Announcing “Eventual Romney Supporters For Santorum Or Paul”!

Posted on by
Reply

Since everyone else is launching pressure groups and PACs, I figure it’s high time I did the same.

Just in time for the Minnesota Caucuses, I’m announcing my new PAC, “Eventual Romney Supporters For Santorum Or Paul”.

To be a member of (or contributor to) ERSFSOP, you need to do the following:

  • Recognize the true goal for conservatives in the general election – to replace Barack Obama with someone who will shrink government and get it out of the way of economic recovery.
  • Recognize, in addition, that most important facet of the endorsement process; pulling like mad for candidates that reflect your values, and do so with a voice so loud and powerful that whomever wins the nomination needs to pay attention, even if it’s not yours.

And so the ERSFSOP charter basically says this:

I, a conservative base voter, recognize the primary need to to get Barack Obama out of office in favor of virtually any conservative-enough Republican, and recognize that Romney is probably still on the inside track to the nomination.  I also am uncomfortable with the depth of Romney’s commitment to conservative economic princpiples.  And so until Candidate Romney makes his commitment to conservative economic policy – especially repeal of Obamacare and drastic cuts to spending and the size of government – an integral part of his campaign, I will be caucusing for Santorum, or Ron Paul, or even plugging my nose and caucusing for the born-again Alinky-ite, Gingrich.  And so until you commit to the policies we support, your path to the nomination has a speed bump.   

Your choice, Governor Romney; a 55 gallon drum of Maalox, or a clear path to the convention.

Your move.

Any takers?

Our Brave New Rail-Based World

Posted on by
Reply

A few years ago, on a brutally-cold winter night, I was standing at a bus stop on University Avenue at Oxford with a bag of groceries. An older – or older-looking – guy, wobbling from a day of drinking, wobbled around on the sidewalk behind me (It was 7PM, although dark as midnight in mid-January).  The guy wasn’t feeling the cold.  He was muttering something under his breath.  He seemed agitated.  I kept my guard up.

I heard a car engine accelerate behind me – fast.  I turned, and saw a Saint Paul police cruiser, pouring on the steam and pulling across two lanes of traffic and heading straight toward the bus stop.

I noticed the drunk guy had started to amble north up Oxford Steet.

The cops slammed on the brakes and hit the whoopie lights just as they pulled around onto Oxford and squalled to a hard stop.  The two cops bailed out, fast, and pulled their clubs as they raced toward the old guy.  They took him down, hard.

Two more units pulled up in the next thirty seconds or so.  Whoopie lights blazing, the corner felt warmer all of a sudden.

This being University, the 16 and 50 buses were both late – so I watched as the cops cuffed the guy, bundled him into the first cruiser, and drove away.  Being a good blogger, I asked one of the cops what was up.

The cop motioned toward a bar further down University.  ”He beat a guy with a chair.  Put him in the hospital, probably in critical condition”.

They took off.

And still I waited for the 16.

I thought about this when I got an email from Joe Doakes this morning:

These are the prospective riders of the Light Rail.

The link is to a piece in the PiPress about a shooting on Uni:

A man was injured in a shooting at a University Avenue bus stop in St. Paul on Thursday evening, and police believe there were multiple witnesses who have yet to come forward.

The victim, who was taken to Regions Hospital with a gunshot wound to his leg, was at a bus stop at the southeast corner of University Avenue and Dale Street when he was shot about 6:45 p.m…Anyone with information should call St. Paul police at 651-266-5650.

According to the story, three guys including the shooter crossed Dale Street, opened fire as cars sat at the light, and hit the victim.  They helpfully point out that the cops don’t believe it was a random shooting.

Back to Doakes:

Do you still think people will come from Woodbury to ride that train?

And if they don’t, who will shop at the newly renovated stores?

That’s always been my big question about the Central Corridor – especially about the choice to make it a “Light Rail” train rather than a trolley which, if you just have to have a freaking train, makes a lot more sense.  ”Light Rail” is for people who whiz through the neighborhiood on their way from one downtown, or one of the colleges, to the other.  It’s not people going from WalMart or Rainbow with a bag of groceries who are trying to get down to Grotto for the four block walk to their house.  It is designed, scaled, and stationed to carry people through the Midway and Frogtown with as little interaction with the neighborhood as possible.

And the more I look at this boondoggle, the more fanciful – almost Jetsons-like – the “development” scenarios for the stretch between Cleveland and the Capitol seem.  What – someone en route from their legislative assistant job at the Capitol to their apaartment on Washington is going to stop at UniDale for a mocha?

Huh?

The train is going to largely cut the north side of the street off from the south side.  What does that do to neighborhoods that are, as urban planners euphemize, “in transition?”  It does what it did when they drove a freeway through Phillips (the part of Minneapolis between Franklin/Lake and 35/Hiawatha), or Frogtown (St. Paul from Lexington/Western and Como/94).

Any takers?

Polled To Death

Posted on by
Reply

The “bad” news?  While the GOP thrashes its way through an uncommonly-gnarly primary battle, the Obamessiah’s poll numbers look rosy in Minnesota:

President Barack Obama holds a comfortable lead in Minnesota over all the Republicans seeking the GOP nomination, according to a new survey from…

The better news?  It’s just…

….Public Policy Polling.

…whose results always give Democrats a couple of unearned points.  Not sure how, and I’m not saying they’re as bad as the Minnesota or Humphrey Polls, but the skew seems to have been consistent.  As much time as I spent tracking the one-sided inaccuracy of media polls last year (pointing out the disgraceful long-term pro-Democrat biases of the Humphrey and Strib polls), I’ll be doing even more this year.

Although Obama’s advantage over rivals such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich has fallen since last May, the president still holds an edge over the two current front-runners for the Republican nod among voters in Minnesota, the poll found.

