election is the repeal of ObamaCare—yet Romney created and passed a nearly identical health-care program when he was governor of Massachusetts. That leaves him with two very unappealing alternatives: admit that the signature initiative of his governorship was a massive mistake—or try to get away with the blatant contradiction of defending RomneyCare while pledging to repeal ObamaCare.

Romney chose the second option, prompting the Washington Post's Dana Milbank to mock him—pretty effectively—as the man with two brains. Meanwhile the conservative press notes that he opposes a government takeover on the federal level while he makes a "passionate case for violating personal freedom" at the state level.

Romney's candidacy failed in 2008, under much more auspicious circumstances, because no one believed he was sincere in his beliefs. Things are even worse for him this time around. My prediction: he won't make it past the New Hampshire primary.

And he shouldn't. He has been disqualified.

• Newt Gingrich

Gingrich has a lot of "baggage," as they say. But the one thing that stands out most, in the current context, is the way he jumped onto the bandwagon of the global warming hysteria. His opponents have trotted out a damning video of him sitting down with Nancy Pelosi to affirm a bipartisan consensus about global warming. But there's worse stuff out there, like this report on his impersonating Al Gore in a "debate" on global warming in which he largely agreed with his supposed opponent, John Kerry.

Ideologically, Gingrich is a chameleon, who switches from idea to idea, be it religion or global warming, with only one constant: his sense of his own great destiny as an important leader, who will lead us boldly forward to do—well, something. He's not quite sure what.

Disqualified.

• Donald Trump

Speaking of ideological chameleons running for their own vanity, I suppose I have to say a few words about Donald Trump. He briefly showed well in the polls because he has one of the few names that inattentive Republican voters actually recognize, and because he said some nasty things about President Obama. But Trump is already fading as his actual political history becomes known. Here is a good rundown, including his previous backing for Canadian-style "single-payer" socialized medicine.

Enough said. Disqualified.

• Tim Pawlenty

Unlike Trump and Gingrich, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty does not project a sense of preening personal vanity. They just don't do that in Minnesota. And unlike Romney, he took the other approach to dealing with his worst piece of baggage: his support for cap-and-trade energy rationing. He has been quick to disavow it, saying that he "flirted" with the global-warming hysteria but now realizes that "it was a mistake, it was stupid. It was wrong."

But this is quite misleading. Pawlenty did a lot more than "flirt" with global warming and cap-and-trade. He got into bed with it and carried on the affair for years. A Minnesota Democrat has put together a damning video montage of Pawlenty again and again and again affirming the supposed threat of global warming, backing cap-and-trade, and shilling for the whole "green jobs" scam.

Gingrich and Pawlenty are both up against the changed political environment after Climategate. In the US, the main beneficent effect of Climategate is that skepticism about global warming has become the mainstream position on the right. If you're a little more radical, you dismiss global warming outright as a scam. But these days, jumping on the global warming bandwagon makes you a RINO—an unadmitted leftist who is "Republican in name only."

Which means you are disqualified.

Now, how about the more fire-breathing pro-free-marketers in the race? We'll take a look at those as I continue my countdown of the disqualified candidates in the next edition of TIA Daily.—RWT

TIA Daily • May 15, 2011

COMMENTARY

Disqualified, Part 2:

So how about the more fire-breathing pro-free-marketers in the race?

• Herman Cain

I haven't looked really closely at Herman Cain, but he has said some intriguing things and seems to be an effective critic of the administration on economic issues. Whatever happens in his campaign, I hope the Republican Party will use him—a very successful black businessman—as the party's ambassador to black voters, in the hope of convincing them that it's OK not to vote for Obama.

But according to a report on the first Republican debate in South Carolina, Cain just disqualified himself on foreign policy.

[M]oderator Bret Baier asked Cain about a statement Cain made in an interview in January in which Cain said that as president he would rely heavily on whatever his generals and the experts told him should be done in the war. "You're running for president," Baier said to Cain. "After almost ten years in Afghanistan, you don't have your own plan yet about what you would do in Afghanistan?"

