CPAC 2010 Day 2 (UPDATED)

UPDATE 11:22p EST: You must watch these two videos of Andrew Breitbart. The man was one of my and Matt's favorite speakers last year at CPAC and he's had a great 2009, helping James O'Keefe & Hannah Giles to break the ACORN tapes. This video is classic Breitbart and exposes the liberal media.

UPDATE 6:29p EST: I'm just going to state right up front: I do not understand the appeal of Ron Paul. People chant "End the Fed" throughout his speech and... what do they propose to do once they accomplish this pipe dream? Ron Paul's speech? He revises the last 150 years of American history in favor of his brand of libertarianism/conservatism.

This isn't to say that there isn't some stuff to recommend Mr. Paul. For example: I stand with him in his defence of the Constitution. I just can't abide his more outlandish proposals, like ending the Fed.

The best speakers we listened to today were, in no particular order, Mike Pence, John Ashcroft, and Viet Dinh. Mike Pence delivered a speech that some people described as the best in CPAC history. I wouldn't go that far as there've been a lot of good speakers here over the year, but it was very good. Pence could very well run for and win the Presidency in 2012. I would not be shocked.

John Ashcroft (see my tweets) delivered a passionate defense of Bush-era legal handling of enemy combatants, etc. Given that Obama has mostly continued the Bush legal legacy, I'd say Ashcroft and co. have mostly been vindicated.

Viet Dinh was the man we did not know who delivered the goods. He was involved in a debate about relationship between liberty & security and he soundly (to my mind) whipped Bob Barr. Dinh's knowledge of relevant legislation and American legal history was on full display. I suggest you do a Google search and read what you can by Mr. Dinh.

The biggest disappointment, for me, was Tim Pawlenty. As the Old Man said, "the message was right, the delivery just left something to be desired." He did not have the charisma, presence, and speaking ability of Mitt Romney or Mike Pence. Granted, these largely superficial things are not everything, but it would be nice to have someone who can make a more compelling case for conservative principles. His speech was largely a rambling stream of consciousness that was at times too self congratulatory. This is the type of thing that bothers me from Obama. It bothers me no less when the person is a Republican. If a candidate is going to speak about his or her life, I want it to be in a self-deprecating manner. They should let someone else talk them up.

I begin today's CPAC blog post the same way I ended yesterday's, with a link to a Politico article about Mitt Romney.

Everyone who ever writes or talks about Romney's chances in 2012 always pounds on his Massachusetts healthcare plan and rightly so. It has elements of a government takeover of healthcare that conservatives to not like. Romney pitches it as an issue wherein states ought to be able to choose what they want to do, rather than the federal government. This is an interesting response, using the conservative argument for federalism to defend his unpopular-among-conservatives healthcare plan.

CPACers are a hard charging bunch. They conference hard during the day and party hard through the night and then somehow, many of them make it up the next morning in time for the 8:30a speaker.

Rather than going to one of the many CPAC-related soirees, we went to dinner at Pot Belly, a local's favorite sandwich establishment and followed that up with the Syracuse vs Georgetown men's college basketball game--a game won by Syracuse. We were collectively struck by how well Syracuse traveled for the game as they literally occupied the entire upper portion of the arena and the Orange was spread liberally throughout the rest of the Verizon Center. The only problem was, none of us AT&T users could get our cell phones to work. I don't know whether to blame Verizon or AT&T.

Like yesterday, the best CPAC coverage from us and everyone else is on that Twitter. Click here for me, here for Matt, and here for the #CPAC10 aggregator.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

CPAC 2010 Day 1 (UPDATED)

UPDATE 4:52p EST: Here's a good report by Ben Smith of Politico on Mitt's speech.

MATT UPDATE: 4:52p EST Before heading off to dinner and the Georgetown v. Syracuse basketball game with friends, we're finishing the day with Wayne LaPierre, NRA lobbyist extraordinaire.

LaPierre clearly knows how to argue guns. And although libs may claim he obfuscates the issues, certainly nobody better understands the unintended consequences of gun control. He is excellent, and worth every dollar he makes from the NRA.

As Jake mentioned, who could possibly make a surprise visit tomorrow that would surpass today's visits? Regardless, I'm looking forward to Tim Pawlenty and John Ashcroft tomorrow. I'll even admit some anticipation for Ron Paul, if only to snicker at his more outrageous proposals, and to hear a hundred "End the Fed!" shouts from the crowd. Those Paul people, they're crazy.

UPDATE 3:52p EST We're watching a video of John Boehner's greatest hits. The music? Kings of Leon. I can't imagine K of L are conservatives (or would like their music to be used by a Republican) but if so, good on them.

Matt and I just walked around the exhibition hall and ran into a person who looked like an overweight and short Michael Barone. He is Barone's doppleganger, right down to the signature glasses. The only reason we knew for sure it wasn't Barone is that we saw him last year.

Everybody is talking about Dick Cheney, Scott Brown, & Mitt Romney. Friday & Saturday have a lot of work to do to match today's performance.

I'm beginning to understand why so many writers tend to be overweight. There are all kinds of complementary drinks and snacks for media-types and they mostly consist of soda, chips, & cookies. The only thing that save me is that I have a year's worth of student living (& eating) between events.

UPDATE 2:27p EST I'm trying to update using my iPhone. Apologies in advance for any errors/typos (more than usual). Romney killed it today at CPAC. Matt and I were especially impressed with his command and narrative us of American history to link cnservative ideals to American Founders. The whole speech bears reading, that section in particular. At one point he called liberal democrats neo-monarchists for their desire to command and order more of American life. This was a particularly powerful historical allusion.