All the usual disclaimers apply; it’s early, the GOP has no unified candidate and is stuck in intra-party squabbling (as we should be!), and the poll is getting media placement mainly to try to demoralize Republicans and prepare the ground for Democrat GOTV efforts, and likely as not there’s a systematic bias.

Against Romney, 51 percent chose Obama compared to 41 percent for Romney, the same margin by which Obama beat John McCain in 2008, the pollster notes. Obama holds a 15-point lead over Gingrich, 54 percent to 39 percent, and a 12- and 13-point lead over Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, respectively.

Nothing new here.  Carry on. .

The Most Conservative Candidate Who Can Win

Posted on by
10

At times like this, I like to remember William F. Buckley’s formula for picking candidates; picking the one that matched the title of this post.

Now, “most conservative” clause gets overlooked.  And I’m sorry to say, I’m less and less convinced Newt Gingrich is “conservative” as much as he is “opportunistic”; that he’s as “conservative” as Bill Clinton was “progressive”; in other words, whatever it takes to get elected.  And after Gingrich’s shameless descent into Alinsyite smear-jobbing his past month, I’m not convinced I could support the guy and sleep at night.

But for now, let’s focus on the “who can win” bit.

Romney led Obama by 47 percent to 42 percent in the Florida survey, while Obama topped Gingrich by 9 points, 49 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, Obama led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent and opened up a 56 percent to 29 percent advantage over Gingrich. Gingrich grabbed 12 percent of registered Democrats, while Romney secured 18 percent of registered Democrats.

“Newt Gingrich is weak among Florida independents and likely Democratic voters compared to Romney,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “If Florida is one of six key states that swings the national election, independents in Florida hold that key, and this poll suggests that Newt won’t be able to secure Florida for his party.”

In the popularity contest, Gingrich again did not fare well. He holds a 29 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable rating statewide among all likely voters. By contrast, Romney had a 44 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable rating. Romney’s popularity was lower among independents: 37 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable, while Gingrich’s popularity among independents imploded to 19 percent favorable with 70 percent unfavorable.

Even if I took Gingrich’s “conservatism” at face value – and I largely do not, not anymore – that, if true (and borne out by mo betta polling) really calls the question for me.

The question isn’t “who’s better at goading the media”; that’s not the President’s Press Secretary’s job.

The question isn’t “who can game the political mechanics better” – that’s what gave us Barack Obama.

The question is “Who is both conservative enough and who beat Obama?”

I have my serious, serious doubts.

And if Gingrich can’t convince me of both, he can forget it.

I’m going to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.

And I don’ think Gingrich is either.

If Listening To The Left Of The FM Dial At 9AM

Posted on by
Reply

KFAI Radio on the West Bank will be running an interview with me by Allison Herrera on their 9AM “Weekly News” show.  The subject was Voter ID.

KFAI reaching out for conservative counterpoint?  That’s not the KFAI I used to volunteer at!

I will try to tune in on the stream, work schedule permitting – although if there’s anything I hate more than hearing my recorded voice, it’s my voice as recorded after being filtered through a cheap cell phone.  But what the heck, I’m game.

Anyway, check it out.

Gap In Reasoning

Posted on by
18

There was good news and rejoicing; the SEALS continued their winning streak, rescuing an American and Danish hostage in Somalia.

But buried in the good news is a sign of the Obama Administraion’s myopia.

The Navy SEAL operation that freed two Western hostages in Somalia is representative of the Obama administration’s pledge to build a smaller, more agile military force that can carry out surgical counterterrorist strikes to cripple an enemy.

That’s a strategy much preferred to the land invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that have cost so much American blood and treasure over the past decade. The contrast to a full-bore invasion is stark: A small, daring team storms a pirate encampment on a near-moonless night, kills nine kidnappers and whisks the hostages to safety.

It all sounds good.  And so far, it is.

Here’s where the logic breaks down:

Special operations forces, trained for such clandestine missions, have become a more prominent tool in the military’s kit since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that led to the ongoing war in Afghanistan. The administration is expected to announce Thursday that it will invest even more heavily in that capability in coming years.

Cool, except that creating special operations troops is not just a matter of “Investment”.  You can’t create them with money.  You have to start with troops – traditionally people from the infantry and airborne, although they come from all corners of all services today – who learn the basics of being a soldier (or sailor, or airman, or Marine).  Then, the ones that have the urge to try will audition – and, mostly, fail – less than half of those who try to get into the Rangers succeed; the even-more-selective elite-of-the-elite units like the US Special Forces (“Green Berets”), SEALs and “Detlas” are vastly more selective; from6-12% of those who try out make the cut over a training-and-selection regimen that runs two solid years and change…

…and starts with people who are already proficient at soldiering; you don’t enlist to be a SEAL or a Green Beret or a Delta; you make your bones as a highly-competent infantryman or tanker or gunners mate or helicopter mechanic or paratrooper or Ranger or combat engineer first; to get into “Delta”, one usually starts the selection process as a highly-regarded, supremely fit NCO, a fairly senior sergeant with the beginnings of a solid career, before even volunteering for the brutally-exclusive selection process.

And in hearing the Obama Administration’s plan, I get the impression He thinks that you create SEALs and Deltas and Green Berets and Pararescue Jumpers by throwing a lot of money at an underemployed Georgetown Public Policy grad.

Defining

Posted on by
16

As it happens, APM’s “Public Insight Network” is asking about the same bit fof the State of the Union that stuck in my craw the other night.

In his State of the Union Address to Congress, President Obama talked about what he called “the basic American promise” — that if people worked hard, they could afford a home, college for their kids and some savings for retirement.

Is that still YOUR expectation of America?

They’ve put it in the form of a survey question.

