Today Erick Erickson gave the unsolicited advice to Rick Perry that he drop out and endorse with Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum even though Erick has in the past acknowledged that Gingrich implodes on a regular basis and that Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist.

Erick could call on either of these statists to drop out and endorse a conservative, but instead he calls on a conservative to drop out and endorse a statist. That doesn’t make sense. Why Erick is so quick to fold and concede the primary to a statist? I can’t begin to guess.

We have primaries for a reason. This one is far from over. As long as there is a conservative in the race we conservatives should be prepared to take it all the way to the convention so as to prevent a statist from doing a disservice to the Republican brand and to the Conservative Brand.

Allowing the statists to have the nomination is allowing more of the same.

No thanks.

We need to defeat Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum so they do not contribute to the further discrediting of the party and of conservatism.

Lets take this to the convention.

Currently primaries use the first past the post method of elections – meaning that whoever gets the most votes wins. Whether the person who got the most votes received 65, 50, 40, or 30 percent of the vote. Primaries favor moderates because there might be 4 different conservatives in the primary and one flaming moderate. The flaming moderate will be able to hold together his 30% of the electorate while the rest of the field is divided amongst 4 conservatives. Even though 70% of the primary electorate didn’t want the moderate he became the parties nominee because he got more votes then any other one candidate. That’s how the first past the post method of elections works to conservatives disadvantage.

This is a structural problem.

Structural problems require structural solutions.

Read More →

Sarah Palin: “[T]he worst thing that the GOP machine can do is marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/palin-worst-thing-gop-can-do-is-marginalize-ron-paul-supporters/2012/01/03/gIQAtH1QZP_blog.html

What she is recognizing here is that it is in the GOP’s interest to keep Ron Paul and his supporters within the party. Palin recognizes the very real possibility that that won’t happen if current treads to marginalize them continue. That means coming to peace with the fact that they are going to be a part of the Republican coalition.

Neil Stevens wrote about that very early in this year:

http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/02/11/cpac-reagan-gingrich-and-paul/

“We all know this, but in the end we weigh the ideas these men represented and fought for, against the nitpicking failures, and we celebrate the ideas in the end. Reagan is remembered as a hero, Gingrich as a winner, and yes, many of the young people of today have a crush on the ideas Ron Paul represents, regardless of what the practical reality looks like.

I’m not sure what this means for the party in the next 20 years, but I think we’ll have to find a way to make peace. I’m not calling for a truce, but we’ll have to deal with it.” – Neil Stevens

Judging from how many here on Redstate are behaving and how Republicans in general have been behaving I’d say that a lot of people in the conservative aren’t figuring out how to come to peace with it let alone deal with it very well. But it is in both our short and long term interest that they do so.

Even if you don’t like the idea that today’s ronbots will in ten years or so constitute a goodly number of unit chairs and hope it doesn’t come to pass, there is still this year to get past. The odds are Ron Paul will lose the Republican nomination. As Sarah Palin notes in that event there is the very real possibility that he could run third party. We’re conservatives. We know that actions don’t happen in a vaccuum. Knowing that success in maginalizing both Ron Paul and his supporters increases the likelihood of a third party run do we really want to see that happen?

The video speaks for itself.

Having supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and at one point supported going to war with Syria and Iran I can accurately be described as a foreign policy hawk. And as a foreign policy hawk I am no longer concerned about Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

There are several reasons for this.

First, Presidents are rarely are able to meet any of their campaign promises regarding foreign policy. Historically foreign policy winds up ambushing any president who would like to stay not involved. Also, our foreign interests and capabilities remain pretty much the same from any one four year period to the next four year period. For these reasons historically there has always been much more continuity then discontinuity in our foreign policy because  We have no reason to believe the same would not occur to Ron Paul.

Secondly, we could use a period of consolidation of our foreign policy. While I can point to good things here and there in our foreign policy and execution of our wars, overall there has been a lack of smart, aggressive, and competent execution of our foreign policy and our wars for the past two decades. Yes, Obama has been horrible, but Bush didn’t pursue a smart foreign policy either. Our wars should have been conducted with more competence. I won’t even talk about Clinton. None of our Republican candidates would pursue the smart, aggressive, and above all competent foreign policy that America needs. As long as we are not going to get that then having a general consolidation our foreign policy and our wars would be a good course of action. Basically wrap up various commitments, avoid extending us into more commitments, and keep our military strong. While I disagree with Ron Paul’s characterization of the reasons why events have happened as they have, what he has said about what he would do leads me to believe he would attempt to execute such a consolidation.