From a purely political calculation perspective: Linking with MA Senate winner Scott Brown is a good way to put Romeny squarely on the side of the Tea Party movement--no mean feat when you are the former governor of a liberal state.

UPDATE 11:51am EST: Rubio rocked, DeMint rocked, Jason Mattera drew applause, laughter, and offended the left and somehow, Dick Armey re-established himself in the center of the Tea Party and conservative movement. God Bless Texas.

Blogger registration opened 8 minutes ago. I guess that means it's time to get up and get ready. Last year I turned up at the site of CPAC 2009 the day before it began and the place was pretty dead. Yes, they broke attendance records, but like I told my dad yesterday (and my brother agreed), it was more about conservative commiseration than anything else.

We'd been beaten pretty badly and everybody just wanted to get together and trade stories and talk about how optimistic Ronald Reagan had always been and how he would have seen the light at the end of the tunnel.

CPAC 2010 is an entirely different atmosphere.

Yesterday when we arrived Matt saw Wayne Lapierre as we pulled up in our cab and the guy looked like he was spoiling for a fight. All the other CPAC 2010 attendees in the hotel were excited and pregnant with anticipation. Ditto every comment I've read in every blog and tweet and in all the email listservs.

What a difference a year makes.

Your first reading assignment is this Politico article, linked on Drudge. I'll be updating the blog throughout the day, but as I mentioned in my last post, the place to get the most up-to-the-minute information is on that Twitter. Click here for my stuff and here for Matt's. We'll attend every possible speaker and panel we can and post our quick reactions as fast as we can.

We wish you could be here, but since you aren't, we're glad to share our thoughts and impressions via the interweb.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

David Broder On Sarah Palin

Misunderestimate her at your own peril.

Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News' Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game—a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm. . . . This is a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past. There are times when the American people are looking for something more: for an Eisenhower, who liberated Europe; an FDR or a Kennedy or a Bush, all unashamed aristocrats; or an Obama, with eloquence and brains. But in the present mood of the country, Palin is by all odds a threat to the more uptight Republican aspirants such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty—and potentially, to Obama as well. . . . Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.

(Via the WSJ)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2012: 538 Looks At Sarah Palin Vs. Mitt Romney Vs. Mike Huckabee Vs. Field

It's posts like this one that keep me going back to FiveThirtyEight. This kind of electoral and poll analysis play to his statistical strength. The rest, wherein he invokes his liberal condescension and plays Obama apologist, makes me want to bang my head against the wall, repeatedly. There's nothing learned in those posts and the tone makes them practically unreadable.

Back to his 2012 Republican primary post: There is a lot about this race that is unknown, like, who's going to run? There are so many names out there, even guessing who might be in it in 2012 is a crapshoot. Now add to that the difficulty of analyzing the prospects of various candidates who may or may not be running in 2012.

Of the 3 mentioned in the post title, readers know my preference: Romney, then Palin, and I don't care for Huckabee at all, and I'd love to vote for General Petraeus, though it's unlikely he runs.

The whole post is worth reading, I'll just excerpt the part on Romney:

Conversely, Mitt Romney's paths might look something like this, and are probably somewhat more straightforward than Palin's.

Romney Plan A. Win Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Game over.

Romney Plan B-1. (If Palin is knocked out) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Sweep orange states on the basis of organizational strength. Veer slightly to the left, emphasizing electability and cleaning up in delegate-rich states like California and New York. You probably outlast a Southern opponent like Huckabee, perhaps even fairly easily. A Midwesterner that could win states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania might be more challenging.

Romney Plan B-2. (If Palin survives) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Split orange states with Palin on the basis of organizational strength. Hope that gold or purple states came up next, in which case you should build up a substantial delegate lead. If so, the party infrastructure may start to close ranks around you. If green states come up instead, Palin is tougher and you're in for a war of attrition with flagging momentum.

I'm headed to CPAC next week and will get to listen to Romney and a number of the other potential Republican candidates in 2012. I'll also get a sense of base enthusiasm for 2010 and a number of other things.

Watch for lots of CPAC-related posts 18-20 February.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With Tim Pawlenty

All you guys who hate social conservatives (Mike Huckabee), conservatives whose positions have changed/evolved over the years (Mitt Romney) and otherwise smart people who occasionally say dumb things (Sarah Palin--but you still love Average-Joe Biden!), are going to love Tim Pawlenty.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign and will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.

The moves underscore, and will lend credence to, the emerging belief among many establishment Republicans that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican primary rival. The Minnesota governor has even gone so far as to contact some of Romney’s former supporters.

Congratulations to Liz Mair, a friend of this blog, who has joined Gov. Pawlenty's PAC.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With Mitt Romney

Byron York met with Mitt Romney at the recent Value Voters summit in DC and reported on his (Mitt's) latest.

Mitt Romney has the look of a man who's running for president. And if you're running for president, three years before your party's nominating convention, it's absolutely essential to say that it's way too early to think about running for president. So the former Massachusetts governor demurs when asked his intentions.

Yes, I still like Mitt Romney.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Change You Can Believe In: Obama Capitulates To The Russians

Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton to Rich Lowry:

"This is just pre-emptive capitulation, although like everything else, the rhetoric is that we're doing the opposite." It doesn't make sense that we should only be concerned with the short-and-medium-range threat and not also with "the long-range threat 2 or 3 years from now." And our intelligence on Iran is manifestly "inadequate." I wouldn't "bet a lot of money on it being right," and in any case, "there's this concept called 'break-out,'" where they achieve a quantum leap in their capability. It's a "bet against the future" that leaves "us and the Europeans in a more risky situation." All the talk of the intelligence changing and an enhanced short-and-medium-range capability is "blue smoke and mirrors" because they never believed in missile defense. "It's a convenient smoke-screen to do what they wanted to do anyway, which is to give up on missile defense in the hope the Russians will be nice to us." Secretary Gates’s comments were the "most disingenuous." Yes, we want a defense against the short-and-medium-range threat, but the whole idea of missile defense is based on a "layered defense." "Gates was a problem in the Bush administration on missile defense. He was always weak on this."

