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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Mindy Greiling (DFL Roseville) is also apparently tired of being in the minority, and is going to retire from the House after this session, according to the Strib: .

The 10-term lawmaker announced Wednesday that she won’t seek re-election in the fall. She first came to the Legislature in 1993 and became one of the Capitol’s lead voices on education.

Help me out here – has education gotten better in the past ten years, or worse?

Sorry, I digress.

Greiling, of Roseville, served as chairwoman of the House Education Finance Committee when Democrats were in the majority.

November’s election will decide who serves in all 134 House and 67 Senate seats. Republicans currently control both chambers by narrow margins.

That opens a potential opportunity for the GOP.  While Roseville is traditionally liberal – they keep sending John Marty to the Senate – open seats and changing populations certainly help.  Mark Fotsch has been running a campaign for the seat since early in the 2010 cycle, and hasn’t stopped; he’ll be running for the nomination, and taking his best shot at the seat this fall.

More in the near future.

“Everyone appears to be waiting for a shoe to drop to change the dynamic of the campaign…”  – SITD 24 hours ago.

And since then?  Imelda Marcos’ closet has spilled out all over the GOP primary.  To recap 24 of the busiest hours of the 2012 primary thus far:

• Newt-onian Physics:  In one day, the Real Clear Politics average of South Carolina polls has shifted from a 10% Romney lead to a rounding error 1.2%.  We haven’t seen volatility like this since the stock market in the fall of 2008.  And the polls have move quickly because the fundamental elements that the entire 2012 Republican race have thus far been based on seem to be shifting as well.  Starting with…
• Children of the Corn:  Rick Santorum won Iowa.  By 34 votes.  We think.  Iowa’s GOP now admits we’ll never know who won the caucus since too many precinct results are missing.  Iowa Democrats shouldn’t exactly express schadenfreude over the error, since a similar result happened to them in 1988.  While the result (officially called a “tie” by the Iowa GOP) would seemingly boost Santorum, setting the stage for three different winner of the first three primary/caucus states, the practical influence of the outcome has been more to hurt Romney than help Rick Roll into SC.  At once, the narrative of the race thus far has been changed.  Regardless of Saturday’s outcome, Romney no longer can claim to have run the table, denting his greatest asset – the assumption of inevitability.
• Thrust and Perry:  Today could have been Santorum’s best of the campaign- news outlets might have led with both his belated Iowa victory and his formal endorsement by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.  Instead, the media is using the Iowa results mostly to discredit Romney and the Hawkeye Cauci while trumpeting Rick Perry’s 11th hour decision to drop out and back Gingrich.  Perry’s blessing doesn’t carry much raw electoral weight – he was polling between 2-4% the last 48 hours of tracking polls – but helps tremendously towards Gingrich’s efforts to rally conservatives behind him as the “anti-Romney.”  And perhaps most importantly for Newt, it robs the headlines from…
• The Ex-Files:  Marianne Gingrich’s timing was almost perfect – if she wanted to destroy her former husband’s political comeback (and she still might). Taken from a 48-72 hour-old context, her blistering ABC interview might have been the nail in the coffin of the former Speaker’s attempt to win South Carolina and stall Romney’s momentum.  Instead, her comments have disappeared down the news cycle memory hole as the narrative media outlets are going with is yet another amazing political Lazarus impression by Newt.  Will Marianne’s comments come up at the debate tonight?  Possibly.  Will her comments resurface if Gingrich wins SC?  Definitely.  But for now, Team Newt looks to have a few more days to figure out how to response to his ex’s charges that he wanted an “open marriage.”
• Fringe Fest:  Tonight’s debate is the cherry on this news sundae, prompting questions as to who will be the evening’s target.  Will Gingrich find himself in the crosshairs again or will Romney continued to be hit hard since the week’s earlier debate marked the start of his polling bleed-out?  What’s less debatable is that both Paul and Santorum will find themselves on the edge of the debate, likely literally as cameras prep for a two-shot for a forthcoming two-man race.  Considering neither is going to win SC, whose victory hurts them more – Romney or Gingrich?  The likely answer is actually Gingrich.  If Newt pulls out a comeback in Carolina, the chattering class will begin to apply pressure on the rest of the field to clear the path for the desired mano-a-mano debates.  Since Paul is more in the race to build a movement than a nomination, Santorum needs to stop Newt from winning South Carolina to maintain the mantle as the only “non-Romney” to have won a state.  Meaning don’t be surprised if Santorum comes out guns-a-blazing against the former Speaker.

Michael Barone notes that some signs point to a bad year for incumbents – but mostly Democrat ones.

The theory is that vastly more Democrat incumbents have gotten under 70 in opposed primaries than Republicans; the gap gets wider when you leave out a few obvious cases (people running in hyper-safe districts, people running against ethics or moral issues.

The point?