"No," Cain answered. 'Because it's not clear what the mission is. That's the bigger problem. It's not clear what the mission is..."

Baier followed up: "How would you define winning in Afghanistan right now, as you're looking at it as a candidate?"

"My point is," Cain explained, "the experts and their advice and their input would be the basis for me making that decision. I'm not privy to a lot of confidential information."...

But if Cain could only formulate a policy position after receiving presidential-level briefings—did that mean he might never have a position as a candidate on Afghanistan?

Note that he isn't saying, as Mitch Daniels recently did, that he is not ready to debate Obama on foreign policy—which implies that Daniels has positions but just needs more debate prep. Cain, by contrast, is saying that he will not take any position until he is elected. So he is asking us to take him on faith as a good commander-in-chief, without knowing where he stands or what he would do. Didn't the voters just try that recently?

Disqualified.

• Ron Paul

In some ways, Ron Paul is the man of the hour. Four years ago, his invective against the Federal Reserve caused him to be dismissed as a crank. Now, after three attempts at government economic "stimulus" with only stagflation to show for it, he seems prescient. We definitely need a principled pro-free-marketer who is not afraid to advocate radical solutions like ending the Fed.

But Paul can't help himself from bringing in other parts of the Libertarian agenda. At the recent debate, he spent a whole segment advocating legalization of drugs and prostitution. I happen to agree with him on those issues. Freedom has to mean the freedom to be wrong, even if that means wrecking your life. After all, it's yours to wreck, and if you're determined to mess it up, I don't see how putting you in jail is going to make you better off. But this is a matter of political priorities. One of the reasons I like Mitch Daniels is that, even though he is personally quite religious, he has proposed a "truce" on social issues. He understands that the whole problem of spending, debt, and inflation is the central domestic crisis of our era and that every other issue must be subordinated.

I don't get the impression that Ron Paul has the right outlook to pick his battles like that. Running for president is not an opportunity to give dissertations on the Libertarian philosophy concerning prostitution (which isn't even a federal issue, anyway). It is an opportunity to set a specific political agenda for which you are seeking the voters' approval. So you decide what issues are most important and avoid or play down the side issues.

And unlike Herman Cain, Ron Paul is not an unknown (and unknowable) quantity on foreign policy. He has a definite position, and it is a complete American withdrawal from the world. (For an example, see his response to the killing of Bin Laden, which he sees as the only legitimate goal of the War on Terrorism.) What Barack Obama advocates without really confessing it, Ron Paul openly proclaims: he does not want America to have a leadership position in the world. He wants us to be laissez-faire—he calls it "non-interventionist"—not just in domestic policy but in foreign policy.

This has deep roots in the Libertarian ethos and is a big part of the reason why I never use that label to describe myself. The old-style Libertarians are so opposed to the government as such that they tend to reject even its legitimate functions, national defense first.

Spending and the debt may be the issue of the day domestically, but the president is an irreplaceable leader on foreign policy, and we need him to deal vigorously and proactively with the big issues: the threat of radical Islam, the rise of China, and the global spread of liberty.

When it comes to the cause of liberty and the need to secure American interests overseas, this is one area where laissez-faire is not an acceptable option—and that's why Ron Paul is disqualified.

• Rick Santorum

I have a lot against former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. I have dismissed him ever since I saw him on a panel during the Republican National Convention in 2008, when he explained away his failure to win re-election in 2006 by saying that he was a "victim of circumstance." He had done everything that should have been expected of him, by supporting the president's war policy, and he couldn't help it if the war was going badly when voters went to the polls. I always thought that was a curiously passive, buck-passing view of a senator's role in foreign policy—that his job is just to follow the lead of the president and not to make his own evaluations and agitate for his own proposals. It reminded me of Barack Obama's dodge about certain issues being above his pay grade.

But Santorum's real problem is that he takes the opposite approach from Mitch Daniels: his religious agenda takes precedence over economic freedom. This just came out in a very revealing way when bloggers found video of Santorum declaring that he is opposed to "personal autonomy" and that "the pursuit of happiness" is "harming America."