My man Mitt Romney is very sharp on this issue as well:

* The administration believes that by giving such a gesture of goodwill to the Russians, they will be more willing to give in to our request that they join in sanctions against Iran. Here, the president’s lack of negotiation experience may have come in to play. Yes, sometimes in a negotiation you give up something that is important to you, but you do that only when the other party has agreed to give you something you want even more. You don’t give before you get. But here it’s even worse than that: The president has taught Putin that when he blusters and threatens, America caves.

* The administration is also teaching our friends some very unfortunate lessons; the Eastern Europeans who have stood so valiantly with America and who took political heat for backing the missile-defense system have simply been brushed aside. They have to wonder why America is treating its foes better than it is treating its friends. It’s a question that also is surely being asked in Israel and Honduras.

* The administration’s discounting of Iran’s nuclear progress tells Israel that if it is to stop what its own intelligence may believe is an imminent threat, it may have to act alone — and precipitously.

Then, from Drudge, Analysis: Demise of U.S. shield may embolden Russia hawks and Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Romney in 2012? 'Let Mitt Be Mitt'

Carl Cannon on the possibility of Mitt running for President again in 2012 and his similarities to Ronald Reagan:

As president, the secret to Reagan's success wasn't his consistency; it was his practicality. This was a lesson lost to Reagan's critics as well as his loyalists. In his own White House, the battle cry of conservative purists was "Let Reagan be Reagan." This slogan had the unintended effect of underestimating Reagan's talent, and what it came to symbolize has been the downfall of more than one would-be Reagan imitator. In 2008, Mitt Romney, was one of those candidates who fell into the trap of trying to emulate Reagan rather than rely on his own (considerable) talents.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Petraeus For President? [UPDATE: Maybe, but the reported speech in Iowa was a 'joke']

[ed. note: I don't get the joke that Goldfarb asserts in the edit of his original post. But just because I don't get it, doesn't mean that it's not funny.

No, that's not true. If I don't get it, it's not funny. If anyone knows this character, tell him he's an idiot and that this was a dumb joke.

Unless the joke was this: Watch as I lose all credibility. If so, ha ha.

I'm going to leave the original post so you can see what the fuss was all about.]

I've wondered (and wished) about the possibility of General David Petraeus running for President of the United States on the pages of this blog before. Well, my wish may just turn into reality.

Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard reports:

Petraeus will also be addressing the commissioning ceremonies for Harvard and MIT ROTC. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010. Hmmm.

At the risk of becoming Captain Obvious, Iowa is the start to every Presidential primary and thus, the campaign itself. A successful showing in Iowa gave Mike Huckabee a national audience.

Of course, it could be that there is simply nothing to see here--just another commencement address at another university by one of the most talented leaders of men (& women) in American history. The Spectator addresses that idea here.

Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.

Petraeus running against Obama would remind certain members of the military that many, ah, constituencies in the Democrat party do not like them. Remember Petraeus's treatment by certain Democrat Senators & Rahm Emanuel in September 2007 (to say nothing of Moveon's shameful ad)? Anyway, imagine how the revved up Democrat attack machine will treat Petraeus.

The question of a General running against the President who once commanded him is an interesting. The Spectator, again:

Previously, it has been thought that Petraeus would not run against a president who had been his Commander in Chief. But there are reports of tension between Petraeus and Obama over both Iraq and Afghan strategy.

So, General Petraeus thinks that whatever strategy Obama plans to pursue in some combination of Iraq/Afghanistan/(Iran?) is not a good one? What will the Obama apologists say about this?

Any combination of Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin + General David Petraeus would be dynamite leadership for this country--outclassing by far the administration in place now.

(via Ace, per usual)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Man Mitt

In 2008, I supported John McCain in his campaign for POTUS vs. Barack Obama, but it wasn't without reservation. He has always been unreliable, often discarding conservative principles in favor of currying favor from the press.

On balance, I thought, he was a far better alternative to the inexperienced, very liberal, Barack H. Obama.

And he was.

But there was a better one, and his name was Mitt Romney.

Sure, he had a few missteps, was mistrusted by some religious/social conservatives, but he was right on all the important things--foreign policy (Iraq, War on Terror, NKorea, Iran, etc.), fiscal policy (less government, lower taxes, less regulation, etc.), and the social issues (family, marriage, abortion, stem-cell research etc.).

So he was a "convert" on the last point (abortion), so what? So was Ronald Reagan. Don't we want to persuade everyone to value the rights of the unborn? Anyway, that's an old argument. Hopefully one we've moved past.

At CPAC, Romney gave an excellent speech. I wrote a bit about it in my review of CPAC Day 3.

You can read the full text of his speech here.

NRO's editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, wrote an excellent article about the state of conservatism and some of the dustups between Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, and others. But most of the article is about Mitt and the possibility that he runs for President in 2012.

It's tough to look 4 years into the future; if we face the same problems we are today--that is to say, if we have yet to fully overcome them--Mitt could be part of the solution. I like Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. But how about Romney-Petraeus?

Does that sound like a ticket you'd be interested in?

I don't think anyone else could put forward two more qualified people to deal with all the many problems this country faces right now. Seriously, does anyone have any confidence that Obama can lead us out of this economic quagmire?