These results suggest that the anti-Democratic wind is stronger than the anti-incumbent wind. Nearly half of Democratic incumbents with opposition ran under 70 percent, while only about one-third of Republican incumbents with opposition ran under 70 percent. More than half of Democratic incumbents had no primary opposition—there’s no telling how many would have run under the 70 percent mark if they had, but it’s possible quite a few of them would have. If all incumbents had had primary opposition, and the number running under 70 percent had been the same proportion as among those who did have primary opponents, some 38 Democrats would have run under 70 percent as compared to 19 Republicans.

The media is telling you it’s an “anti-incumbent year”.  They’re right – but if this theory starts to bear fruit in the coming months, they’ll strenuously leave out Barone’s half of the thesis.

It’s starting to become a trend in the 2012 Republican primaries – the vote may be days away, but the outcome (seems) to have already been decided.  Much like SITD did for the Granite State,  let’s take a look at Saturday’s Coming Attractions for the Palmetto State.

• Romp-ney:  He won’t win by New Hampshire-styled margins, but Mitt Romney isn’t going to win by an Iowaesque 8 votes either.  The Real Clear Politics average shows Romney with a healthy 10% lead and the only candidate in the field trending up (Gingrich, Santorum & Paul have all flatlined in recent days).  Nor does there seem to be much of a battle for second place.  Gingrich has held steady around the low 20s and will more than likely hold off Paul who despite polling in the mid teens, admittedly has less organization in SC than in Iowa or New Hampshire.  Everyone appears to be waiting for a shoe to drop to change the dynamic of the campaign…and two events this week have perhaps the last best chance of doing it…
• He Turned Her Into a Newt!:  Sarah Palin’s quasi-endorsement of Gingrich’s SC upset bid was the best news the former Speaker has had in weeks.  But despite the South Carolina-qualified nature of her “endorsement”, Palin’s comments might have a better influence on Gingrich’s candidacy down the road as he attempts to coalesce conservatives and define himself as the race’s sole “anti-Romney.”  With Santorum’s numbers stalling in SC (and elsewhere), a reasonably close second place finish for Gingrich might not entirely clear the field but could likely change the narrative from conservatives needing to rally around Rick (even if we now know he actually finished ahead of Newt in NH).  Good thing for Gingrich that Santorum didn’t have his own major endorse…oh wait…
• Divine Intervention:  While Gingrich has been attempting to rally conservatives to his cause, Santorum was making headway in rallying social conservative support with the endorsement of 114 evangelical leaders in a lopsided vote.  Even better for Santorum, Focus on the Family leader James Dobson ignited controversy over Newt’s social values with his comment that Callista Gingrich had been Newt’s “mistress” for eight years.  Unfortunately, Rick may need an Act of God to finish higher than fourth in SC, have squandered his Iowa showing by trying to win, place or show in New Hampshire.  Like Gingrich, Santorum’s 11th hour endorsement might play better post SC, but unlike Gingrich, Santorum doesn’t look likely to have much momentum after Saturday.
• Little Mr. Sunshine State:  Will South Carolina’s outcome even matter if Romney wins as expected?  Romney leads in Florida, the next state in the primary calendar, by 26%.  That number isn’t likely to get worse in light of a South Carolina win, meaning Romney might enter Feb not only undefeated but by winning by margins that would make him the nominee if the system was designed by the BCS.
• Perry-kiri:  Ah, the obligatory Rick Perry comment.  Despite having performed political seppuku on his candidacy months ago (and confirmed by his 10%, $4 million Iowa showing), Perry has soldiered on.  There are three reasons for Perry’s decline: high expectations, poor debate/stump speech performance and….oh crap…uh….uh…the EPA?  Perry’s running third in Texas polling now, which should pretty much say everything that’s left to say about the one-time GOP front-runner.
• Raising Cain:  Well, he promised an endorsement by January 19th.  And he delivered…kinda.  Herman Cain is endorsing his own bid on the South Carolina ballot, aided by “comedian” Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC.  Cain will be on Colbert’s conservative-bash-a-thon TV show and Colbert will supposedly “rally” for Cain, trying to drive independents and Democrats to the polls.  Cain says critics of the move should “lighten up.”  Cain’s political influence certainly has.

With much fanfare from the media and the DFL’s press-release bloggers (most of them), the Dayton Administration released its “jobs plan”.

Call it “porkulus with a side of lefse“.  It’s a dumb plan – and there’s language in here that shows the DFL knows it (emphasis added):

Saint Paul – Governor Mark Dayton and DFL Legislators together today announced a plan that if passed by the legislature, will put thousands of Minnesotans back to work this year.

And there’s the tell.  This “plan” – more below – will come to the legislature bundled with some of the other nonsense Governor Dayton couldn’t get through the GOP-controlled legislature last session.  The legislature will toss it.  The DFL/media (ptr),the Strib editorial board and the chanting point bots will say “The GOP took your jerbs!” in November.