Thirdly, as long as we are going to be disappointed on America’s foreign policy for the next 4-8 years we might as well get the limited government we need. I want a strong, aggressive, competent foreign policy as much as the next hawk but realistically speaking we aren’t going to get that from any of these candidates. I would rather have a purposeful consolidation of our foreign policy and the full on limited government we need so that we may keep our republic, then a half hearted attempt at the foreign policy we would prefer and a continuation of loosing our republic.

For those reasons I am no longer concerned about Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in favor of single payer health care and the individual mandate. Whether applied on a state or federal level it’s still socialism plain and simple. If they are conservative it is merely that they are “conservative socialists” -meaning that they just aren’t in as much of a hurry to get to pure socialism as “liberal socialists”.

We cannot advance limited government by growing it. How are we to be the party of limited government if we nominate socialists to fight for us?

No one can field a serious argument to say that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich aren’t Socialist. They are Socialists. Any conservative worth his salt knows it even if he may not have articulated in those terms. Both of these men have betrayed conservatives any number of times.

Do you think we can change them if we only give them enough power? Do you think that nominating socialists would be good for the party? What precisely is the attraction?

What is the point of making sure that the Socialist in the oval office has an (R) next to his name? How is that supposed to help us keep our republic?

We need a rock solid limited government Republican candidate for president who would be guaranteed to repeal ObamaCare and aggressively pursue reducing the size of the federal government. Barry Goldwater articulated what we need today 50 years ago:

“The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. it will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic, Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce it’s size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be later attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” – Barry Goldwater, Conscience of a Conservative

We need such a candidate as Goldwater described to keep our Republic. No nation that has enacted a healthcare system like ObamaCare has been able to reverse course. We’re America. We’re exceptional. We can be the first, but we may only have one shot to pull it off. If ObamaCare is still there in 2014 then experience tells us it will be here to stay.

We need a rock solid limited government conservative.

Who then amongst our field of candidates has a track record that demonstrates adherence to rock solid limited government principles? Remember, politicians can’t lie in the long run. Their records always reveal the man for who he is.

Here I will give you my evaluation of the present candidates based on what kind of limited government records they have built and based on how they have conducted themselves in accordance with limited government principles in an executive position.

Executive experience/bad or mixed record on limited government:

• Mitt Romney brought us RomneyCare which is ObamaCare only applied on a state level. And Romney still stands by RomneyCare. Mitt Romney’s record as governor suggests that government would only grow under him.

• Jon Huntsman made the state of Utah more efficient in distributing services, but didn’t cut services. He has definite achievements in cutting taxes, but he let the spending get away from him. His governing record is mixed at best. And there is video of him explaining how Healthcare is a right.

We know that neither Romney nor Huntsman will fight to repeal ObamaCare, let alone fight hard enough to do so.

• Buddy Roemer was, from what I can tell, well meaning but did not accomplish much in his one term as governor of Louisiana from 1988 – 1992. He started out as a democrat, but switched to Republican in 1991. Buddy was defeated in his bid for a second term. His record, such as it is, is of being ineffectual.

No executive experience/bad record on limited government:

• Newt Gingrich did engineer the 1994 Republican Revolution, but he has a consistent record of being squishy. Yes, I have read some of his books. He is very keen to make government more efficient, but he directs no attention to reducing it’s size. And he is on record defending universal health care.

• Rick Santorum’s record shows that he has not made limiting government a priority. His on record as saying he is pro-limited government and wants the repeal of ObamaCare, but he is also on record saying, “They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, [...]. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world”. He terms his belief “Compassionate Conservatism” which is code for being a big government “conservative”. I can only concluded that Santorum is deeply confused about what limited-goverment actually means.

No record on limited government:

• Herman Cain has never held a public office before. I’ve heard him speak. He has some good lines, but nothing to suggest that he is any more then passingly for limiting government. The proof is in the pudding. I welcome Hermain Cain to become a governor and demonstrate his limited government resolve. A record in public office would help illuminate him as a candidate. For the Republican Presidential Primary, however, we do not have such a record showing how he would govern in office. Electing Cain our nominee would be rolling the dice. Rolling the dice has a nasty track record of burning conservatives in general because principles are more then mere sound bites.