The markets sure don't seem to think so. Their daily tracking poll (a constant downward spiral) leaves little doubt. Mitt Romney made a career of this sort of thing. Balancing budgets, restoring profitability, rooting out waste and inefficiency--that's his niche.

And though the model has been derided, how confident would you feel if Petraeus, in the Dick Cheney mould of VP, helped to shape our long- & short-term foreign policy goals? Instead of a complete idiot--Joe Biden (God love 'im)--you would have the guy who literally wrote the counter-insurgent book and has spearheaded our warfighting effort in Iraq and now, Iraq & Afghanistan. Do you think anyone knows how to defend America better than General Petraeus?

Most of this is just rambling speculation and wishful thinking, clearly. Right now I'm focused on 2009--hoping for a Republican win in New Jersey--and 2010--House, Senate & nationwide gubernatorial races.

With any luck, 2010 will look a little like 1994, and 2012 will resemble 1980. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost in the 1976 Republican primary before finally winning it all in 1980.

Romney could do a lot worse than following Reagan's example.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

CPAC Day 3

Matt & I agree, Saturday was the best of the three days of CPAC. And that's how it should be: Good conferences ought to build, day to day, with the final day and the final speech being the best of all. Given that Rush Limbaugh gave a great final address, I'd say mission accomplished. For the text of that speech, click here.

For most of the day, we sat dead-center, about 20 rows back from the front.

The first speech we heard was Bill Bennett's. He was President Reagan's Secretary of Education and is the author of the Book of Virtues. He was reasonable and insistent on not calling Obama's policies socialist. He said they are from the extreme liberal left wing and that they were bad, but that they weren't socialist. Fair enough.

On education, he said it is important that we teach children American history--that we teach them to be patriotic. Of course, I agree with all of this.

Ann Coulter is the funniest woman I have ever heard. She could be a straight stand-up comedian. She is all the more enjoyable because she skewers liberals. Sure, lots of what she says is inflammatory. But it's no worse, indeed, much less offensive, than what many on the left do to those on the right. She doesn't, for instance, use four letter words. Ace has got preliminary video of Coulter's speech.

Incidentally, it is one of my disappointments that I did not get to meet Mr. Ace O'Spades. There's always next CPAC.

The afternoon had panels on education reform (read: more choice--also a pet interest of ours), energy policy, and culture/Hollywood. Robert Davi, of Goonies & James Bond fame, participated in the latter panel and was fantastic. We also enjoyed an Irish couple who presented on their film which decries the human cost of global warming hysteria.

Before Rush, we got the results of the CPAC straw poll. For the 3rd year in a row, my guy, Mitt Romney, won the day. CPAC loves Mitt.

So, yeah, we came away optimistic, enthusiastic, having made a few more friends & contacts, have learned a little more about a few more issues, and with an improved vision of what we can and ought to do as conservatives in America.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

CPAC Day 2

So I guess this is going to be more end-of-the-day review than RNC periodic update. Blame it on the fact that I have few NewsBusters duties and the limited internet access. You'd think they would have wireless access in every conference room so that anyone could sort of liveblog whatever was happening at the moment. To my mind, that would improve the connectedness between the conservative community at large and whatever is going on at CPAC.

I passed my opinion along to people who have marginally more clout than me. Which is to say that they have "no" clout rather than "negative" clout.

Let's see, what was interesting about today? We started off with a blogger meeting with Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Nothing earth shattering emerged from that meeting. The Leader, as he is known, pointed out the obvious--that it is hard to oppose the Democrats and maintain the filibuster with just 41 Senators.

We (Matt & I) attended a luncheon with Tony Blankley. I interviewed Tony at the RNC and he was as gracious today as he was then. He encouraged Republicans to quit being so earnest & make fun of the opposition. His point was that we sometimes get so caught up in the principle and winning the point, that we lose the debate and are unpersuasive. If we can poke fun at the other side--especially if it is genuinely humorous--then that can be an effective tool. I think he's right, I am sometimes guilty of being too earnest in my advocacy.

In the afternoon we listened to Ron Paul (why do so many people love this guy?) and Mitt Romney. Dear readers, the CPAC folks love Mitt Romney. We missed Newt because of the luncheon (free food), so I can't say without absolute authority, but Mitt received louder & more sustained applause & more standing ovations (several, throughout his speech) than any other person at the conference. And in line, while we waited to get into and out of the various convention rooms, everyone was talking about Romney.

Patrick, a friend of mine and a non-Mormon fan of Romney's believes that if the election were this year, Romney would, without a doubt, have been the Republican nominee and he probably would have beaten Obama. Given the current economic climate and Romney's perfectly suited skills, I find it hard to disagree.

I still have my doubts re: whether or not a Mormon can be elected President in this country, but if one is ever to be elected, Romney seems to me to have the best shot. He is a talent.

After Romney, I went to a reception with Ward Connerly (anti-Affirmative Action initiative guy) and Evil Genius Karl Rove. Connerly is one of that rare species of political being--the conservative African-American. Not only is he that, he is a leading opponent of Affirmative Action. Very impressive guy.

And of course I loved listening to Rove. He talked about his experience, sort of "growing up" in conservative politics and how much fun it had been. He gave lots of anecdotes and said that one of the best parts of the whole experience was the development of good relationships and friendships.

He said that he used to read the WaPo and NYT op-ed pages first thing every morning and then go in to talk about them with the President. He said he was the "hot head" of the White House and that the President used to get a kick out of how upset those editorials would make him. Everytime Rove would start to tell the President about how one of those papers got something wrong, Bush would say something to the effect of "in 50 years, the history books will get it right and we'll be vindicated and in 50 years we'll also be dead, so don't worry about it."