My answer went a little something like this:  It’s one of the questions that defines the difference between conservatives and liberals.

In my world, America isn’t defined by our government or any material possessions or financial status symbols.  It’s about opportunity and liberty; the opportunity to succeed by dint of my merits and talents (or fail through the lack of them).

My “expectation of America” is that the government that I elect will shut up and get out of the way and let private enterprise – me – take care of things.

That pretty much covers it!

The Unthinkable

Posted on by
4

I can remember a time when Soldier Of Fortune might have run a piece on a latte-drinking liberal woman, scared by some close calls with crime opted to buy a gun:

More than once [while living in Los Angeles] I called 911. What’s bizarre is that during those nights I never remembered the gun. I didn’t even know where R. stored it. It never occurred to me that a gun might quiet my blaring inner alarms.

Until last year, that is, when I moved to Montana to live with my new boyfriend, now fiancé. Montana is one of only 12 states that allow residents to carry a loaded gun in public—“open carry”—either on foot or in a vehicle, without a permit. (To carry a concealed weapon, you do need a permit, obtainable after completing a training or safety course.)

Firearms, in other words, are a seamless part of the culture here. I don’t see people examining fruit in the produce aisle at Albertsons with a gun in plain sight, but I have glimpsed quite a few guns idly resting, like a map or some other quotidian object, on the dashboard of a car. People also talk about guns casually and often, the way people in New York talk about long workdays and people in L.A. talk about yoga classes. My boyfriend’s father’s girlfriend, a sixtysomething former stewardess who lives in Jackson Hole, tells me she keeps a pistol in her car because she often drives long stretches, crisscrossing her way between Wyoming and Arizona. Another woman I befriended, a quirky, devoutly Christian two-time divorcée in her fifties, takes her teenage son to the shooting range on weekends instead of to the movies. Leaving a sporting-goods store one evening, I pass a young couple with a yellow Labrador. “Thank you, thank you, thank you!” squeals the woman, who has frosted pink lipstick and a blond ponytail snaking down her back. “This is for my birthday, right?” She’s carrying a large box containing a shotgun. As Lindsay McCrum, a photographer who published the bluntly titled book Chicks With Guns, has said: “When you get outside of the blue-state cities, everybody has a gun.”

But that’s not Soldier Of Fortune  It’s Elle. And I can not remember a time when Elle would have done anything but sniff with horror at the thought.

Toss

Posted on by
1

The other day, Sally Jo Sorenson at snarkblog Blue Stem Prairie wrote:

Just this morning Bluestem observed that we simply can’t make this stuff up about the Republican Party of Minnesota when it comes to scandal and mayhem.

And if she could make stuff up, she’d be writing for Cucking Stool.

But I digress:

Tonight on 45 Local News’ 9:00 p.m. broadcast, Jay Kolls reported that Representative Steve Smith had an “inappropriate relatioship” with a staffer, who was reassigned to a different area of the House, before leaving employment at the chamber. The report is the be expanded on KSTP 5 at 10.

Well, here’s hoping the good, conservative citizens of Mound toss his ass and replace him with someone better.  Smith is an adequate Republican; his Taxpayers League score is on the low end of the GOP average; Mound can elect better.

But Smith has been standing smack in the face of shared-parenting legislation in the House for years.  Provided he’s replaced by a conservative Republican, I wouldn’t shed a tear if he was disappeared from the House this fall.  He’s been playing into the hands and filling the coffers of the Wahhabi Feminists for way too long.

Oh, This Is Huge. Just Huge.

Posted on by
11

On the first weekend in March, in about six weeks, the Northern Alliance Radio Network will celebrate its’ eighth anniversary on the air.

Not to be un-Scandinavian-ly immodest, but we’ve built quite a franchise; we dominate Twin Cities weekend talk radio ratings against much bigger stations with much stronger signals, we have become appointment radio for regional conservatives, and if there’s a local Twin Cities talk show with a bigger national footprint, I’m darned if I can think of who it is.  There’s a reason Salem Twin Cities keeps us on the air, and it’s not just because they’re nice guys.

Now, the NARN has always been run by conservative bloggers.  And if there’s anything conservative bloggers have in common, it’s the fact that we come  to mock, taunt, often clobber and, at least rhetorically, bury the mainstream media.   Not, as a rule, to praise it, much less seek their recognition or approval.  Most of us would rather be approved of by used car salespeople – and, indeed, having run a dozen or so remote broadcasts from Paul Ruben’s White Bear Lake Superstore, that is emphatically, literally true for us on the NARN.

So it’s not like we expect the NARN, no matter how successful we get, to ever break the wall at most regional mainstream media; the MSM’s policy has always been to ignore the alt-media until they need to attack it.  And, true to form, the few mentions we’ve gotten have usually been for cases where one or another of us has broken with GOP or conservative orthodoxy in a way that someone or other in the MSM thinks, I suspect, will weaken the conservative coalition, which certainly doesn’t happen often.

So I think we are, as a rule, perfectly happy to work in the Twin Cities media’s shadows, reaching our audience, kicking butt.  We fight way above our weight; we’ve interviewed  Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, Governors Pawlenty and Walker, Senator Coleman and Grams, Representatives Gutknecht, Kline, Ramstad, Paulsen, Bachmann (also a prez candidate), Mayor Rybak, and too many Senate, Congressional, State Office, legislative and local candidates to even mention, to say nothing of a dizzying array of authors, cultural figures and others, ranging from Ann Coulter to MST3K’s Mike Nelson.

Just saying – we do pretty well without any fawning media coverage.

Which is good, because the regional media has to save all that obsessive fawning for coverage any time an establishment/liberal media figure burps after eating a burrito.