This plan is intended for no more.

To encourage businesses to hire new employees, Governor Dayton and the DFL Legislators propose offering a New Jobs Tax Credit. This would be a one-time $3,000 tax credit to any Minnesota business for each veteran, unemployed worker or recent graduate they hire during calendar year 2012, and a $1,500 credit for each new hire through June 2013. This $35 million program would create over 10,000 new, private-sector jobs this year.

Which is a great way to create a bunch of low-wage temporary jobs.

Business owners, I’d love to hear from you.  $3,000 is better than a kick in the teeth.  But given the other uncertainties in the economy.- Obamacare and the coming tax hikes and all the other regulatory nonsense that’s been pecking you to death and all the rest that’s looming in the next two years, not to mention Minnesota’s already-miserable business taxes  – isn’t it more like whizzing in the wind?

Like- a chanting point?

It’s a sign that the DFL has learned one lesson – sort of.  They’ve learned that “eat the rich”, in and of itself, isn’t a strategy for a session.  They have to put a meaningless veneer of “job creation” on top of it.

Other proposals in the plan include a new bonding bill with details to be announced next week, a proposal that will help Minnesota compete for business expansion through the Minnesota Investment Fund, an expansion of the FastTRAC program to provide career-specific training to prepare adults for the jobs of the future and the creation of the Minnesota Opportunity Grants Pilot Program which will help Minnesotans get the training required for high-demand careers.

Read:  a) Construction jobs for Dayton’s union backers, b) spending to try to convince businesses that the tax climate isn’t so bad, and c/d) more spending that benefits Dayton’s supporters in the education industry, coupled with platitudes, as if government has ever successfully predicted about what anything will be tomorrow. 

Dayton:

“From day one, my top priority has been to get Minnesota working again.

No, Governor Dayton.  With all due respect, from day one,  your priority has been to do what the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, Win Minnesota,and the unions have told you to do.  Last year, they told you to Eat The Rich.  Class warfare bombed.

With that out of the way…

Our jobs plan will help businesses create good jobs for thousands of Minnesotans who are looking for work.

No, it won’t.  It’s of little value alive – at $3K credit is bupkes – but of value as a wedge issue dead. Which is why you have your chanting-point bots yapping so hard about it now.

We need to focus on what we know will work: investing in infrastructure, providing incentives to private sector businesses to create more jobs, and training workers for high-demand careers.

Again with the code words.

Look- if you slash business taxes and cut regulations, the economy improves.  Revenue booms based on economic activity.  Then you build the infrastructure. Then you needn’t worry about training, because companies will train their own workers,on their own dime (although they’re happy to let the state pay for it, too).  That is the only “incentive” you need.

And it’s the one the GOP’s been talking all along.

And it’d hardly do to campaign on that, if you’re the DFL,now – would it?

The important part, of course, is preventing Minnesotans from getting fooled by this Potemkin plan.

It’s not the game-changer for this campaign.  But it could shave off a lot of votes for a lot of candidates.

It’s the Stop Online Piracy Act.  Posited as a means of protecting copyrights and against counterfeit drugs, the act – sponsored by Lamar Smith, with a slew of co-hosts – is rife with opportunity for abuse; it would make it frighteningly easy for government to censor online content on any dubious grounds it sees fit to find; it’ll make the user-content industry (think Youtube, Flickr and, potentially, any blog) exceptionally hazardous – not for abusers of copyrights, but for the service providers themselves.   It’s possible, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, for as little as a single complaint to shut down, say, Hot Air (and we all know what side is full of complainers who just loooooooooove to use the bureaucracy to stifle debate).

And the issue is gaining traction among those who pay attention to these things:

To the ranks of same-sex marriage, tax cuts and illegal immigration, add this to the list of polarizing political issues of Election 2012: the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The hot-button anti-piracy legislation that sparked a revolt online is starting to become a political liability for some of SOPA’s major backers. Fueled by Web activists and online fundraising tools, challengers are using the bill to tag its congressional supporters as backers of Big Government — and raise campaign cash while they’re at it.

Al Franken and – as luck would have it, the up-for-election Amy Klobuchar – both support SOPA.  Elements of the left have been beating on them, especially on A-Klo; both are, of course, in the bag for Hollywood.

It’s time to join in the bashing!

People ask me “who are you backing for President”.

It’s not “anyone but Mitt”, if that’s what you’re curious about.

No, where I stand so far in this race is “a point waaaay to the right of where Mitt is, so that he knows that I, and a few million people who think like me, remain to be convinced, and that he’d better hustle on over to the right to join us.  And stay here”.

In an election where I wanted a candidate that would bowl me over with his firebrand free-marketeering gun-toting Iranian-scaring tax-slashing government-throttling mettle, Mitt Romney is…

…acceptable.