Yes, I asked Karl about the ongoing book challenge he had with the President and told him that we had taken it up. He said that they (he & the President) were giving it a rest this year because they were both busy writing their own books but that he was glad to see it was inspiring fellow challenges. My parting shot to him was that BYU would be Utah in the bball game Saturday. He just laughed.

More tomorrow.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Evidence Mormons Have Joined The Club

A couple of weeks ago I cited a story about the support Mormons were receiving from some of their Prop 8 coalition friends and suggested (with supporting statements from Dr. Wiseman (an alias)) that perhaps this was the issue (Prop 8) and persecutorial (word? word.) backlash that would bring Mormons into the mainstream of political Christendom.

An article run in the NYT last week further buttresses this argument. From the Deseret News:

Declaring "no mob veto," a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday denounced the "violence and intimidation" directed at members of the LDS Church who supported California's ban on gay marriage.

"When thugs ... terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous," reads the advertisement paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, based in Washington, D.C.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come under fire from gay rights activists across the country since coming out in support of California's Proposition 8, an amendment to the state's constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In a statement Friday, church officials expressed gratitude to the dozen civil rights and religious leaders, ranging from Catholic to evangelical Christian to Orthodox Jew, who attached their names to the advertisement.

"This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack," said Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve, in a statement. "We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation."

Of course, when it comes to intramural scrabbles about religious matters, many of these churches will still attack the LDS. Prop 8 cooperation (and other, similar cooperation) will not halt the institutional jealousies that arise from the increasing growth of the LDS church, but when it comes to matters of shared values, I think they will remember the horsepower members of the LDS church brought to the issue.

Indeed, Dr. Matt Holland (full disclosure, this professor is a friend and former mentor) seems to agree. From the same article:

Matthew Holland, a political science professor at Brigham Young University, said he sees an unprecedented show of support for the LDS Church from a wide spectrum of coalitions, affinities, associations and even some unexpected groups.

"The fact that they are willing to step forward and, in such a prominent way, be so supportive is something that we haven't really seen before," Holland said Friday night.

Many of the individuals who signed the ad are prominent national and international figures, Holland said, including Richard Cizik, vice president for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals; Nathan Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights; Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Michigan; and Chris Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement.

Holland said he finds it significant that high-profile members of conservative Evangelical groups supported the ad because of divisive sentiments that emerged during LDS Church-member Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign.

"These very prominent leaders from the Evangelical right are now stepping up to give voice and solidarity to the church," he said.

The next time Mitt Romney (or some other Mormon) runs for President and members of the religious right raise questions about his religion, whatever, he'll be able to point to his very good speech about religion in American and the important role Mormons have played in this country in defending marriage and the family.

I think these two things--the success of his 2008 campaign and Prop 8--will be a persuasive and unifying argument.

We'll see.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

First Read (UPDATED)

A few things jumped out to me while reading MSNBC's (breaking down my confirmation bias, one liberal publication at a time) First Read:

*** What's next Grand Old Party: It's hard not to look at the map -- particularly in the House -- and not view the GOP as a regional party right now. If it weren’t for the party's relative strength in the South, the party would be in even worse shape. Later this week, as the party deconstructs this election, the recriminations will begin. Who will emerge as the next group of leaders? Mitch McConnell survived re-election, but will he survive any leadership challenge? What about House GOP leader John Boehner? No doubt he'll be challenged. Still, will McConnell and Boehner be the true leaders of the minority party? There will be a spirited race for the RNC chairmanship. State chairs from Michigan and South Carolina will run as will some former governor, maybe even Newt Gingrich. A group of current and former governors will also get together and attempt to have a say in the party. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana even has an Iowa visit planned later this month; Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush could all also play roles. As will Mark Sanford and Haley Barbour. Bottom line, there is a massive leadership vacuum inside the Republican Party and there are no shortage of candidates who will attempt to fill that vacuum. The first thing to watch for: Will the fight be to do this from inside the RNC or will there be a DLC-like organization that emerges from the outside?

*** Some first clues: NBC-WSJ GOP pollster Neil Newhouse did a post-election survey last night, and here's what he found: Just 12% of those surveyed believed Palin should be the GOP's new leader; instead 29% of voters said Romney, followed by 20% who say Huckabee. Among GOPers, it was Romney 33%, Huckabee 20% and Palin 18%. Look for more from this survey later today.

I know I shouldn't say this, especially the day after America elected its first ever black President, but I don't think they would ever elect a Mormon President. I hate to say it, but I believe it's true. While this country has prided itself on looking at people and not seeing race, even though it has become more "enlightened," anti-religious fervor has increased--especially among the militant secularists on the left.

Anti-religion (along with agism) is one of the acceptable bigotries of liberalism.

For this reason, if I were calling the shots, I would make Romney the new RNC chairman. I think he could galvanize the entire party and put us in a position to take back seats in 2010 and win the White House in 2012. Plus, and this is just my gut feeling, I don't think Romney wants to run for President again.

Also, like my brother told me last night, Newt Gingrich needs to be more involved in shaping the direction of the party. He is wicked smart.

How about a little Back to the Future--Spirit of '94 in 2010, anyone?

I would feel very good about a team of Gingrich, Romney, & Rove running the RNC.

One last thing: We may very well see another Mormon run, but my guess is that it will be John Huntsman Jr. who will be just concluding his second term as Governor of Utah.