OK, so I guess we'll just have to write that line out of the Declaration of Independence.

Disqualified.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Robert Campbell]

Tracinski has never liked Romney. In 2008, he called Romney an "empty suit." Sounds about right.

He loathes Rick Santorum, as everyone should.

Tracinski wrote about Gingrich just before Gingrich slammed Paul Ryan for "right-wing social engineering," effectively ending his campaign as soon as it had been launched.

He wrote about Trump just before Trump announced, as most people suspected all along, that he wasn't running. I'll bet Obama is kicking himself for releasing the birth certificate.

I think he might be getting a little hasty concerning Herman Cain.

His comments about Tim Pawlenty are the most interesting. I didn't realize that Pawlenty had gotten aboard the bandwagon on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. As that becomes more widely known, Pawlenty will be in trouble.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

He wrote about Trump just before Trump announced, as most people suspected all along, that he wasn't running. I'll bet Obama is kicking himself for releasing the birth certificate.

It wasn't just Trump. There was a very soon to be published book dedicated entirely to the subject. The only two things that might derail Obama's re-election are the economy and a weak Republican candidate. He shot down the birthers and then he shot down Osama. His campaign has begun in earnest!

--Brant

the media are there too to help all they can--like the last time

[Robert Campbell]

The economy might derail Obama's re-election...

Reads like an understatement.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

The economy might derail Obama's re-election...

Reads like an understatement.

Robert Campbell

It's not bad yet. Bad is coming. Most people don't know how bad bad can be. It is bad, of course, already, for millions. Horrible is when you and your countrymen spend 50-70% of your income on food and the dollar's debasement, and burning corn for fuel, leads to commodity inflation and millions literally starve. This probably won't happen to Americans if you're within walking distance of a McDonald's and can afford a buck twice a day for a McDouble. Alan Greenspan chose Keynes instead of von Mises, probably because Alan was a politician and Keynes is the easy way for any politician. Of course, it was that choice or get fired. He had his head-of-the Fed job for a long time.

[Peter]

I wish Mitch Daniels would declare so I can start automatizing his name.

Osama? No, Obama.

Ron? No, Rand.

Mitt. No, Mitch.

Mitt raised 10 million in one day. Don't count him out.

As a symbol and as a precursor to his son Rand, I am not yet ready to disavow Ron Paul. The political pundit's profiles of Ron Paul say that he would have the United States become a political isolationist government, to disastrous affect, but the world's largest free trade partner, to wonderful affect.

Supporting the opposite stance (AFTER World War II) that a withdrawal from the middle east and other hotspots would be a good thing, Chris Matthew Sciabarra wrote "Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand's Radical Legacy" in his "notablog."

Is Chris is the next Nostradamus? These are powerful ideas.

Peter

Chris wrote in 2003:

By contrast, both Germany and Japan possessed relatively homogeneous cultures and the rudiments of a democratic past, while retaining no allies after the war. And in the case of Japan, the U.S. had the full cooperation of Emperor Hirohito, who stepped down from his position as national deity, to become the figurative head of a constitutional monarchy.

For those of us bred on Ayn Rand's insight that politics is only a consequence of a larger philosophical and cultural cause – (and) that culture, in effect, trumps politics-the idea that it is possible to construct a political solution in a culture that does not value procedural democracy, free institutions, or the notion of individual responsibility is a delusion. Witness contemporary Russia, where the death of communism has given birth to a society of warring post-Soviet mafiosi, leading some to yearn for the good ol' days of Stalin . . . Even though I support relentless surgical strikes against terrorists posing an imminent threat to the United States, I have argued that America's only practical long-term course of action is strategic disengagement from the region. In the long-run, I stand with those American Founding Fathers who advocated free trade with all, entangling political alliances with none. If that advice was good for a simpler world, it is even more appropriate for a world of immense complexity, in which no one power can control for all the myriad unintended consequences of human action. The central planners of socialism learned this lesson some time ago; the central planners of a projected U.S. colonialism have yet to learn it.