As in “waaaay better in the Oval Office than Obama”.  As in “maybe so much better than this nation has a chance to survive into my grandchildren’s’ adulthood”.  Fingers crossed.

But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you don’t go to November with the candidate you want; you go with the candidate who gets nominated.

And so while I will do my best as an individual to make Romney know that he’s got Reagan-sized shoes to fill, and he’d better make a game effort at filling them, he’s…

…acceptable.

And apparently I’m not the only one that thinks so:

Mitt Romney is the now the only candidate that a majority of conservative and moderate/liberal Republicans nationwide see as an “acceptable” GOP nominee for president. Conservative Republicans are more likely to say Romney would be an acceptable nominee than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

I shudder to ask how they polled that – but that’s what Gallup says.  Gallup’s no Rasmussen, but they’re not the Humphrey Institute, either.

Acceptable.

It’s high time someone made a better case, if one is to be made.

The patient may be still wiggling on the table, but it’s never too early for a “pre-mortem” on the GOP New Hampshire primary.  [UPDATED BELOW]

• Margin Call:  With even the Suffolk daily tracking poll showing Romney’s numbers rebounding despite a week of attacks, the question isn’t whether Romney will win but by how much.  Perhaps the only margin worth watching is to see where Gov. Jon Huntsman finishes.  Short of a close second, it’s hard to see how Huntsman justifies going forward unless he believes Florida can be his bulwark.

• Rick-Rolled:  Rick Santorum is desperately trying to become 2012’s Mike Huckabee, right down to repeating the 2008 candidates’ mistakes.  Following his Iowa victory four years ago, Huckabee chose to contest New Hampshire and Michigan instead of turning to South Carolina and arguably friendly political territory.  Huckabee seemed temporarily vindicated by rising up from single digits to finish in third, winning a handful of delegates and lingering momentum.  Instead, the time and treasure spent elsewhere helped cost him South Carolina and the mantle as the sole “anti-McCain.”  Santorum might finish fourth or fifth tonight – and probably would have even if he hadn’t campaigned in the Granite State for the past week.

• Bain & Conservatism’s Dark Night: No, we’re not talking about the next Batman film, but some of the comments from the field this week over Romney and his history with Bain Capital do seem Two-Faced.  Romney’s “I love being able to fire people” is likely to end up in a general election ad should he win the nomination, but did the rest of the GOP field need to beat the Democrats to the punch?  Romney’s comment certainly shows a tin-ear, even if he clarified his stance within the next few sentences.  Yet nearly every Republican candidate has decided not only to take a swing at Romney on the issue but poke capitalism as well.  A pro-Gingrich Super PAC is planning a $3 million-plus ad campaign in South Carolina lambasting Romney’s Bain record as well.  As NRO’s Jim Geraghty muses, “the demonization of the free market is complete.”

• “Anti” Gravity:  While the battle to become the “anti-Romney” seemed more like a poor man’s episode of “Survivor” earlier in the campaign as candidate after candidate was eliminated from the race, the remaining Anybody But Romneys now look to be in an electoral game of chicken.  Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Huntsman have all taken their measure of the field and (fairly correctly) determined that none of the remaining candidates have the organization, financing, or momentum to displace the front-runner.  But the hour for someone to coalesce the anti-Romney vote is growing late and despite all the talk of the gravity of nominating Romney, none of the pretenders has yet signaled a willingness to move their support to another.  Thus the rest of the field waits for someone else to drop out in increasingly vain hopes that the last man standing can inherit the cumulative frustrations of the base.

• Days & Weaks Ahead:  Playing upon the last note, it’s hard to see where the anti-Romney forces can possibly stage a comeback given the upcoming primary calendar.  Romney holds solid polling leads in South Carolina and Florida and looks likely to enter February having won every caucus/primary.  But Feb 7th could be the date that sees Romney lose – twice.  Colorado and Minnesota hold their caucuses that night and if the field has narrowed down to one or two major competitors, the evening could contain the first electoral chink in Romney’s armor.  The only problem with that theory?  Neither state is actually pledging delegates to the convention – both votes are beauty contests and will likely be spun as such by Romney should he lose.

The following email was received by DFL Legislative staffers and legislators early last week.

And, via an accident on the sender side, pretty much everyone else in Minnesota Politics.

Members & Staff,

As we prepare for the start of the 2012 session, I wanted to update you all on a few items:

First, thanks to all of our members – too many to mention here – who helped with our Caucus fundraising efforts in 2011. As a result of your hard work and the hard work of our staff, we are in an incredibly strong financial position heading into the elections in November. You’ll hear more about that at our Caucus meeting.

Speaking of that meeting, we will be caucusing at 10 AM on Monday, January 23rd, at a to-be-determined location in St. Paul. The annual pre-session event begins at 3 PM with a VIP reception followed by the general reception at 4 PM. We’d love to have as many members there as possible, and have invited our candidates as well. Frank Hornstein and Marion Greene have also invited members and staff to gather at [address redacted out of basic decency.  Would “Cucking Stool” redact an address?  Pfftt – Ed], after the event. Please RSVP to Marion ([Email redacted]) or Frank ([Email redacted]) if you plan to go.