UPDATE 5:51pm BST: Ben T. responds:

The fact that you're still looking for people other than Mitt Romney to blame for Mitt Romney's loss is scary. The guy ran a poor campaign, and was consistently incapable of connecting to people due to his total lack of self awareness. The bias this country had against black people went, and still goes far deeper (in some circles) than any other. For a church with 7 million members domestically (roughly?), thinking that the political establishment actively keeps us out of politics is so narcissistic. Particularly when you consider the number of military brass, CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies whose upper echelons are traditionally stacked with members of the Church. If either party fields a candidate who is a member of the Church who can communicate, raise money, and build alliances within a party - like Jon Huntsman Jr. - they will face opposition on partisan lines like any other but it will not bring them down (or up) solely because of their faith.

I agree, Romney certainly didn't run the best campaign. But it was clear that some voters had a problem with Romney's Mormonism. I don't think anyone taking an objective view of the exit poll data would disagree with that.

It's not that I think the political establishment (whatever that is) 'keeps Mormons down,' I just don't think a majority of the electorate would ever vote for a Mormon. Granted, the numbers cited above by First Read are encouraging, but they are from people who voted for McCain. I remain skeptical.

If Obama's win isn't a repudiation of all the racist theories about this country, I don't know what is. Exit poll data strongly backs that up. McCain's age played a far larger role in people's decision than did Obama's race. This ought to signal the death of affirmative action in all its forms.

Discrimination against people of religion in this country gets far less play because of the MSM's obsession with racial differences. By and large the press is irreligious--in some cases outright hostile. It's why racists are bigots (justifiably so) and anti-Mormons (or anti-Jew, -Catholic, -Evangelical, whatever) have "legitimate" objections.

Though I disagree, I do appreciate Ben T.'s optimistically open-minded view.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Making Sense Of Mitt

Last week the McCain camp let fly a few rumors they might make an announcement regarding McCain's veep choice. It didn't happen and most people concluded it was a play at attracting a little press during Obama's European Vacation.

Either way, the name that keeps popping up is Mitt Romney.

Long-time readers of this blog know that we backed Romney early in the Republican Presidential Primary. We liked him early because his politics most closely matched our own. However, endorsement of Mitts was a qualified one--to our mind, he was not the perfect candidate.

And we're not sure how much we like him for Vice President. Our desire to see Mitt do something on the national scene is superseded by our overarching desire to see McCain in the White House. Even then, unlike the Dems, we don't want him there because we see him as some sort of epochal answer to the world's problems.

Like many of the so-called paleoconservatives who frequent this blog, but never comment, we don't see McCain as perfect either. But we refuse to make the Ross Perot mistake many conservatives made in 1992 and 1996.

It helps that as we have come to know more about Senator McCain, we've liked what we've found.

For the stat-heads among us, those who appreciate a quantitative approach to their political evaluation, who follow the new statistical evaluations in baseball--sabermetrics, and are not cowed by regression analysis, we recommend fivethirtyeight.com.

The guy who writes fivethirtyeight, Nate Silver, is an Obama supporter and writer for Baseball Prospectus. Apart from his choice in candidates, he is very good and very methodical in his electoral evaluation. If you like Real Clear Politics poll combo thingy, you'll love fivethirtyeight.com.

The reason we share this website with you today, is that Nate has a fantastic post up about how VP candidate Mitt Romney might affect the electoral map. It is exhaustive and to the extent possible, empirical. It is, far-and-away, the best read on how Mitt might affect the race.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Making Fun Of Mitt

With all the humorless Obamaniacs hanging around the interweb, we often find ourself nostalgically reminiscing about the good, ol' days when pop culture made fun of people like Mitt Romney.

In the middle of our 30 Rock marathon last night, we came across the following exchange between NBC exec & conservative caricature, Jack Donaghy and stereotypical liberal writer, Liz Lemon:

Jack: Those jokes you wrote for my Mitt Romney fundraiser, they were top-notch.
Liz: Those weren't jokes. That was an appeal for a return to common sense and decency.
Jack: Well it got big laughs.

With any luck, McCain will pick Romney for his running mate and we can all go back to making fun of Mitt.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

End of the Road

We're almost as sad to see Hillary Clinton leave the race as we were to see Romney's exit. Any bets on whether or not her exit speech will be as classy as Romney's?

But we don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves.

The Former Clinton Advisor (the world is full of 'em, isn't it?) we listened to this morning doesn't think she'll drop out until 3 June at the earliest. That means we've got, what, 3 more weeks of wackiness left? Whatever it takes to keep Barack fighting on two fronts.

Because, and we'll be honest here, we need the help. It's a theme we've touched on before, but Hillary's attack dogs have done a good job of de-canonizing Barack. Rev. Wright and his comments about Obama being just another politician helped too.

And even if it didn't really show up in the Democratic primary, you can bet it will in the general election. There, the moderates/independents/undecideds who aren't sipping the kool-aid will take a hard look at Barack's unity rhetoric and his divisive relationships and decide if reality matches His Airiness.

(it doesn't)

Because the truth is, he's just another San Francisco Democrat who has been able to mask his condescension in platitudes about change and hope. Or should we say Change! and Hope!. Yeah, that's better.

But we're not so wonkish that we think this Presidential election should be a non-stop policy debate. There is more to being President than just advocating another social or economic whatever policy. We are electing a man (or, and this one hangs by a thread, woman) full of world views and attitudes and personality and their life philosophy, how they see America and her place in the world and how they view everything from her history, the Founders, etc., will shape how they will be as President and what types of decisions they will make when the proverbial hits the fan.

We debate all the time with friends (usually libertarian leaning) who do not care about abortion as a political issue. We care about it because it is part of a bigger issue about the question of life. Questions about how someone comes into this life and how they exit it are important.

