The CNBC debate was a joke. The 30 second format is ridiculous for getting at the substance of the issues. Gingrich, and to a lesser extent Huntsman, did a good job of pointing out this absurdity. For most of the key issues, the candidates were all saying the same things. There weren’t any clear winner(s), but there were a few losers. This debate seemed to be more about not making any big mistakes.

Cain seemed to handle the sexual harassment allegations well, and Romney didn’t get baited into piling onto Cain when questioned about his character. I hate to say it, but Romney also did a good job of getting past the question about his reputation for flip-flopping.

Rick Perry had a huge unforced error. He was trying to name three federal agencies that he wanted to eliminate, and he forgot the third one.

The other thing that struck me was that several candidates tried a little too hard to distinguish themselves from the other candidates. It was clear that these attempts fell flat with the audience based on the reactions. I’m probably missing all the candidates that made this mistake but I specifically recall Santorum and Cain attempting to make these sorts of claims. Santorum tried to claim that he was the only candidate to lead the way on opposing bailouts. Cain tried to claim that he was the only candidate with bold solutions and that 9-9-9 was the only tax plan different from the status quo. But overall, considering the current controversy surrounding Cain and on the pressure for him to perform well, he seemed to do okay in the debate.

CNBC also came out as a big loser. I think it was John Harwood that kept trying to get the candidates to fight each other, and failing miserably. Maria Bartiromo also didn’t come out too well after a skirmish with Newt Gingrich.

Richard Mourdock is running against Dick Lugar in the Indiana Republican primary for Senate. There are plenty of good reasons for the people of Indiana to replace Senator Lugar with a conservative senator, but this is probably the best one. I will be fortunate to have the privilege of casting my vote to help make that happen, but I think that sending Senator Lugar into retirement is important enough that I have also volunteered to help Richard Mourdock’s campaign. Dick Lugar has been in the Senate long enough, and Indiana can do much better.

The campaign is starting to organize volunteers to make calls and go door-to-door, so if you are interested in helping, now is the time to volunteer. While other states work towards electing Republican senators and congressional representatives to replace Democrats, we have a chance to replace a RINO with a solid conservative in Indiana. It’s going to be challenging to unseat an entrenched incumbent, so Richard Mourdock is going to need all the support we can give him.

There’s a great video of Richard Mourdock at the RedState Gathering that I would highly recommend. I’ll be posting updates on the campaign in my Diary from time to time.

I definitely didn’t think I would be seriously thinking about supporting Newt Gingrich when he jumped into the Republican presidential nomination race. Despite his accomplishments as Speaker of the House, he came into the race with some baggage. He struck me as a guy that had his shot and washed out. Like many conservatives, I was also ready to dismiss Gingrich completely after his comments on the Ryan Plan for reforming entitlements. He seemed to have handled the situation horribly at the time, and his attempts at damage control made him seem like a weasel.

Based on his record as governor, Rick Perry was my first choice when he got into the race. Although it’s hard to know without further research how much credit to give Perry for the Texas success story, I figure it’s a safe bet to give him some of that credit based on the length of his tenure. In light of Perry’s meltdown in the debates after joining the race, I’ve been looking at the other options while still keeping Perry as my top pick. I have to say, I am starting to come around to Newt. I first started to take Gingrich seriously after his string of good debate performances. I am quite impressed with his decision to go back to the strategy that catapulted him to Speaker of the House. His new contract with America is just the type of thing that could put a Republican in the White House with a strong mandate for real change and large majorities in the House and Senate riding in on the coattails of the contract. Combined with the momentum from the Tea Party, this new contract gives me a new optimism for our nation’s future in these dark times. The new contract is quite bold in charting a new direction for America with a renewed focus on prosperity and liberty.