No executive experience/middling record on limited government:

• Michelle Bachman record does not have anything in it that I would consider bold in limiting government. She sticks to topics that get news coverage it seems. That said I don’t see anything that raises red flags either. Her rhetoric is decent and I would think she could be depended upon to keep an ear to the desires of the conservative base for the direction of the wind.

Good Limited Government Record, but No Executive Experience:

• Ron Paul has voted no against more bills then anyone else in Congress. Say what you will about him, but he has been consistent on limiting government principles.

Both of Bachman and Paul are sitting Representatives though and no sitting Representative has been elected  president since 1880. Neither of them has ever won an election outside a limited area of their home state. More importantly we have not seen either of them in an executive position to know how they would stick to limited government principles in such a position.

Executive Experience, but limited government record is mixed

• Rick Perry has some decent limited government achievements. As governor he vetoed 273 bills, more than any other Texas governor prior to him. In 1993, though, Perry expressed support for the Clinton health care reform proposal. As governor he vetoed various taxes, cut some taxes, but also raised other taxes. Overall Rick Perry can boast 7.% job growth during his term as governor.

Rock Solid Limited Government record in an executive position

• Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills in 8 years, more vetoes then all the governors of the other 49 states combined for the same period. Gary Johnson took the healthcare plan he received as governor available to every citizen of New Mexico and transitioned the state’s Medicare program to managed care, which provided incentives for better care and cost control. Not only did he cut taxes 14 times as Governor, Gary Johnson’s 8 years as governor  was the longest New Mexico had ever gone without a raise in taxes. He reduced the state government by 1,200 employees. His adherence to rock solid limited government principles brought his state to 11.7% job growth over the course of this two terms.

Conclusions:

A limited government conservative’s best option, the only one that has actually made progress in Goldwater’s goal of reducing the size of government, is Gary Johnson. He can be guaranteed to repeal Obamacare.

As a limited government conservative the only candidates I would be able to realistically consider in absence of Gary Johnson would be Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Michelle Bachmann. I would have reservations about each of them, but I think that each of them could be relied upon to repeal ObamaCare.

In absence of Gary Johnson, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Michelle Bachmann the least worst option for a limited government conservative would be Herman Cain for having not yet proved himself to fail at limited governance, though I would not hold out any hope of him walking the walk. Maybe he would repeal ObamaCare, maybe he would tinker with it.

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum are all reasons for limited government conservatives to stay home on election day. There is no reason to suppose they would repeal ObamaCare outright when they have the opportunity to tinker with it instead.

Given our need for a limited government conservative who can be depended upon to reduce the size of government I hope that primary Republicans will consider Gary Johnson’s unmatched rock solid limited government record.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

- Keep Our Republic

Thursday night a lot of people got to see Governor Gary Johnson for the first time in the Republican Debate. He made an impression causing “Gary Johnson” to be the most searched term on Google today. Here’s some facts everyone should know about Gary Johnson and his two terms as governor:

• Before running for Governor he grew a one man handyman business to a thousand employees.

• Not only did he cut taxes 14 times as Governor, Gary Johnson’s 8 years as governor  was the longest period of time New Mexico had ever gone without a raise in taxes.

• As governor Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills during his two terms – more bills vetoed then all the other governors during the same 8 year period combined - earning him the nickname Governor Veto. One third of those bills were Republican bills.

• Gary Johnson used his line-item veto thousands of times.

• Gary Johnson made the healthcare plan he received as governor available to every citizen of New Mexico and transitioned the state’s Medicare program to managed care. This provided incentives for better care, cost control, and lowered the cost to the state of New Mexico by 25%.

• He reduced the number of state employees by over a thousand employees.

• When he expressed interest in running for Governor of New Mexico the Republican establishment advised him that in order to run for governor he would need to run for lower offices first. Gary ignored their advice and won against a Democratic incumbent 50% – 40% in a state where registered Democrats out number registered Republicans 2 – 1.

• When Gary Johnson ran for reelection the democrats put up a hispanic candidate in a state that is 40% hispanic and has a 2-1 Dem – GOP ratio. Gary Johnson then won 55% to 45%.

• Gary Johnson could not run for third term because he was term limited. He left undefeated. He left the state with a $1 billion dollar surplus.

• Gary Johnson’s adherence to rock solid limited government principles brought his state 11.7% job growth over the course of this two terms.

Where others merely talk the talk about small government principles Gary Johnson has walked the walk as demonstrated by his unmatched rock solid limited government record as a two-term Governor.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

This post is meant to be a general discussion on best practices when it comes to banning. With regards to what has happened on Redstate recently: Most of what I read is on the front page. I am neither a regular poster, nor do I know all that has occurred. But from previous experiences in other forums I believe the best thing the Redstate community can do moving forward is to advocate to the moderators best practices to be used in the future. 

