RedStateEclectic

MI Predictions for 2010

1. The government will continue to grow in 2010. Federal pay and benefits will expand in their 'lucrativeness' when compared to the private sector.

2. State and local governments will begin proposing massive tax increases, millages, etc to protect a crumbling civil employee infrastructure from disintegrating. A bailout for the states and municipalities will pass by mid year to help pay teachers' and emergency responders' salaries.

3. Rand Paul will roll through the primary in Kentucky and the general election. Mainstream Republicans will continue to board the train as they recognize the burgeoning Tea Party movement.

4. To that end, Republicans are going to begin throwing around the term "Constitutional" all over the place despite having misplaced it decades ago. 

5. Republicans, through no fault of their own, will increase their hold in the Michigan Senate and come dangerously close to taking the State House. The Governor's race will be won by the GOP by 5-10 points. A runaway.

6. On the federal level the GOP will nearly retake the House and close out their gap in the Senate.

7. The liberty movement within the GOP will shift to include more than Ron Paul as Rand Paul and others begin to add new voices to the debate.

8. Peter Schiff comes in 3rd in the Connecticut GOP senate primary.

9. The 'economic recovery' will look to take hold in the first quarter only to vaporize and a new malaise setting in by early April.

10. The Lions will be eliminated from the playoff hunt before the end of 2010.

2012, Here We Come?

The Politico has an interesting piece up on Gary Johnson and the potential that he may be Ron Paul’s heir apparent.  A couple of things stand out:

Former New Mexico Republican Gov. Gary Johnson is a teetotaling triathlete who looks the part of the laid-back Mountain West politician.
But don’t let the jeans and black mock turtleneck he's sporting on his new website fool you: Johnson is starting to sound like a mad-as-hell populist with an eye cast on 2012 and the building fury aimed at Washington.

“I’m finding myself really angry over spending and the deficit,” he said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “I’m finding myself really angry over what’s happening in the Middle East, the decision to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. I’m angry about cap and trade. And I’ve been on record for a long time on the failed war on drugs.”

Is that enough to design a presidential campaign around? It might be, at a time of tea parties, rage at bailouts, job loss and general voter discontent. And there is plainly an opportunity for some politician to harness the anti-establishment, populist grass-roots fervor that is right leaning but untethered to any party at the moment.

It’s what Ron Paul tried to do in last year’s presidential campaign, but Johnson may better positioned to ride the populist wave than the longtime Texas GOP congressman. For one thing, the anti-establishment energy was not at the fever pitch then that it’s nearing now. And, unlike the unlikely Paul, a 73-year-old who got interested in elected politics when Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971, Johnson is telegenic, is media savvy and, equally important, has twice been easily elected to statewide office.

And then:

Citing the five limited-government principles that adorn the side of the Tea Party Express buses, Joe Wierzbicki, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Express group, noted that Johnson is in agreement with the group on those issues and had a record to back it up.

“He championed personal liberty and a smaller, less intrusive government, and we applaud both his record and his efforts to continue his fight at the national level,” said Wierzbicki, adding that Johnson has “generated a lot of excitement in the Ron Paul constitutionalist and libertarian sect, which is furious about the policies of both Bush and Obama and the Congress of the last three sessions.”

Johnson actually endorsed Paul for president last year, and he shares some of the Texas congressman’s libertarian alarmist views — but without the penchant for gold standard wonkiness.

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, said Johnson could find some overlap in support between the younger Paul adherents and a broader libertarian-leaning demographic.

Plus, Boaz said, the New Mexican might also be the only Republican giving voice in 2012 to a noninterventionist national security message.
“By the time of the first Republican primary, there will be two more years of these wars, and I would guess support for them will drop,” said the Cato thinker. “And every month that passes, they become Obama’s wars, not Bush’s.”

Johnson, for his part, noted his early opposition to the Iraq war and said the mission in Afghanistan had crept away from finding Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

“I don’t believe that our national security interests are being threatened in either location,” he said.
What seems clear is that for now Johnson has no plan to leave the GOP. He resisted a draft effort from the Libertarian Party leading up to the 2000 presidential race and now, while noting his disillusionment with the party’s fiscal record during the Bush years, says: “I am still a Republican.”