End quote

Life is like a box of chocolates. and that's all i have to say.

Notes:

Rand wrote in The Roots of War:".

. . . the essence of capitalism's foreign policy is free trade- i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges-the opening of the world's trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.

Rand states unequivocally: "Foreign policy is merely a consequence of domestic policy" ("The Shanghai Gesture, Part III").

Chris wrote in "notablog," Thus, the New Fascism exports "the bloody chaos of tribal warfare" to the rest of the world, creating a whole class of "pull peddlers" among both foreign and domestic lobbyists, who feed on the carcass of the American taxpayer, causing massive global political, social, and economic dislocations ("The Pull Peddlers"). Whereas the Left derided "capitalist imperialism" for this state of affairs, Rand recognized that capitalism, "the unknown ideal," had taken the blame for the sins of its opposite. She lamented the internationalization of the New Fascism; given "the interdependence of the Western world," all countries are "leaning on one another as bad risks, bad consuming parasite borrowers." She recognized how the system's dynamics propelled such internationalization, but advised: "The less ties we have with any other countries, the better off we will be." Suggesting a biological analogy in warning against the spread of neofascism, she quips: "If you have a disease, should you get a more serious form of it, and will that help you?" ("Egalitarianism and Inflation" Q&A tape, 1974). In discussing a section of the 1972 Communiqué between the U.S. and Red China, Rand suggests a universal principle. "[L]ike charity," she writes, "courage, consistency, integrity have to begin at home . . . [w]hat we are now doing to others . . . we began by doing it to ourselves. We are the victims of self-inflicted bacteriological warfare: altruism is the bacteria of amorality. Pragmatism is the bacteria of impotence" ("The Shanghai Gesture," Part III).

Edited May 18, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Martin Radwin]

TIA Daily • May 13, 2011

COMMENTARY

Disqualified, Part 1: The Man with Two Brains

And unlike Herman Cain, Ron Paul is not an unknown (and unknowable) quantity on foreign policy. He has a definite position, and it is a complete American withdrawal from the world. (For an example, see his response to the killing of Bin Laden, which he sees as the only legitimate goal of the War on Terrorism.) What Barack Obama advocates without really confessing it, Ron Paul openly proclaims: he does not want America to have a leadership position in the world. He wants us to be laissez-faire—he calls it "non-interventionist"—not just in domestic policy but in foreign policy.

So Barack Obama, who has enormously escalated the war in Afghanistan, who has enormously escalated the use of drone attacks in Pakistan, who has unilaterally started a war in Libya which is now targeting civilian as well as military installations, who has done nothing about withdrawing any significant number of troops from Iraq, who is running record military budgets and has not advocated even the slightest reduction in military spending or even the slightest reduction of U.S. troops stationed around the world, who during his campaign promised to close Guantanamo and has now reneged on his promise, who voted to fund the murderous Iraq war while he was a senator, even while proclaiming his opposition to the war, who has expanded the murderous drug war in Mexico, which has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in Mexico caught in the crossfire between the Mexican government and the drug cartels, who has enthusiastically supported the TSA in its quest to irradiate and molest millions of Americans, who has declared his right to order the murder of any American citizen anywhere in the world -- it is this Barack Obama who really advocates a foreign policy of non-interventionism but just won't confess it.

It really takes a special kind of stupidity to actually believe such utter nonsense.

Martin

[Peter]

Robert Tracinski wrote:

And unlike Herman Cain, Ron Paul is not an unknown (and unknowable) quantity on foreign policy. He has a definite position, and it is a complete American withdrawal from the world. (For an example, see his response to the killing of Bin Laden, which he sees as the only legitimate goal of the War on Terrorism.) What Barack Obama advocates without really confessing it, Ron Paul openly proclaims: he does not want America to have a leadership position in the world. He wants us to be laissez-faire—he calls it "non-interventionist"—not just in domestic policy but in foreign policy.

end quote

And Martin blasted him.