As you know from Paul’s personnel update email earlier this week, we are making some staffing changes that affect both our official and political operations. Today was Zach Rodvold’s last day in his current capacity with the Caucus. Beginning on Monday, January 16th he will be assuming the role of Campaign Director and will be working from our offices at the DFL. On Tuesday, January 17th [redacted] will return from maternity leave and will be stepping into the role of Director of Caucus and Legislative Services, the job held by Zach until today. Please welcome them both into their new roles.

Here’s the funny part:

In addition, Jaime Makepeace, who has been the Deputy Finance Director for the Caucus, will be moving into the role of Director of Candidate Services. This is a position created to respond to some of the criticism we heard coming out of the last election that some candidates – and some members – didn’t feel like they had a point of contact on the staff if their races weren’t targeted. She’s been working closely with Erin Murphy in our candidate recruitment efforts already and so this will be a smooth transition for her. Please also welcome her into her new role.

Sort of a human border collie?

Finally, a word about redistricting. As you all know, the precinct caucuses will be on Tuesday, February 7th, yet the new lines won’t be released by the courts until the 21st. This will undoubtedly create some difficulties for our candidates and potentially some of our members in going through the endorsement process. Because the new districts lines are unknown, however, and because there are potential scenarios where members may be paired together, the Caucus cannot provide constituent or voter information to anyone outside of your current districts. We will work with the party and with the DNC to ensure that, once the new map is released, members will have access (through the VAN) to the voters within their new lines as soon as possible.

If you have any questions about that or anything else, feel free to contact Paul or me any time.

Thanks, and have a great weekend. I look forward to seeing you all on the 23rd!

Sincerely,

[Name redacted]

Shortly later came the following:

Hi-

Due to technical difficulties with our e-mail database you recently received an e-mail that was intended for House DFL Caucus members and staff. While there are no state secrets included, given the confidential nature of the content we would appreciate if you did not share the e-mail!

Thanks for your understanding and I’m sorry for any inconvenience.

Best,

[Another different redacted person]

Nah, I think I’ll circulate it.  Thanks anyway.

The media knows that Obama’s in trouble.  An incumbent elected in a near-landslide should not be flirting with “unelectable” numbers in the face of the GOP offerings in this campaign.

And so look for any pretense of “objectivity” to be more a joke than normal…

…as we saw in Saturdays’ debate, where George Stephanopoulos reprised his prior career as a Democrat spinmeister:

When questioning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Stephanopoulos, a former senior advisor in the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, premised some inquiries on the assertion — offered without supporting facts — that Romney’s job-creation statistics were inaccurate.

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

All mainstream media – from the Big Three down to the Star/Tribune  – will check all claims of detachment at the door for the next 11 months.  Between now and November, I predict, will be the nadir – so far – of the American MSM’s propensity to bias.

Every once in a while you run into a lawyer – or wannabe lawyer – whose idea of argument is to tell you “you’re not positive you don’t not know you’re right, are you? Are  you?  ARE YOU?”

The idea, of course, is to bog your own sense of logic and reason down with so many non-sequiturs and strawmen that you’re not sure you don’t not know you’re right.

Or something like that.

It may not make sense the way I explain it.  But if you watch what the partisan media will be doing this next eleven months, somehow it all makes sense.

It fits in with the great sales bromide “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS”.

Which brings us, for the final time, to Katrina Vanden Heuvel’s WaPo op-ed earlier this week in the Strib, which is to this year’s effort to make people ignore the question “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

Third, the media’s obsession with false equivalence: How the election is covered will almost certainly have a measurable impact on its outcome.

When we think of this, conservatives may think of things like “the inexperienced and radically-connected Barack Obama not getting vetted as much as your typical mid-sized city mayor, while GOP candidates get their records gone over with electron microscopes”, or “The Twin Cities media gave Tom Emmer and all his contributors the equivalent of a rectal exam, while the sum total of the Strib’s coverage of Mark Dayton’s well-known mental illness and alcohol issues was a single story the January before the election, about eight months before anyone outside the wonk class gave a crap”.
That’s not what Vanden Heuvel means, of course:

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman describes what he’s witnessing as “post-truth politics,” in which right-leaning candidates can feel free to say whatever they want without being held accountable by the press.