Be sure to read the rest.

Bargain Basement Jefferson

From Newsweek’s Howard Fineman:

No one thinks Ron Paul is going to lead the GOP, let alone be president. He's 74 years old and just too…out there. He is an obscure guy who waited patiently (if not quietly) for the cycle of history to come back around his way, and finally it did. We have been arguing about money, credit, and banks since the first days of the republic. Paul is a bargain-basement Jefferson for our time.

Still, the GOP needs to study Ron Paul, and learn. No one has better captured the sense of Main Street outrage over secret insider deals and Wall Street bonuses. No one has been more consistent about sticking to core conservative values—including the one that says the government shouldn't spend more money than it takes in. If the GOP is going to appeal to independent voters, it has to confront its own corporate allies. "Republicans need to find a populist edge again," says Craig Shirley, the author of Rendezvous With Destiny, a new account of Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign. "Reagan spoke to the guy who thought he was being screwed by big business, by big government, by the big media." The good doctor, of all people, is showing Republicans the way. What they need is a candidate who embodies the spirit of Ron Paul. Just so long as it isn't Ron Paul.

Be sure to read the rest—you may not agree with it all, but there is, I think, some truth to what he says.

LLE

Glenn Beck: What's With Him?

At times he has decent commentaries like this one:

Other times, he seems like a government shill. So, is he changing for the better? Maybe it's just wait-and-see on all of this stuff until the midterms start heating up. If he becomes a king-maker for the GOP machine and the neocons, then he'll have had his chance. If he backs more liberty-minded, peace-loving folks, I'll be more apt to believe that he's had a change of heart.

Victory Celebration

The GOP's Tug-of-War

As the primary season politicking starts en vigor, there is the question as to what is foremost on the minds of Americans and, particularly, conservative voters. In the Ron Paul camp, we’re hoping that people are starting to understand the wretched mess we’re in due to creeping socialism and the central bank that drives it. The primaries will be the first major test of Ron Paul’s ideological strength and popularity along with his political organization, the Campaign for Liberty, as we float like-minded candidates. Along the same lines are the candidates within the Republican Liberty Caucus which align rather well with the C4L.

Conservatives are usually better on economic freedoms but usually worse on personal freedoms and nonintervention. The latter concept is the more important issue, in my opinion. Many conservatives seem to be coming around to the idea of letting others run their lives if not simply for the sake of protecting their own freedoms from an encroaching state apparatus at home. The war, however, seems to still bring about a recalcitrant attitude among many who would otherwise be more closely aligned with, and vote for, Ron Paul-type candidates.

The first primary will be held in Illinois on February 3^rd of next year. Take away the Christmas season and that’s just around the corner. We’re getting close, folks. We won’t know until after the polls of each state close, but can we divine from the political rhetoric what the outcomes will be for many of the C4L candidates?

I’ve written about a few candidates and political celebrities and their views on the war and have wondered about how it affects electability. In an interview, Rand Paul stated that 75% of his supporters did not view his dad favorably, vote-wise. In another interview, Sarah Palin discusses her desire to escalate the war. Could it be that the war is still viewed as a necessity among conservative voters?

In a recent post by Angela Thorn, she brings up a very good point:

There's no way around it - being tired of war and embarrassed over the lack of terrorists and WMD's in Iraq is what drove mainstream America to the handsome city-slicker that simply offered change and hope.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the independents are now upset about the economy.  While Palinism might bring them back to the right side of the herd, there won't be any real change. War will be our biggest means of production, and the politically well-connected will continue to bring in bountiful harvests. And that includes our Miss Sarah.

Could there be a change in heart about the war? If so, is this change representative of the conservative base which votes in the primaries? In a recent post over at the LRC blog, Christopher Manion discusses the rift within the GOP. He writes:

The consequences for the GOP are dire: to win the nomination in 2012, a candidate must please that dwindling “rump remnant” in the GOP, a majority of whom still praise Bush 43 and Cheney! I doubt that independent conservatives will rally en masse to any candidate who can win the nomination under those circumstances.

A telling detail, seldom noticed: conservative groups still live or die on direct mail. Even during the height of Bush 43’s popularity, many of the groups I know well could NOT mail on the Iraq war issue at all — apart from the social issues (their bread and butter), they might talk about China, about Panama, even about immigration – but if they supported Bush on Iraq — or opposed him, for that matter — it would split their donor base right down the middle.