Case in point:  Does anyone remember Jack Rice?  I do, sorta – he was on WCCO for  a while.

Anyone remember WCCO?  I do – sorta.

Rice used to do a show on WCCO.  He was sort of a symbol of how far the station had fallen, about ten years ago.  Beyond that, I don’t know much, because not being 75 and with the Twins and Vikes having long moved elsewhere, I haven’t  spun my dial to 830 for anything but Mischke in a good five years, now.

Anyway, the MinnPost’s David Brauer breathlessly reports that Rice has found a new broadcast home - KTNF.

Does anyone remember KTNF?  It’s the local “progressive” station.  The Northern Alliance Radio Network, on Saturdays, has far more people tuned in than KTNF’s weekday morning drive show, and that doesn’t even count our web stream.    It used to be the Twin Cities Air America station…

…er, does anyone rememberr Air America?

Anyway, Brauer reminds us (with emphasis added by me):

Fans of Jack Rice, the “journalist, lawyer, former CIA officer” and ex-WCCO radio host, should mark their calendars for Feb. 5, when his new 7-9 a.m. Sunday show debuts on AM950.

Hm.  Sounds like appointment radio to me.

Brauer contends…:

AM950′s ratings are a blip (a half-percent of local listeners) and Sundays aren’t exactly prime time, but Rice has led an interesting life and he might spice up your weekend listening when “Weekend Edition” is just too patrician.

And what kind of “spice” can you expect at 7AM on Sunday?

 Says Rice, “I expect my show to be quite different than what I did on WCCO for some five years … Regarding my political approach, I intend to be fair and factual. Of course, I will state my own opinions which I will argue are based upon logical conclusions. So . . . in short, I will be subjective.”

Which is, of course, a novel idea, especially on a station featuring Fast Eddie Schultz.

Oh, what the hell.  More local radio is a good thing.  G’luck, Mr. Rice.  Bring coffee.

You may be in an out-of-the-way slot, but the MinnPost will be there to remind us how vital you are to our political conversation.

Two More Years

Posted on by
9

Michele Bachmann, the bete noir of the entire regional Bachmann-deranged left, freshly retired from the presidential campaign trail, has announced she’s going to go for term number four.

Bachmann declared her plans in an interview with The Associated Press. The Republican congresswoman had been mum on her plans since folding her presidential campaign after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.

“I’m looking forward to coming back and bringing a strong, powerful voice to Washington, D.C.,” Bachmann said.

This is a very good thing.  While there’s been speculation that Bachmann could find herself lumped into a district with Betty McCollum (DFL – La La Land), the judges who are running the redistricting process pretty soundly rejected the DFL reasoning that’d have led to such a map.  We’re over a month away from seeing our new districts – but the Sixth looks likely to remain solidly conservative.  If reason prevails in the redistricting process, I suspect Bachmann will win by something close to ten points…

…which will send her back to DC a much more powerful legislator, a legitimate leader in a GOP caucus that seems likely at this remove to be larger and more conservative. than the current one.

Which is good for the Sixth and for Minnesota – and for conservatism and, ergo, America.

It’ll also leave the impotent shriekers of the regional Bachmann Derangement industry with something to spend their boundless, manic energy on – which makes for great entertainment for conservative bloggers, and not much more.

Anyway – good call, Rep. Bachmann.  Glad to see you back in the race.

Ten Miles Of Money Pit

Posted on by
8

Joe Doakes of Como Park covers some familiar territory:

The Met Council announced it wants to spend $32 million to build light rail and low income housing along transit lines, because they believe the population is changing to more seniors, minorities and smaller households so these projects are not only necessary, but wise.

That’s precisely the wrong approach. Instead, they should put smaller busses on the routes and vary the number by ridership (more during rush hour, fewer mid-day). They should work with cities to strip down housing codes so foreclosed properties can be resold cheaply as starter homes.

But the infallible alliance of government and its non-profit hangers-on has decided that’s what it needs; “low income housing” and hideously expensive rail transit!

Doaks touches on something that hit a little close to home:

Example: in 2007, Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity and the Greater Frogtown Community Development Corporation built Dale Street Townhouses, a 16-unit row house fronting on Dale Street near Thomas Avenue, five blocks North of the light rail station to be built on University Avenue. It’s supposedly “affordable housing” but a neighbor told me yesterday there are unsold units because the asking price per apartment is well over $100,000. And that’s the subsidized price for low-income applicants who qualify, that’s not the cost of building the unit. For the same money, they could have bought twice as many foreclosed homes, slapped a coat of paint on them and resold the houses to struggling families who then could have built their own sweat equity.

I worked on those houses, when I did “Habitat” for a local company, back in 2008.  The townhouses – basically stacked-up rowhouses – cost waaaay more than $100,000 to build, even with all the freebie labor.  And this was right after St. Paul passed its idiotic vacant building ordinance, which on the one hand ensured a glut of vacant buildings ensuring all of our houses’ values would plummet without cease, and on the other hand made it virtually impossible to put most of those homes on the market without an absurd amount of expensive repairs.

And I asked the Habitat guy – a supremely earnest young guy – what sense it made to be spending this kind of money on a building like this in a city clogged with vacant buildings.

He just shrugged.  It was above his pay grade.

The Met Council’s plan is precisely the same plan they’ve always had – to create a densely populated urban center to mimic New York City, whether the population wants it or not. Theirs should be the first budget slashed when the Legislature reconvenes.

It’s got my vote.

The Shot In The Dark State Of The Union

Posted on by
27

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Are your children going to be better, paying off fifteen trillion in debt (and counting)?

Your grandchidren?

Don’t be an idiot.  Of course you’re not doing better now than you were four years ago.  One out of eight Americans who want to work can’t find a job – so even if you have a job, and have managed to improve your outlook, you are going to be pulling the cart, on the job and at tax time, for everyone else.