There different kinds of behavior that may lead to a banning. Immediate banning may be warranted for obvious trolls and the like, but the ban stick should be used with discretion with regard to regular and longtime posters. A moderator should make clear to them that bans are not final and binding, but may be longer or shorter depending upon the situation. 

In the event of a single thread flaming out of control the solution may be to lock the thread and/or give a temporary ban (between an hour and 24 hours depending) to various principles in the flame war regardless of which side they were on. 

More serious in the long run is the situation where regular contributers who offer decent content may be sliding into bad posting habits. If a poster is being a problem then the first step is to talk to them. Maybe the situation can be resolved with a short chat. If trying to engage the person fails then give the poster a short ban. Ban them for a day, three days, or a week and then let the poster back into the pool. 

If the poster comes back guns blazing then they may deserve an instant ban of greater duration. More likely the posters’ behavior might be good for a little while before the the person reverts. The moderator should again try to talk to the poster and give them a warning. If this fails ban the offender for a greater period of time. Ban them for ten days, two weeks, or three weeks and then let the poster back into the pool. 

Rinse and repeat with greater bans until the poster reforms, leaves, or is permanently banned. 

A significant downgrade in the overall tone of the forum in theory can be avoided with such regular moderating, but even with the best of intentions and mindfulness of their duties moderators may find the tone gradually slipping and they may feel the need to mass ban in order to regain control of the situation. In doing so, however, they risk making the forum even worse in the short term and they risk becoming perceived as arbitrary or ham-fisted. For those reasons mass bans should be generally avoided. 

To reestablish a better tone it is a good idea for moderator to start a thread specifically to let the community know that he feels the forum quality is declining, what steps he is considering to resolve the issues, and for input from the community before he proceeds. This puts the community on notice and tests the wind to see if the community will consider legitimate the steps the moderator may take. 

The moderator should also make it known for individuals to contact him privately about potential offenders whether it be themselves or others. If posters bring to raise such questions within the thread the moderator should email them privately and tell them publicly to check their mailbox. This serves as the start of dialogue with various offenders and with active good posters. It also allows posters to enter the mysterious process of one on one communication with the moderator to come out unscathed. They will come to the defense of the moderator and his practices. It doing this the moderator heightens the possibility of defusing drama. 

The moderator should also make clear that he is not certain for how long the review of the forum will take whether days, weeks, or whatever. If the moderator comes out ban guns blazing then he has created an event, a spectacle, drama. Everyone stops to look at a good wreck. If the moderator bans a number of posters and announces a time frame then the spectacle he is creating will last as long as that time frame. An event, a spectacle, drama, needs fixed points in time in order to occur. The lack of public dates at either the beginning or the end the bannings means less drama. 

In response to this process the community may rally together and the moderator might not need to ban anyone. In another community such a thread may stir up the offenders. Many communities might lie somewhere in between. 

Outright ban from the forum is a great threat to a poster who may have spent months if not years contributing to a forum. Outright bans will panic and demoralize many vocal members of the community and so should be avoided by making clear that bans are not final and binding, but may last only so long as is necessary to return the forum to a better tone. Some bans may be for only the time it takes for the moderator and a poster to come to a mutual understanding. Some may be longer. 

Understand also that if the moderator only bans one person then posters will claim the moderator is singling one out. If the moderator bans several so that he could not be accused of singling one poster out then posters will claim he is using too wide of a brush. Having seen moderators do it both ways it seems to me that it is better for a moderator to be accused of singling someone out then with painting with too wide of a brush. If the moderator paints with too wide of a brush then community members will feel that they too could have just as easily been banned. This risks disaffecting members of the community and the non-posting community. 

Hopefully a moderator can navigate the difficult waters of rehabilitating the tone of the forum without much drama or collateral damage. In the immediate months that follow it is important to be vigilant in their moderating so that the forum keeps it’s better tone. 

- Keep Our Republic

To iterate the disclaimer from above: This post is meant to be a general discussion on best practices when it comes to banning. With regards to what has happened on Redstate recently: Most of what I read is on the front page. I am neither a regular poster, nor do I know all that has occurred. But from previous experiences in other forums I believe the best thing the Redstate community can do moving forward is to advocate to the moderators best practices to be used in the future.