Robert was to a degree, conflating the two men. There should have been a new paragraph. How odd. I read it like the following

It should have read like this:

And unlike Herman Cain, Ron Paul is not an unknown (and unknowable) quantity on foreign policy. He has a definite position, and it is a complete American withdrawal from the world. (For an example, see his response to the killing of Bin Laden, which he sees as the only legitimate goal of the War on Terrorism.)

What Barack Obama advocates without really confessing it, Ron Paul openly proclaims: he does not want America to have a leadership position in the world. Ron Paul, but not Barack Obama, wants us to be laissez-faire—he calls it "non-interventionist"—not just in domestic policy but in foreign policy.

If Robert said Obama wants us to be laissez-faire, hell just froze over.

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

"I support the subsidy of ethanol," said Romney, working his way through the Des Moines crowd, where he shook hands and doled out autographs. "I believe it's an important part of our energy solution in this country."

[Peter]

I can't believe Romney says he supports ethenol subsidies. What a maroon. What a callous sob. We could feed a billion little third world kids with that corn.

I think I will write a letter to Evita.

Dear Evita:

if you decide to run you know you will have the Huckabee crowd. They won't be voting for "Ethenol Mitt," who is a polygamist, as you well know. You need to reach out to the other 84 percent of the Tea Party Republicans by concentrating on Free Market Economics, defense, and fiscal responsibility and put social issues on the back burner. If you will do that, you will have my vote. Well, you will have my vote if you beat Big Love in the primaries. And if Paul Ryan isn't drafted at the convention after you, Mitt, and Good and Pawlenty stalemate on votes.

For now, go on tour and raise a ton of cash. Have Allison Krause and Union Station write you a theme song.

Keep your nose clean and stay off reality shows.

Your pal,

Pete

[Selene]

This is the leader of the Republican race for President!

http://youtu.be/w_HccSnw6GYhttp://

This group is Priorities USA Action, is a new group run by two (2) of O'biwan's former aides. The television spot focuses on Mitt Romney’s support for a controversial GOP plan to overhaul Medicare, but it also tweaks Newt Gingrich for his recent criticism of the proposal.

This is just the beginning.

[Selene]

This is a fascinating thread started by Peter Taylor, a "mere" four (4) months ago.

Survey: Jewish support for Obama drops to 45%

American president's approval rating on handling of US-Israel relations down compared with 49% last year, but if elections were held today, majority of American Jews would still vote for Democratic president over Republican candidates

http://www.ynetnews....4128190,00.html

But a separate Times article Saturday that said many small donors are hesitant to start giving to Obama again. And it’s no secret that even for Democrats, the thrill is gone.

The paper writes that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina has told Democratic officials that the president will raise about $55 million in the quarter that ends Sept. 30, about $30 million less than he raised the first quarter of his campaign – which was the second quarter of the year, ending June 30.

The news was – gosh who would have expected – buried within the Times story.

http://www.whitehous...s-huge-dropoff/

AND...

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- President Barack Obama's chief political adviser on Tuesday conceded that a dark cloud looms over the American economy and Obama's political future, describing the president's road to a second term in the White House as "a titanic struggle."

"We have the wind in our face because the American people have the wind in their faces," David Axelrod told an audience of New Hampshire politicians and business leaders. "So this is going to be a titanic struggle. But I firmly believe we're on the right side of the struggle."

http://hosted.ap.org...-09-27-12-37-01

Finally, Herman Cain leads in Zogby [a big Democratic pollster], Sept. 27th, poll, and raises the question, "Has a new frontrunner emerged?"

http://www.ibopezogby.com/news/2011/09/26/ibope-zogby-poll-perry-plummets-18-trails-cain-lead-among-gop-primary-voters/

Also, poll shows O'bama would beat Dr. Paul, by ONLY four (4) points, which means by a range of about nine (9) to a dead even possibility within the true margins of error.

It is still early, but, the incredible shrinking president is scared which is very dangerous, especially with the Govenoress of North Carolina, saying today, that:

Perdue's full statement:

"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."

Edited September 28, 2011 by Selene