We’re not a foodstamp nation; most of the nation still has a strong work ethic.  And our Administration is counting on that – for just enough of us to keep pulling.

We’re a sled dog nation.  And Barack Obama is the musher.

Last night’s message; Mush.

Open Letter To Certain Romney Supporters

Posted on by
13

To: Certain Mitt Romney Supporters
From: Mitch Berg, Reagan Disciple
Re:  Your “Ready, Fire, Aim” exhortation.

All,

I”m Mitch Berg.  You may remember me; I was busy caucusing for your guy Romney four years ago.  Let me refresh your memory; that was the cycle when a fair number of you geniuses insisted John McCain was the only viable option to run against Hillary Obama, and that we should not, could not, nominate a naif like Mitt Romney to run for office.

And eight years before that, I was the guy pushing for Steve Forbes, when you all insisted that George W. Bush was the conservative who could win.  And 12 years before that, when I said Jack Kemp might make a much, much better custodian of the Reagan Revolution than George H. W. Bush – you got your way then, too.

Remember me yet?

Of course not.  You’re the “establishment”.   You rarely remember the dirty ugly lessons of four or eight years back.  To many of you think “spin” equals fact.

And that’s fine – because you win your fair share of elections.  You’ve got the money, the oomph, the organization, the experience in power.  That counts for something.

And with that, I suppose you’re entitled to think of your agenda as “inevitable” in the party.  The problem is, some of us peasants – the people who are allied to principle first, party second (not that they need be exclusive or in conflict) – keep getting uppity and in the way.  It happened in 2006, when a knot of “establishment” figures in the Sixth CD GOP here in Minnesota got their undies in a toxic knot because Michele Bachmann flooded the various precinct caucuses with her supporters, making the local “establishment” – including many of you – claim that Bachmann “stole the nomination” when, in fact, she just did democracy and politics better than you did.

Ditto in 2008.  Maybe the influx of Ron Paul supporters split the conservative vote so finely that Mitt Romney never had a chance, and your guy Mac coasted to the nomination.  Maybe not – and it doesn’t matter much now, since between dual influences of the Ronulans and the Tea Party, the GOP finally, blessedly moved to the right.  Far enough to turn the conservative of 2008 into the moderate of 2012.

And all of that grassroots activity has made some of you – you know who you are -profoundly uncomfortable.  All us  unwashed Tea Partiers make you nervous, like John Quincy Adams supporters beholding Andrew Jackson’s entourage moving into the White House.  I’m fine with that, too.

But the reaction some of you are having to the “insurgency” (read: people doing the  democracy thing) in the GOP is telling us some things that I really would rather not be hearing nine months before an election.

Hugh Hewitt, who is a great friend of the radio show I do with Ed Morrissey, said it loudest on his national talk show – “If Ron Paul gets nominated, I’ll vote for Obama”.

Let’s come back to that in a moment here.

When I interviewed Michael Reagan last summer at the Midwest Leadership Conference, he made a great – and lamentably overlooked – point; his father, Ronald Reagan, didn’t win because he was the purest conservative.  He didn’t win because he had the most forward-looking economic vision.  He didn’t win because he promised to end the Cold War with unconditional victory.  And he didn’t win, in those days when people were still wondering what went into that seventeen minute gap in the Watergate tapes, because he was a pure establishment Republican.

He won because he convinced a whooooole lot of people who’d never have ordinarily voted for him, moderates and paleocons and RINOs and unemployed/patriotic Democrats, even – in the primaries and then in the general election – that he and his ideas were right.

Now, I don’t care if you say you’d stay home or even vote Obama if Ron Paul wins the nomination.  I don’t care in the same sense that “I don’t care if Scarlett Johannson has a chive in her teeth during our first date”, because it’s almost purely academic.  Neither is likely to ever happen.

But when you – the Establishment, with your Harvard degrees and your party apparatus and national media outlets – tell the 10-15% of the people who are coming out to GOP primaries, many for the first time, and the much larger percentage of younger voters and potential activists, “your guy, and by extension the principles for which he stands, and by further extension those for which you stand, are so risible that I’ll vote for the enemy first”, what’s that telling them?

It’s telling them that they and their beliefs, by dint of their association with a candidate who (holy hannah!) has a flaw in his past, are a bigger enemy than the President who is, by all of our mutual admissions, destroying this country.

We’re not talking about people who wrote racist rants thirty years ago; many of the people you are talking to weren’t born when Ron Paul wrote his racist screeds.  We’re not talking about people who believe the Iranians have just grievances with us; in many case, you’re talking to people who’ve put their lives on the line to defend this country (Rep. Paul has a disproportionate share of the military vote), and have been getting bombed and shot at by Iranian proxies (and probably actual Iranians).

Your attachment to the establishment – to the process, the machinery, the access, your tee time with Karl Rove, whatever – leads you to demonize a candidate with no chance of getting nominated and, more importantly, alienate a huge mass of voters that would be much better served, and in the long run would serve the party much better, with a little convincing, even if it doesn’t work right away.  People who are, in many respects, the future of conservatism and the GOP.

Ask yourself – What Would Reagan Do?

Let’s go back to the top and re-think this, shall we?

That is all.

Open Letter To Newt Gingrich Supporters

Posted on by
7

To: Newt Gingrich’s Supporters
From: Mitch Berg, guy who really wants to like and support Newt, but juuuust can’t yet.
Re: No, the postscript in my “From” line really says it all.

All,

Loathe as I am to cite Hugh Hewitt, he did  have an excellent point for all of you Gingrich supporters last night on his show.  I’m going to turn that point into a question.

I’ll get to that in a moment.