After seeing the Cain-Gingrich debate on entitlements, I think I might now be sold on Gingrich. I had to go back to his interview on Meet the Press to be sure though. Politicians don’t have a good reputation for being trustworthy, and I do my homework so I’m not fooled by some slick sales pitch by a RINO that is going to govern like a liberal once in office. That’s one of the reasons why I will never get on the Romney bandwagon until he walks back his past positions and builds a new track record in public office to prove his conservative credentials, preferably not in the White House and not in my state. After familiarizing myself with the new 21^st Century Contract with America and his plan for reforming entitlements, I find myself in agreement with the comments that Gingrich made on Meet the Press about the Ryan Plan. The key insight from the Gingrich contract is that we have to propose solutions that don’t just fix the problems, but are so much better than the status quo that people will willingly opt-in to a system that is also fiscally sound. An opt-in model is our chance to demonstrate that the free market can do things better and cheaper. I think hyperbole is what got Gingrich into trouble. He could have staked out his position and disagreed without appearing to demagogue the Ryan Plan. Paul Ryan had a lot of courage to put forth a real solution for reforming entitlements, and he deserves the support of conservatives for going out on a limb despite the political risks to start an adult conversation about entitlements. The Cain-Gingrich debate is evidence that Paul Ryan succeeded in getting the conversation started.

If conservative solutions to our nations problems are not just fiscally responsible, but better, Americans will willingly choose the conservative option when given the choice. After seeing the Cain-Gingrich debate on entitlements, I’m starting to believe that entitlements can actually be reformed without some of our most vulnerable citizens getting the shaft or being coerced into a more fiscally sound system. Giving Americans a choice also makes it much more difficult for liberals to demagogue much-needed reforms (although we know that it still won’t stop them from trying). Many of the important reforms to entitlements and taxes in the new Contract with America allow people to opt-out. And unlike Obama’s hollow promises that people could keep what they have now with Obamacare, these opt-out provisions aren’t undermined by other policy provisions to drive one of those options out of business. This kind of option model might also be a really good idea for practical reasons rather than just politics. It forces the politicians to come up with ideas that are good enough for people to willingly opt-in.

Given my new perspective on his criticism of the Ryan Plan, I’m going to have take a second look at some of the baggage that Gingrich had coming into the race. Some of this baggage may not be as bad as it is portrayed. But even if it is, Gingrich seems like the only candidate with a comprehensive plan to turn America around and the ability to explain that plan clearly and persuasively.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s enough for a candidate to have the right values or good ideas. In normal times, I could accept a nominee lacking a firm grasp of the problem, a clear solution, or political acumen. Good conservative values are probably enough in good times to keep us on the right path. Unfortunately, our nation is not experiencing good times. This country desperately needs a real leader to replace the empty suit that currently resides in the Oval Office. We need a president that can communicate conservative values and policies clearly and persuasively. Even if Republicans keep the House and take control of the Senate, that doesn’t guarantee a majority in support of a conservative agenda. I think we are close to the point of no return on the road to socialism and fiscal ruin. It will take a lot of work to turn things around, and we don’t have much time. We need a conservative president that can put pressure on the legislature by making the case directly to the people. We need a president with the right solutions and enough political acumen to make it happen. We need someone who can fight for conservative principles in the face of a hostile media and uninformed public. I’m starting to think that Newt Gingrich might be the one candidate that is up to the task.

Cross-posted at The Right Stuff

Our country has a problem with debt. With the situation our economy is in, it’s a problem that won’t be going away on it’s own anytime soon. The massive deficits we are currently running aren’t helping either. The options on the table to deal with this problem seem to range from ignoring the problem and continuing a program of reckless spending to forcing an immediate balancing of the budget. If we ignore the problem, our situation will quickly deteriorate until it cannot be ignored any longer and drastic measures become necessary. Immediately reforming entitlements and balancing the budget will also have negative consequences. There is a large constituency that has come to rely on Uncle Sam’s largesse, and a lot of financial pain can be avoided if we wean them from government dollars gradually.

Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are major drivers of federal spending, but people depend on these entitlements. No one wants to see seniors subjected to abject poverty or children suffer because they aren’t receiving the most basic medical service. Even if we had to choose between cutting off these entitlements and destroying the economic engine of our country, there isn’t the political will to completely end entitlements. Entitlements support strong voting constituencies. Forced to make the decision, the politicians will inevitably choose to destroy our economy while laying the blame somewhere else.