And even if the President may not author legislation one way or the other about abortion, what he thinks about it is important to us. Because the Presidency of the United States of America is more than just signing Congressional legislation and nominating Supreme Court judges (all important), it's about being the leader of the greatest country in the world and, as such, holding forth on all the important issues.

You may not like President Bush, but the the ability of the President to influence and persuade on a number of issues is incredibly powerful and does affect public opinion. This is why we want a President who matches our worldview as closely as possible.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

John McCain & The Straight Talk Express Come To Salt Lake

Image link

This morning, while driving up Little Cottonwood Canyon on our way to Alta, we received an email from our friend at the RNC, e-Communications Director, Liz Mair. Liz is great. She always looks out for us. And today, she let us know about a McCain media event at the SLC airfield. And got us in.

(Of course we skied the fresh snow first.)

Accompanying Senator McCain at the press conference were governors John Huntsman Jr. and Mitt Romney. Senator McCain spoke first and introduced the governors. Mitt went next and talked about supporting Senator McCain. Romney looked really, really tan.

Governor Huntsman spoke last. He is a long-time McCain supporter--conspicuously so, when Mitt was still in the race. We've heard rumors that Huntsman--as well as Romney--is one of McCain's potential runningmates, and further, that if McCain loses, he (Huntsman) may run for President in 2012.

One of the members of the press asked the senator if these men were here to tryout for VP. As he was asked this, Governor Huntsman pointed towards Governor Romney like, 'look at him, not me.' The three of them did cut quite the picture.

Asked about Governor Huntsman, Senator McCain said that he valued his opinion and leadership. This was why, he said, he had the governor accompany him on a couple of his trips to Iraq. He further pointed out that Governor Huntsman speaks fluent Chinese (we don't know if it's Mandarin or Cantonese) and that such a skill would be very important as China continues to emerge as a world power.

One reporter asked Senator McCain about the economy. McCain said that he understands the dire straits facing Americans, that as they sit at the kitchen table, they have to consider whether to pick up a 2nd job or take some other drastic measure to make ends meet. Regarding a possible "housing bailout," he said that he was sympathetic to well-intentioned families who might lose their houses, but didn't care at all for the "speculator in Scottsdale" who bought 3 houses for profit and might lose his shirt. Such are the inherent risks of business, we suppose.

Good to see Senator McCain avoid the populist rhetoric favored by his rivals.

While there, we also spoke to a McCain supporter. He has supported McCain for President since he (McCain) first formed his exploratory committee back in 2006. We asked him about the latest kerfuffle about McCain, Iran, and Sunni-Shia confusion. He said that it was pretty typical of the press to seize on every little offhand comment and blow it all out of proportion. Sympathetic, we pointed out to him that we had seen reports that said Iran was funding both Shiite and Sunni groups in an attempt to play the one against the other and foment civil war. He just shrugged, saying he'd seen the same reports, but that those details didn't seem to matter to some members of the press.

It appears to us that they are looking for anything that fits their "McCain is too old" story-line. This is how the Democrats and their surrogates combat their candidates' huge experience deficit.

While there, we ran into former Romney guys Phil Case and BYUSA Vice-President elect, Chance Basinger. (Basinger, you'll remember, is part of the ticket we praised for their willingness to lobby Provo City Council on behalf of BYU students in the ongoing parking dispute.) They, along with our brother, Matt Lybbert, were part of the BYU team that staffed the local Romney call center and mobilized BYU students in support of Mitt. It's nice to see that, like their candidate, they don't harbor any hard feelings and are out in support of McCain.

Unfortunately for the Dems, the polls indicate that Obama & Clinton supporters won't be similarly forgiving.

One last thing, before we forget: During his comments, Governor Huntsman compared John McCain to Ronald Reagan and another of our heroes, Theodore Roosevelt. Hunting for the Reagan legacy was the theme of the early Republican primary. So, nothing to see there. But the Roosevelt comparison piqued our interest.

On the ride home with our brother, we discussed it with him, trying to remember what we learned from our reading of Edmund Morris' 2-part bio (links here & here), appropriately, McCullough's Rooosevelt bio, and the research we did for our Roosevelt paper in History 221 (American history, 1860-Present).

While we don't see Senator McCain challenging anyone to a wrestling match or other feat of strength (Roosevelt's signature), we did find Huntsman's comparison apt when it came to McCain's relationship with business and foreign policy.

TR's time was a whole lot different to today, but he too grappled with issues of corporate responsibility and often wondered about the responsibility of business to people and people to business. As we recall, this historical treatment of government regulation of business was our first introduction to the idea.

Everyone knows TR's famous maxim on foreign policy and defense: speak softly and carry a big stick. Broadly, Senator McCain seems to agree with this policy, advocating as he has an increase in defense spending. TR's proud moment was the world tour of his famous Great White Fleet, so named because of their white paint. Great navies equaled military might and political & diplomatic power.

So, yeah, we buy the McCain - Roosevelt comparison.

*UPDATE 28 March 12:49pm MST: We ask, you respond. Reader and friend Dallas Stahle answered our query regarding Governor Huntsman's language ability. Dallas writes:

Just thought I'd let you know that Huntsman served a[n] [LDS] mission in Taiwan and speaks Mandarin Chinese. Cantonese speakers reside in Hong Kong, Macau, and the southern province of China known as Guangdong or Canton. However, all the Cantonese speakers know Mandarin (except some of the older generation) because it is the National Language of Mainland China. That doesn't mean they speak Mandarin well, but it's passable. The younger generation speaks perfectly because of the school curriculums now.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

The Difference Between "Appealing To" and "Becoming"

Our recent Obama posts have incited a lot of defensive comments. We've been called alternately unprincipled (new one), hypocritical (not new), full of crap (overused), an idiot (ditto), and intellectually dishonest (uncommon, but not new).