William F. Buckley’s rule for picking a candidate was simple; pick the most conservative candidate that can win.  I follow this – after doing what I can to make the candidate who can win more conservative (see Tim Pawlenty, 2002).

Now, let’s leave aside the troubling episodes in Newt’s career – older ones, like his creakingly convoluted personal life (and I’m disregarding everything Marianne said in her loathsome interview, by the way, and only going by stuff Gingrich has admitted to, or which is in court records), middle-term ones like his trading butterfly kisses with Nancy Pelosi, and painfully recent ones like his tossing all of capitalism under the bus and his adoption of Saul Alinkski’s tactics to try and eke out a lead in South Carolina (which is the very definition of politics in its worst form over principle); let’s even leave aside the fact that Newt is in many ways a conservative (fingers crossed) mirror of his would-be nemesis, Barack Obama – albeit with more actual real-world government experience.  Forget all that.

Remember Buckley; pick “the most conservative candidate that can get elected”.

As Hugh notes, Newt has 100 percent name recognition, and 60% negative perception.

Why should I support him?

Don’t talk principles.  Don’t talk history.  Don’t talk 1994.  Don’t talk policy.  Talk numbers.  Convince me.

That is all.

Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters

Posted on by
6

To:  Ron Paul supporters
From: Mitch Berg, Former Big-L Libertarian, current small-l libertarian
Re:  Your candidate

All,

I love a David and Goliath fight as much as anyone, and much more than most.  So the idea that a candidate could come in out of nowhere, electorally speaking, and tip the GOP establishment up on its ear is something I just looooove.  Seriously.

And not only do I totally get the principles Ron Paul is espousing – liberty, shrinking government, etc – I have run for office behind them.

I don’t support Ron Paul, personally, as a candidate, for many of the same reasons I bailed out of the Big-L Libertarian Party fourteen years ago; while I agree with its core principles and high-level beliefs, there is little about your candidate, like my old party, that makes me think he’s ready for prime time when it comes to trying to run a nation of 300 million people.

But this isn’t about Ron Paul or his principles, or the wrinkles in his past that many of you would have us ignore.  This is about you.

Four years ago, you – or an earlier generation of “you” – bum-rushed the caucuses, with the intention of taking over the Minnesota GOP (as in other states).  And of the ones that got elected to go to the House District conventions, some actually showed up.  And of the ones that got elected to go to the Congressional District convention, some showed up.  And of those few left who got elected to go to the state convention, fewer still showed up.

In short, when the time for writing resolutions and declaiming about “Doctor Paul” passed, and the time to try to do the hard, boring stuff started, you – the vast, vast majority of you – sat it out.  And that’s notwithstanding the number of you that opted to sit out the election.

It’s easy – and your right – to say “If you don’t nominate my candidate, I’m going to sit this election out”.  But this isn’t about the election – this is about the party of which Ron Paul is a member; the one to whose caucuses Paul and his organizers are going to send you in your thousands in two weeks.

Getting an agenda passed takes more than just noise, intransigence, and near-religious fervor.  It takes persistence, a willingness to work within a party system (if only to co-opt it – and that’s not only not a bad thing, that’s actually how politics works!), the cultivated ability to sit in party functions and keep your ass from falling asleep long enough not only to get candidates who believe in what you do endorsed, but to keep the party in line with your principles as well.  And as someone who just spent a year as a minor elected party functionary on a libertarian-conservative agenda, let me tell you – that’s the hard part.

So, Ron Paul supporters, please answer the question:  are you ready to try to stick around, learn a few things, and try not only work with (and co-opt!) the party in which your candidate is running, and to which his son is committed?

Or are you going to collapse into epic disappointment again?

Because if it’s the former, I’d love to talk with y’all.

That is all.

 

Open Letter To Rick Santorum Supporters

Posted on by
8

To:  Rick Santorum supporters
From: Mitch Berg
Re: Your Case

All,

Any of you Santorum people, please fill me in:  other than…:

  • He’s pro-life
  • He’s anti-gay marriage
  • He’s got an R by his name
  • He drives libs insane

…what precisely is the case for your guy?

Don’t get me wrong – I support all these things, to one degree or another.

But what’s the case for nominating Santorum?

That is all.

The Agenda

Posted on by
2

To hear the media and the lefty chanting classes, you’d never know that the most recent poll that matters – November of 2010 – showed that Minnesotans support candidates who support lower taxes, lower regulation and less government.

And then there’s the crowd in the DFL and media (PTR) that believes the Minnesota GOP’s internal spasms have anything to do with what’s going on in the Legislature (which, don’t forget, was elected via the Caucus’ efforts; the state party has very little to do with electing legislators).

And they’re going to do their darnedest to try to negate that election.

Against that, as the session kicks off today, we have Speaker of the House Kurt Zellers and House Majority Leader Matt Dean, who h laid out their agenda in the Strib over the weekend:

What a difference a year makes.

Last January, there was more than a foot of snow on the ground, the state was facing a $5.2 billion budget deficit, and Gov. Mark Dayton and the DFL were calling for huge tax increases.

This year, we have no snow to speak of, there is an $876 million budget surplus, and Dayton and the DFL are declaring job creation the No. 1 priority of the 2012 session.

Zellers and Dean are too diplomatic to point out that Governor Dayton’s “Jerbs Plan” is, in every particular, rotting fly-covered suppurating bulls**t.

Fortunately, I’m not that diplomatic, and that’s exactly what the Jerbs plan is.

The GOP has the real jobs plan:

Our economic recovery is too important to become just another line item in the state’s biennial budget that is continually subject to change.

Republicans in the Legislature are focused on the long-term structural needs of our state. Our Reform 2.0 agenda was developed with the input of Minnesotans.