Even if we do get to the point where major cuts become a political necessity, it’s not just the fat that’s going to get cut. There are vocal constituencies for all of the programs supported by discretionary spending as well. It is not politically feasible to only cut programs where conservatives think government has no business to meddle. Balancing the budget is going to require cuts to important government functions such as national defense. Although it’s annoying to hear the constant whining about “fairness”, too many people have become dependent on the government to ignore it. The only way to keep the entitlement mentality in check in the face of deep cuts is to make cuts that are roughly even across the board. Across the board cuts will be the only way forward when our government enters crisis mode and a compromise needs to be reached quickly for action to be taken. These across the board cuts will happen whether they are the result of real cuts or papered over by inflation.

For the time being, we can thank the economic turmoil in Europe for keeping us afloat. Until the Europeans get their act together, we can keep the current teaser rate on our national credit card without the Fed printing massive amounts of money to buy up treasury bonds to keep the yields low. Although the Fed has already been monetizing the debt to some extent, the printing presses haven’t been working overtime yet.

If there was a better place to park large sums of money, we’d be in serious trouble right now. As much as I hate to wish ill on others, we can only hope that Europe teeters on the brink without a wave of defaults long enough for us to get our house in order. If we’re lucky, we’ll avoid having to make tough decisions with some sensible reforms to entitlements, modest cuts in government spending, and some drastic action to clear the way for the private sector to grow the economy. If we’re unlucky, Washington will avoid the tough decisions with the printing press.

Cross posted at The Right Stuff

From time to time, I find it worthwhile to take a good look at the liberal point of view. It’s important to avoid getting stuck in conservative echo chambers and taking a look at what our liberal friends have to say. The other day, I stumbled upon this little gem by Drew Westen.

The overarching theme of the article is that liberals are disappointed with Obama because he hasn’t taken a leadership role in demonizing conservatives or Wall Street. I’ve had a hard time understanding the liberal narrative that Obama is too conservative or why liberals aren’t happy with Obama. But if this is the kind of leadership that liberals are looking for, it’s no wonder that they are disappointed. The president has a lot more work to do if he is going to match the level of vitriol demonstrated here, here, or here.

I don’t want to get into the author’s claim about the growing gap between rich and poor. Thomas Sowell has done an excellent job of pointing out the problems with that claim, and I have nothing further to add to the conversation.

I do want to pick apart the author’s narrative for the causes of our economic troubles and the liberal solution.

“’This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out.’”

You can’t blame investment bankers on Wall Street for rationally acting in their own self-interest. The root of the problem doesn’t lie with the moral failings of investment bankers, but with the incentives for risky speculation provided by the government and the marketplace. Attempting to place all of the blame for deregulation on Republicans is also problematic (see the vote tallies for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example). The claim that only Republicans are in bed with Wall Street doesn’t pass the smell test either. Despite the problems with Mr. Westen’s analysis, let’s temporarily suspend our disbelief and take a look at the rest of his argument.

“Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy.”

It’s not like we didn’t see this one coming. First they tried to claim that the stimulus worked, but that narrative was quickly overrun by reality. Aside from admitting that Keynesian economics is a sham, the only other option is to double down and claim the stimulus wasn’t big enough. It’s hard to tell if this is solely the product of delusional thinking or a shrewd ploy, knowing that there’s no chance in hell that another stimulus will be passed to test this hypothesis.

But even if more money had been wasted on stimulus, where would that money go? There weren’t any enough shovel-ready jobs for the money that was spent. Would any of that additional stimulus go towards rewarding more of those greedy and reckless corporations by bailing them out? I thought that only Republicans were interested in rewarding greed and recklessness. Or is Mr. Westen only referring to the second stimulus, since Democrats had nothing to do with the TARP bailout (despite controlling both houses of Congress)?

Let’s see what else the president could have done to make things right.

“When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability.”

“Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it.”

Let me see if I have this right. The economy is in the tank, people are out of work, and our nations credit rating has been called into question. And the solution is to demonize conservatives and put Wall Street bankers in prison for greed? I hate to break it to Mr. Westen, but this plan isn’t going to solve any of our problems. Liberals can scream all they want about conservatives bringing about some kind of “Christian sharia”, but it sounds like liberals are the ones who want to criminalize greed, one of the seven deadly sins. Although I think it is important to engage the liberal point of view, I can’t help but thinking these people lack any capacity for critical thinking.

Cross posted at The Right Stuff