The above insight does not bode well for the GOP. They are split, philosophically, AND unattractive to more independent types. Their only ace in the hole is the terrible mess of things under a fully democrat-controlled government. Yesterday, I received a letter from none other than Shawn Hannity, who was pitching for the Heritage Foundation. His was the typical politically divisive dribble dripping with the frightful laws about to be passed that are as scary as those recently passed by the republicans. What was missing in this letter from a renowned pro-war mouthpiece was any mention of the war whatsoever. Very strange but in line with Mr. Manion’s observation. The letter did include a survey which asked questions about the war, but there was no preaching from Hannity on the subject.

Does this mean that domestic considerations now trump the foreign ones? Is it possible for C4L/RLC candidates to win primaries even though they are not in favor of the war? I guess it depends on how large that warring faction of the conservative base is and how high a priority they would place their beliefs in continuing this war. There is a better chance, I think, of that group voting for a noninterventionist out of fear over domestic issues than there is a chance of noninterventionists voting for a pro-war candidate within the GOP. Clearly, there is a rift. Will it spell defeat or, at least, minority status for the GOP for the next few years? We’ll have a better idea right about the time when the sun starts to warm the Earth anew. We’ll find out what is budding, and what is not.

[UPDATE]

More questions as we consider this.

Paul-Grayson Amendment - Something Quite Amazing

To me its an example of the incompetence and the contradictions that result from the incompetence of those holding and vying for power. It confirms my suspicion, in order to survive and succeed at least for a while in politics (a) you must not know what you are doing, other than in terms of (b) gaining, maintaining or expanding power. Sometimes (a) gets in the way of (b). Concerning the Paul-Grayson Amendment, this is what seems to have happened in a big way.

Something quite amazing happened yesterday in Congress:  the House Finance Committee -- in a truly bipartisan and even trans-ideological vote -- defied the banking industry, the Federal Reserve, the Democratic leadership, and mainstream Beltway opinion in order to pass an amendment, sponsored by GOP Rep. Ron Paul and Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, mandating a genuine and probing audit of the Fed.

Take a look at Glenn Greenwald's interesting article on this remarkable event.

See also Eric Parks' post.

Rand Paul Goes Up Against Trey Grayson, Round II

Tracy has the best headline: "...at the Bailout Ball AGAIN!"

Details are there, too.  I'll just say that Mitch McConnell is hosting another fundraiser and let Tracy give you the rest of the story.

Palin's Plan

From an interview with Rush:

RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we’re facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we’re going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: “We win, you lose.” The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he’s asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we’re going to end this thing with our victory. We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That’s a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen. We need to look at halting Iran’s imports of refined petroleum products. They’re quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

Escalating the war (a draft, perhaps?). Deadly sanctions on foreigners. Mercantilism. It's all in that one paragraph.

The republicrats seem hell bent on changing the middle-eastern landscape to their bidding. Then, I guess, if we receive more blowback from this, we would then be justified in conquering more countries? This is a nasty spiral we're in. From the fact that many high-profile politicians from both sides are talking like this, can we assume that the voters feel the same?

DeMint = Libertarian?

Over at the RLC, I noticed that Senator Jim DeMint was classified as Libertarian in his voting record. I don't know the methodology used to reach this conclusion, but DeMint doesn't strike this SC LPer as a kindred spirit.

His voting record on two major aspects of liberty are not in line with libertarian beliefs; namely, the ongoing war in the Middle East and personal liberties at home. In some ways, I can understand his votes supporting the troops and maybe not so much the war. I haven't heard his stance on interventionism.

What does not sit well in any sense is his support of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the continuation of which he recently voted for. In this he seems two-sided as he couches his rhetoric in libertarian phrases but votes the opposite - a trick which has been nullified to a certain extent by the internet.

Over all, a 2012 nod by the GOP would signify a stance for a more traditional conservatism versus He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named: the other SC senator, who wishes to move decidedly left as a political party. While I wouldn't be totally enamored with him (and certainly wouldn't describe him as libertarian), as it stands now I could vote for him.