We spent the last five months traveling the state, driving thousands of miles to dozens of cities to meet with hundreds of job providers, local government officials, educators and citizens to listen to their ideas on what government can and should do better.

One of the most maddening DFL chanting points last session was “What is the MNGOP doing to create Jerbs?”, as if they expected the GOP tom, I dunno, pass a law requiring employers to hire people.

The GOP has a grasp on actual reality, fortunately:

In Minnesota, almost one-third of the new job growth in this decade will be in science and math fields. However, these new jobs will not exist unless we reform our education system.

As part of Reform 2.0, we will continue to push for strong teacher evaluations, pay linked to teacher and student performance, and the removal of barriers to get rid of bad teachers. Seniority privileges should not trump student achievement.

Can you see the Minnesota Federation of Teachers hiring assassins yet?

Well, this next section will fix that…:

We will also give serious consideration to granting the mayors in Minneapolis and St. Paul mayoral control of their respective school districts. In addition, we will support an aggressive plan to turn around the lowest-achieving schools in Minnesota and will allow for aggressive replication of high-performing charter schools.

While the idea of Chris Coleman controlling the Saint Paul Public Schools doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence, the point is that the administrative logjam does need to get broken, especially in the Twin Cities, if education is ever going to improve.

We are 20 years behind in streamlining government, and Minnesota taxpayers are paying for it every day. This session we will continue our push to make government more effective for the people it serves and those who pay for it.

From local government mandate relief and outcome-based spending to consolidation of administrative and back-office functions, our reforms will seek out and eliminate waste.

I’m looking forward to our next interview on the NARN.

We will also support a great idea we received while out on the road: require city and county governments to present budget and spending information in an easy-to-understand format designed to educate taxpayers and engage citizens in local government spending decisions.

I’m dying to see how the Rybak and Coleman react to the idea the people can actually read their budgets.

As a usability practitioner, I’d be more than happy to help. Have your people call my people.

In 2011, many good reform ideas were put on hold as we grappled with the budget (and the snow). Today we’re pledging to make 2012 the year of reform.

This is not a partisan agenda. It’s Minnesota’s agenda — an agenda we can’t let rest.

And I’m out to support that agenda.

Along with a few other things; let’s keep Zero-Based Budgeting in the spotlight.  And let’s pass Tony Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill – not just on Second Amendment grounds, but because if Dayton vetoes it, it’ll lose the DFL tens of thousands of outstate votes, and not a few in the Metro to boot.

It’s gonna be a fun session!

Pure Power Unleashed

Posted on by
6

Congratulations to Mr. Dilettante, from Mr. D’s Neighborhood, on winning the 2012 Minnesota Organization of Bloggers mayoral election.

The office of the Mayor is a vital one; as award-winning journalist Karl Bremer once discovered, the mayor of the MOB has absolute editorial control over all blogs associated with the Minnesota Organization of Blogs, a position with editorial control equal to…

…no, I can’t go on with it.  The Mayor has no power.  The MOB, being expressly apolitical, has no agenda, beyond two drinking parties a year.  Bremer is a frothing looney…

…Where were we?  Oh yeah.  Dilettante will take office at his swearing-in ceremony at the MOB Party on February 25. Make sure you reserve your seat at this historic event.

Hope to see you there!

 

The Exposed Id Of The Democrat Party In Action

Posted on by
5

A small gaggle of House Democrats, led by Dennis Kucinich, are proposing a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control corporate profits (in the energy sector, for the time being).

“But Mitch”, the liberals will respond, “it’s just Dennis Kucinich!  It doesn’t matter!”

What, you think  anything happens in Congress by accident?  Without Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer’s direct permission?

This is at best an attempt to launch a chanting point to throw at Republicans in the fall – “John Kline supports excess profits!” – and at most a testing of the legislative waters.

Chad at  Fraters Libertas points out that there is, of course, nothing reasonable about it:

If the idea of a “Reasonable Profits Boards” run by unelected government bureaucrats doesn’t make you recoil in horror, you must be ingnorant of the long history of such previous efforts by the state to dictate economic activities. But don’t you dare call this socialism. ‘Cause then, YOU would be the extremist.

Elder gets to the nature of how the Progressive Noise Machine works.  Like the “Dayton Jerbs Bill”, it’s not about jobs or excess profits; both are about creating chanting points for the left to trot out this fall.

The Primary Route

Posted on by
4

If there’s been one constant in this ever-changing Republican presidential primary season, it’s that every candidate has looked like Icarus at one point or another, melting under the heat of media and voter scrutiny.

We remain roughly a month-and-a-half away from Super Tuesday, the date where traditionally the primaries have been resolved – if not in literally allocating enough delegates to produce a winner, than at least enough to leave the outcome less than in doubt.  9 states vote until then, and while the race will probably shift numerous times over the course of these upcoming dates, let’s take a look at where things stand now:

  • Jan 31st – Florida (primary):  Despite Gingrich’s roundhouse kick to the meme of Romney’s inevitability, and a new poll showing him surging into the lead in Florida, Newt may have already lost the state.  Why?  A supposed third of likely Florida Republican primary voters have already cast their absentee ballots in a state where Romney continues to lead by an RCP average of 18.5% (and he’s been beating the absentee war drum for months).  Considering Romney turned a 10% lead into a 12% defeat within about four days, suggesting another Lazarus comeback for Gingrich isn’t out of the question, but requires Newt to significantly win the remaining pool of likely voters – and drive turnout up.  Perhaps biggest factor influencing decisions about Florida – the fact that the state’s delegates are winner-take-all.  Even a Iowaesque margin means one candidate takes home 50 delegates (cut nearly in half by the RNC due to Florida crashing the primary schedule) and everyone else gets squat.  Some of the field might be better served getting ready for the rest of the Republican primary schedule which includes…
  • Feb 4 – Nevada (caucus):  There’s a presumption that Nevada is prime Romney territory due to his 2008 victory, fueled by the state’s nearly 8% Mormon population (they comprised 25% of the caucus turnout in 2008).  And certainly in what little polling has been done (no new poll in a month), Romney has maintained a lead throughout, even at the height of Newtmania in December.  But the circumstances that lead Romney to win a number of caucus states four years ago have certainly changed.  With his role having been transformed from conservative outsider to moderate establishment, Romney now finds himself on the other side of the anti-establishment movement that he benefited from in 2008.  Nevada’s population might still help him win the state, but a caucus-filled February could hit Romney hard.
  • Feb 7 – Colorado (caucus), Minnesota (caucus), Missouri (primary):  Guess what all three states have in common?  None of them are actually allocating delegates on Feb 7th.  But damned if they won’t at least appear to matter as the momentum of the entire primary process might be up for grabs by this date.  Feb 7th might also be Rick Santorum’s last attempt to remain in the contest.  With Gingrich not on the Missouri ballot and caucuses far more fertile ground for a socially conservative message, Santorum needs to win one or two of these states to be seen as viable.  Paul could be making his last stand as anything more than a spolier as well, and likely will do quite well in Minnesota as he did in 2008 when he got nearly 16% of the vote.  While Romney carried both Colorado and Minnesota in 2008 (by large margins), again he was viewed as the conservative alternative.  If Romney only wins Missouri or loses the Show-Me State, talk of his collapse won’t be far behind.
  • Feb 11 – Maine (caucus):  Maine was virtually ignored four years ago by all the candidates (save Paul) and Romney still walked away with a 30-point victory.  Expectations would have Romney winning the state again due to proximity to New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the moderation of the state’s Republicans, and the poor organizing efforts by competing campaigns.  Because of that, probably the only way Maine’s results will have any impact on the race is if Romney loses.  The small media market might be tempting for the rest of the field to try and create an upset on the cheap.
  • Feb 28 – Arizona (primary), Michigan (primary):  17 days between primaries?  What will the 24-hour news channels do with themselves?  Probably forecast a split decision on Feb 28th, with Romney winning his former “home state” of Michigan and Gingrich or Santorum (assuming the latter is still in the race at this point) winning Arizona.  What little polling exists hasn’t been illuminating.  Three polls over the last three months have produced three different leaders.  Romney’s early January lead with 41% was amid his Iowa “win” and expected victory in New Hampshire.  Both states are larger media markets but the long delay between states will mean that aggressive retail campaigning might pay off.
  • March 3 – Washington (caucus):  The last state before Super Tuesday on March 6th could provide a little last-minute momentum for a candidate before 11 states (and 466 delegates) are decided.  2008 isn’t exactly much of a guide here – McCain squeezed out a victory here due to a fractured field with only 12,000 people showing up to vote.  By local comparison, nearly 63,000 Minnesota Republicans voted in on caucus night in 2008.  Turnout like 2008 likely means someone other than Romney wins – and that the result will be ignored by the media.  This could be a state that Ron Paul actually wins.  He performed well four years ago, has a strong organization in Washington and some establishment support (to the extent you can call it that).

Open Letter To Arby’s

Posted on by
3

To: Arby’s Restaurants
From: Mitch Berg, rare customer
Re: Bad Mood

Dear Arby’s,

I don’t go to Arby’s much.  While you have the odd good item on  your menu – potato cakes are proof God not only exists but loves us – your restaurants are not usually the kind of place I go out of my way to get to.

But to the extent that it ever was, you’re rapidly blowing it with your current ad campaign, featuring “RB”, the annoying slacker who tags every spot by singing “It’s Good Mood Food”

It’s one of those notable ad campaigns that started bad – the line “we all look the same way nude” was not something I’d like to associate with fast food, ever – and got worse (the tortoise congo line and the “angry bank robber” bits)…

….reaching their nauseating nadir, the “Fisherman” spots. Which start out less obnoxiously (and more predictably) than most of the “RB” spots, it’s true – but that just lulls us into a false sense of hope.  The spots end with “RB” singing “I’m on boat…”, through autotune.

Annoying? No.  Justification for a rogue Iranian submariner declaring a unilateral campaign of no-quarter destruction against fishing craft? Yes.

That is all.

100 Years

Posted on by
4

How many products built before the year 1926 are still in production, in their original form, today?

Cars?  Here was a 1912 Ford Model T:

Toasters?

Telephones?

Computers?

Indeed, there are very, very few products built before 1926 that are built at all today, much less in almost exactly the same form that they were at the time.

But there’s a noticeable exception.  John Browning designed no less than fifteen products before his death in 1926 that are still in production, in very nearly their original form, today.

Atop every American tank and armored personnel carrier in service from 1941 until the present has been a Browning M-2 .50 caliber machine gun, first produced in 1919.

The Model 97 pump-action shotgun has been in steady production since, well, 1897.

The “Woodsman” varmint pistol?  Still cranking ‘em out.

Even his Model 1885 single-shot varmint gun?  It’s been in production, in one form or another, since, ahem, 1885.

And let’s not forget today’s guest of honor – the M1911 .45 caliber pistol, which was adopted for service by the US Army 100 years ago today.

Perhaps the greatest handgun ever built, the 1911 is doggedly reliable, and its .45 slug is a reliable fight-stopper.  It soldiered through five major and countless minor wars, is still among the handguns of choice among soldiers who get to pick their handguns (special operations types, mostly), and it has not been out of production for any significant time in the past 100 years.

All of those firearms have one thing in common; they were all designed by John Browning, one of history’s great engineering and design geniuses.

Today is John Browning Day in Utah, the state of his birth back in 1655.