There may be instances in which a candidate is called out for saying something outright misleading; but, as Krugman notes, “if past experience is any guide, most of the news media will feel as though their reporting must be ‘balanced.’ “

[MItch doesn’t even know what to say here.  He’s at a loss for words. I mean, the obvious – “Paul Krugman has become the nation’s crazy great-uncle, slowly descending into madness as the family watches the disintegration around the table every Thanksgiving” – but Krugman’s a gimme.  The idea that someone could say “political reporters strive for balance” is absurd on its face; the idea that they pull punches on Republicans because they want to appear balanced is less deranged than “there’s a bunch of elders of Zion that have these evil protocols…” only in a moral sense.  Anyway – Mitch is otherwise at a loss to address that last bit, and invites contributions from his reading audience – Ed]

In that world, candidates can continue to say things that are “flatly, grossly, and shamefully untrue,” as The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne described it, without fear of retribution.

Obama has traveled the world and “apologized for America,” says Romney.

Except that, no, he hasn’t.

Wait – so the media is “biased toward conservatives” because they don’t attack conservatives’ opinions of Obama’s “America Last” philosophy in slavish detail?

The stimulus “created zero jobs,” says Rick Perry.

Except that it created or saved at least 3 million.

Wait – the media is “biased toward conservatives” because while reporting Republicans campaign rhetoric, they don’t counter with Obama Administration chanting points, which are themselves wrong and largely unchallenged in the mainstream “conservative” media?

Obama is going to “put free enterprise on trial,” claims Romney.

How does he square that with the nearly 3 million private-sector jobs created under Obama policies in the past 20 months?

And then, agreement with the Administraiton’s chanting points is the barometer of truth?

These three factors are key not only to understanding this campaign and election but to seeing just how far we have to go to reclaim a democracy that is driven by the people themselves.

The biggest factor in going as far as you “have to go”, if you’re on the left, is making people see everything but how far they’ve slipped since 2008.

Think the media is up to the job?

The Strib seems to be getting into its A game.

More over the next ten months or so.

The job of the part of the media that supports Democrats and Obama – let’s be honest, it’s most of them – is starting to coalesce around and about the big killer requirement for anyone who wants to see Obama re-elected: divert people from the essential question “are you better off now than you were four years ago?” by all means necessary.

Which brings us to Katrina Vanden Heuvel’s WaPo op-ed, which appeared in the Strib earlier this week.

 Second, the rise of super PAC spending: Among the most devastating consequences of the 2010 Citizens United ruling is the rise of organizations that are not required to disclose their donors but that can recruit and spend unlimited sums in direct support of candidates.

As opposed to the unions, which also recruit and spend fundamentally unlimited money in support of candidates, and had enough clout to get themselves mostly exempted from campaign finance reforms during the Bush years.

That money is apparently juuuust fine.

Thus far, these super PACs have reported spending nearly $7 million. Fred Wertheimer of the watchdog group Democracy 21 told USA Today that the organizations represent “the most dangerous vehicles for corruption in American politics today.”

But not unions – perish the thought – which have their own SuperPAC and have been flooding Washington and every state house with money forever, with no end in sight, and which apparently is not a “dangerous vehicle for corruption”

While super PACs may not coordinate directly with campaigns, there is little means of effectively enforcing that rule.

The treasurer of Mitt Romney’s super PAC, which spent $3.1 million in Iowa running mostly negative ads against his opponents, served as chief financial officer of Romney’s first presidential campaign.

Jon Huntsman’s super PAC, which has spent $1.9 million, is bankrolled, at least in part, by his father. President Barack Obama’s super PAC is run by Bill Burton, his 2008 press secretary and a close adviser who left his White House post to gear up for the election.

The question about super PACs is not whether they will have an impact but how big it will be and whether a people-powered movement can stop them.

…and what SuperPAC will bankroll that “People-Powered” movement.

“Campaign Finance Reform” is, inevitably, an effort to silence conservative speech.

And the only spending Vanden Heuvel cares about is the spending dedicated to sending Barack Obama back to community organizing.

By asking the question:  “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Tomorrow – Vanden Heuvel gets really dumb…

As part of Barack Obama’s campaign to keep Americans from asking themselves the vital question “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”, they’re getting back to an oldie but goodie – one that’s been more or less on the sidelines since the end of the Healthcare debate; how anyone opposing Obama is some sort of “extremist” or another:

In keeping with its previous line of attack, the Obama campaign’s manager Jim Messina said in a statement that the “extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory” shortly after the results were announced early Wednesday.

“No matter who the Republicans nominate, we’ll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win — vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman’s right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.”

This from the administration that spent all fall using Social Security funding as a political football.

Messina also warned of “unprecedented” spending by outside groups on campaign ads and urged the president’s supporters to step up donations and on-the-ground organizing ahead of the November vote.

And remember – BOO!  Extremists are around every corner!

That was the line that a number of media outlets featured prominently on a couple of the evening newscasts last night – corn-fed, well-padded Minnesotans (of unrevealed political orientation, naturally) grumbling “I feel Michele Bachmann threw in her lot with Iowa”.

To all of those people; please take your faces and pound your kitchen counters with them for a few moments. I’ll tell you when to stop.