The following are the most common complaints:

1. your religion was once, or is now, considered a cult so you shouldn't call Obama's followers a cult.

OR

2. Bush, Reagan and others used religious rhetoric or appealed to the religiosity of their party, so what Obama is doing is nothing new.

OR

3. Obama is not using, appealing to, or becoming anything remotely religious.

***

3. We'll start with the last one first because it is the easiest. Obamamessiah.blogspot.com has done an incredible job of drawing out the pseudo-religious elements of the Obama campaign from all available press reports. You can't read the too-numerous-to-count articles and not see it.

For dems who already have religion, Obama simply appeals to their religiosity. We don't have a problem with this. As Justin and Ben pointed out, this is no different than what Republicans have done with the religious right for years.

Where things get a little sketchy is when Obama veers into becoming the religion. Democrats tend to be less religious than Republicans. But this does not mean that these people don't seek something to fill that gap. For many Democrats, that gap is filled by politics. This explains, in part, how personally the DailyKos kids and Huffington Post crowd take their politics. It explains why they tend to be more fixated on the candidate than they are on the candidate's policies and politics. For them, Obama doesn't just appeal to religious rhetoric in the way that Reagan or Bush or even Huckabee did and do, he has become the leader of their religion.

Hope and change are their foundational religious principles. Adherence to the gospel of environmentalism, nanny-state entitlements and regulations, civil liberties, anti-Iraq, etc., are the required bylaws. And Obama is the charismatic leader. People faint when he speaks, try to touch him when he passes by, and shout "I love you" when there's silence (this is just a small sampling). Obama is Martin Luther King Jr., JFK, Nelson Mandela, and FDR all rolled into one. If not a messiah, at least a political messiah--a messiah for the rest of us, if you will.

***

2. Can we help it if Democrats are more susceptible to cults of personality? Ben and Justin and MJ derided Republicans for how little love we have for our candidate. We think this is a good thing. We're only interested in a politician to the extent that their politics match ours. We didn't love GW in 2000 and we didn't love Reagan until long after the end of his presidency. Democrats loved FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton, and now, Barack Obama. They love to love their leaders. We don't.

Since the rise of the religious right in conservative politics, Republican candidates have used rhetoric and adopted policies to appeal to these voters for their support and votes. Liberals have accused Republicans for years of trying to set up some sort of theocracy. Whatever. Values voters may have wanted to stop abortion and gay marriage, but they never wanted to run the government.

Enter Obama. Irreligious or anti-religious democrats have replaced religion with secularism. It may not have an omnipotent/omniscient being in charge, but like any other religion, it has its tenets (mentioned above, environmentalism, etc.), language (political correct speech), and now it has its charismatic leader. The left has always worshipped at the fountain of youth, so Barack is the perfect blank canvass. Barack isn't all-knowing, but progressive liberalism certainly knows better.

Barack Obama has become the charismatic leader of his pseudo religion. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appealed to conservatives' already held religious beliefs. Even Mike Huckabee only set himself up as a religious leader, never The Religious Leader.

***

1. Disparagers of Mormon history and Joseph Smith can rightfully call the early movement part cult of personality--right, not because they are correct, but because they have the right to be wrong.

Whatever anyone thinks of the LDS religion then or now (cult or otherwise), the fact that we or anyone else happen to be members of or affiliated to some organization that others might consider a cult does not take away our right to identify elements of personality cults in other movements.

We aren't voting for the LDS church to take over the leadership of the United States. Mitt Romney didn't set himself up as the leader of a religious-like movement. He was satisfied to run for President.

***

Questions remain about the pseudo religious nature of Obama's movement. What we don't know is the extent to which Obama has invited the following seen everyday and documented by obamamessiah.com. Is he the instigator or simply a willing participant? Some of the rhetoric and the fainting routine seem to indicate the former.

Obviously, this phenomenon that has sprung up around Obama is not the sum of the man. We freely admit that he is intelligent, articulate, and an inspiring speaker. We won't use the hyperbole of Spikers in yesterday's comments, mostly because it is still way early in the game. We believe that once Obama's policies are fleshed out (as, eventually they will be), he will prove to be an old style liberal cloaked in the attractive apparel of a charismatic. There's nothing wrong with that if you like charismatic, old school liberals. Think, Jimmy Carter with personality.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Mitt Romney Bows Out

Just watched Mitt Romney's speech to CPAC where he announced that he will drop out of the race. Click here for the transcript.

They're reporting on Fox News that Romney initially decided to continue the race, but as he worked on his CPAC speech, it occurred to him that to fight on would hurt the conservative and Republican cause and more importantly, it would hurt America.

As our father said, "what else would you expect from Romney. He's the man we thought he was."

And so he is.

You can question whether or not his current positions are genuine--we don't, not anymore--but you can't doubt his love of country.

Mark Halperin at time.com has a list of 10 suggestions of things Romney could have done differently to perhaps win the nomination.

We've laid out very plainly our problems with McCain--primarily here and here. We hope he seizes the opportunity to appeal to conservatives and assure them he will fight for the things that are important to them.

If he continues to appear dismissive or disdainful of the Reagan coalition, in favor of his independent, liberal, and media friends, he will not have a snowballs' chance of beating Hillary or Barack. His contemptuous and condescending attitude towards conservatives won't win him many votes.

We will vote for the Republican candidate for President, because as Mitt Romney said in his speech, "we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism."

*UPDATE 12:18pm MST: Romney to try again in 2012.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.