Keep going.

This is the USA.  We don’t have internal passports.  Decades of living in Minnesota, working in Minnesota, representing a district in the Minnesota Senate and then a Minnesota district in DC is not negated by observing a bit of Iowa heritage.  And – let’s face it – Minnesota’s provincialism is cute in an annoying kind of way at best, kind of pathetic at worst.

No, keep bashing.  I’m not done yet.

I live in Minnesota.  I grew up in North Dakota.  If I were running for President, I’d play that for whatever it was worth in both states  Because I can.  Because this isn’t a place where peasants are tied to the land, like a bunch of Russian serfs or Chinese subjects who need to show their papers to leave their home province.

No, keep bashing.

The fact that it’s mentioned at all in the media is part of the media’s attempt to start digging up anything they can find to try to jack Bachmann out of office next November.  They’ll need all they can get.

OK.  Stop bashing yoiur face now.

I hope we’ve learned our lesson.

Disjointed random thoughts about Iowa:

• Let The Donnybrook Roll: I think the results last night were about the best possible outcome for the GOP as a whole.  All the talk of the nomination being a predetermined conclusion is on hold, at least for now (and hopefully for quite some time); whether you’re a western libertarian-conservative, an evangelical or a pro-business, law-and-order conservative, you have a dog on the race.  More importantly, all those dogs matter; the longer the social-con and libertarian dogs run even with Romney, the more he has to concede to them – us – to eke out the nomination.  And at the same time, Santorum is going to have to figure out how to appeal to activists and voters in New Hampshire, Florida and Utah (not his natural constituencies) as well as South Carolina.  The winner?  All of us who want a conservative who’s primed to kick Obama’s ass in November.
• Come Home, Michele:  You took your best shot.  And it was a very good shot – the first woman to get into the GOP caucuses, likely the first of many.  Maybe the first of several tries for you.  But it’s over now, and I think you know it (as this is written, rumors have it your next presser will be to bow out; we’ll see).  You need to come back to the Sixth District and win – I’m guessing 15 points this time – and use the mojo you’ve acquired over this campaign to move into leadership, and build that resume.  And, let’s not forget, work on that message discipline; as I’ve said, when you’re “on”, there’s scarcely a politician out there who can out-motivate you from the stump. On the other hand, there are times when you shoot yourself in the foot with a belt-fed M240G machine gun.  I’m not going to recount the times – the media and your various local obsessive stalkers will do that for us – but let’s call it a growth opportunity; the next time you get a communications director who knows what he or she is doing, take their counsel.

Part of my interview with WCCO-TV made it past the cutting room floor last night.

You gotta look fast; I’m up around 1:40, and done around 1:50…:

…and I basically restate the obvious. But thanks to Pat Kessler for the call!

I don’t care much about polls released almost a year before an election.

But I tilt an ear toward some of the market-driven polls – Intrade and such – because people aren’t just giving opinions; they’re banking money on outcomes.

Just a tilt, mind you.

And with that in mind – the various market-driven indices are showing mixed results for the fall:  as of Saturday, they’re showing…:

• a 54% likelihood Obama will retain the White House
• a 21% chance the Dems will retain the Senate, and…
• a 33% chance they’ll take the House back.

It is, of course, a moving set of indices:

The chart shows how these three main predictions have shifted during the course of the year. Obama had a small spike when Osama Bin Laden was captured, but otherwise he’s been on a slow decline for most of the summer and early fall, with a slow resurgence in the late fall and early winter. The Senate has been relatively steady with small spikes corresponding to shifts in specific seats, including retirements and announcements of new candidates. The House has shown the most flux with a steep decline that mirrored the President’s, but continued longer into the fall. Yet, it has taken a sharp turn towards the Democrats in recent weeks:

Here’s the chart:

I can’t help but think that the unsatisfying nature of the GOP campaign so far hasn’t helped.  I’m going to guess things switch up after Super Tuesday…

…and bog back down again when the media goes all-in for Obama around Labor Day.

It’s long been the policy of this blog to never, ever endorse candidates.  Partly because it seems arrogant – I mean, who cares what I think?  And partly because even if I do have any influence over what people think about how they vote, I’d much prefer that that influence go to helping, in whatever way I can, to get anyone who’d be influence by my opinion to think more confidently for themselves instead.

But today, I’m going to break with that tradition.

On this, the eve of the Iowa caucuses, I’m going to give an unqualified, fervent endorsement for Paul.

Paul represents one of the  most important things I believe – the need to push libertarian legislation and policy into the mainstream of American political thought.

Oh, yeah – just so we’re clear, I’m talking about Senator Rand Paul.

I know.  He’s not running for President – not this time.  And that’s fine – because I’m not endorsing him for President.

I’m endorsing his approach to pushing the ideas and ideals of liberty into the mainstream of Republican politics.

Oh, his father, Ron Paul?  The guy breaks my heart.  Yeah, he’s a big-L libertarian and all, but even if you leave out the racist rants from thirty years ago (and even if we do, the media won’t allow the electorate to ignore them – and the electorate should be aware!), he’s basically claiming he can balance the budget on the back of defense, while he’s proposed nothing as far as cutting and reforming entitlements, which is basically saying “the dog ate my homework” if your campaign is ostensibly based on, y’know, reforming government.

No, I’m endorsing Rand Paul for the very reason I’d love to be able to endorse his father.  When I left the GOP in 1994, I did it because I wanted to belong to a party that believed in Liberty, the Bill of Rights, Originalism, and the whole idea that this nation is built on inalienable rights, not entitlements deeded to us by the Government.

And I spent four years interacting with people whose entire involvement in politics was to endlessly reiterate pure ideology, secure in the knowledge that they’d never have to actually tackle a budget or try to downsize a bureaucracy, since none of them were ever going to get elected to anything, ever.  Ever.  And I came back to the GOP, reasoning that it’d be easier to get the GOP to adopt enough Libertarian ideals to be palatable, and still be able to get people elected to get some – enough – of those ideals moved into some sort of policy.

Ron Paul has been a GOP Congressman for a long, long time.  And he’s had a positive effect on the GOP – when he’s bothered to exert his influence in the party.  But in 2008, when it became clear the nomination was far out of reach, he endorsed Libertarian party candidate Chuck Baldwin for President.  Which is marginally less useful that lighting up that endorsement and burning it – and set a noxious example for Paul’s followers; if you don’t get what you want, walk away.

An example too many of his followers claim they’ll follow, if Paul doesn’t win the nomination.  It’s especially true of the “Young Republicans” who, we are told, are very solidly behind Paul – and, some say, likely to sit out the election if Paul doesn’t get nominated.  Which is – I’ll be tactful – a lousy idea, this notion that you’ll “teach the GOP a lesson” by rewarding the US with another term of Barack Obama.

Parties don’t “learn lessons”, they reflect commitment.

And if you take your toys and go home, that’s exactly what will happen; the GOP will reflect your (withdrawal from ) commitment; Obama will benefit from it.

Answer this honestly; do you believe the nation will be better off under Obama than under even purported “RINO” MItt Romney?  Why?

And that’s why I’m endorsing Rand Paul – not for President (yet) but because he, unlike his father and way too many of his father’s supporters, knows that politics is a marathon, not a sprint; and that the cause of Liberty is better served by working within, and sometimes fighting like hell within, a party that is sympathetic (if not always actively enough) to Liberty, as opposed to the party that believes it’s just another word for having your wants satisfied.  And he knows that if he and his Liberty-loving followers don’t let up, they can get it all – elected, and  the opportunity to get their ideals actually enacted into law.

UPDATE:  Commenter “Courier J” notes that I got the name of the Libertarian Party’s candidate in 2008 wrong – it was Bob Barr.

I was only partially wrong, of course; Rep. Paul came on the Northern Alliance when he was in town for the “Campaign for Liberty” event, just before the RNC (the same day Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s running mate).  He gave a fairly churlish interview in which he urged conservatives disaffected by McCain’s coronation to check out Larry Hagelin (of the Natural Law party), Barr, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, whom Paul eventually did endorse.

Which was, of course, the point of my post.

Say what you will about Romney – personally, I caucused for him in 2008 (as the most conservative option available on the ballot at the time), and if he gets the nomination, I’ll bust my ass to see him in the White House; he’s not perfect, but he’s a lot better than what we have.

And the key part is, if you believe in polling (and I generally don’t, but Rasmussen has earned a bit of a dispensation, being generally more accurate than the others), a lot of other people think so too:

The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%. The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.

And I thought this bit was interesting:

Romney earns an overwhelming 75% of the vote from those Tea Party members, while the president leads 49% to 37% among those who are not part of the grass roots movement.Obama has 65% support from the Political Class [Ha ha ha! – Ed.]. Romney leads 51% to 31% among Mainstream voters

So for all the media’s – and conservatives’, for that matter – focus on the Tea Party’s ideology, they are as pragmatic as they need to be, too.  And I like that “Mainstream Voter” figure;  it’s the key to the “Reagan Democrats”, I think.

According to Rasmussen, none of the other candidates is topping Obama at this point.  Not that a poll eleven months before the election is dispositive – but it’s not chicken feed, either.

After three years of a president that may well be worse than Jimmy Carter, having John Huntsman in the White House would be an improvement (although that’s waaaay too subtly incremental for me; I’m just saying).  Is Romney “the best” choice, especially for a conservative?  No – but if he’s the one we get, it’ll be a step in the right direction.

I mean, let’s be realistic; if he has a conservative House and (fingers crossed) a Republican Senate, I think a Romney administration will be more amenable than Bush, to say nothing of The One.