The first and only time I met Herman Cain was in Austin, Texas, at my first RedState Gathering.  The time was October, 2010.  Frankly, I had not really heard of the guy until the conference.  But when he spoke, I was (politically speaking) “swept off my feet.”  So much so that I penned a RedState blog entitled “I Just Met the Next President of the United States,” which quickly soared to the top of the Recommended Diaries on Page One of RedState.

From that point forward, I was in the engine room of the Cain Train.  I began to tell all my friends and colleagues about the little known former Godfather’s Pizza CEO who had also served as Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.  Most of them had never heard of him and gave me weird looks when I told them he would be the next President.

For the first time in my life, I made the maximum allowable contribution to a political candidate.  I reached the maximum level when I made a major contribution following his first “gaffe” because I believed in his bold ideas and wanted to encourage him in a time of discouragement.

I attended this year’s RedState Gathering, hoping he would be there.  Though Gov. Rick Perry is my governer, I kept Herman as my first choice despite Perry’s outstanding announcement and early campaign successes.

Then the controversies began. 9-9-9.  My first thought was “a national sales tax without eliminating the personal income tax” was a problem.  But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense — and I was soon one of its staunchest defenders.  It was a “big, bold idea” yet also a compromise that could actually bring both sides together and still totally revamp the tax structure in a positive way.

His early debate performances were encouraging and he slowly started moving to the “center” of the debate stage, as his poll numbers rose.  With the added media attention, Herman started talking too much.  Whether it was abortion ambiguity or foreign policy ignorance, he should have just kept to a script or said, “I’m not ready to discuss this topic yet.”  But he seemed to have an innate desire to please every reporter by giving a direct answer, even if it hadn’t been well-thought-out.  You could always tell he wasn’t prepared for a specific question when he would repeat the question as the first part of his answer.

 The cigarette smoking ad was ingenious.  Those who were offended were grossly overreacting, in my opinion.  Same with the alligator, moat-filled, electric fence critics.  Come on…get a life (or at least a sense of humor).

The establishment poo-poo’d him and his campaign, which made me an even more ardent supporter.  The non-traditional strategies and tactics were initially welcome, but in retrospect, were also the beginning of the end for him.  It’s very tough for me to admit it, but the establishment critics were correct.  Once Cain’s poll number shot up — along with the donations — he should have hired real professionals and quickly transitioned into a more traditional campaign.  He should have spent more time in Iowa and South Carolina.  If he would have won both states, he would have won the nomination.

When the first moral issues came to the fore, I suspected a “rat.”  I never thought it was a Perry campaign dirty trick but believed at one point it could be emanating from the Romney gang.  I still want to take Herman at his word and wonder if in months/years to come we’ll eventually learn it was a bent Axelrod.  As I was watching Herman speak today, I couldn’t help but notice the covered backdrop.  The thought occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, the campaign was about to throw us all a curve by having all three “accusers” come out from behind the backdrop in a jolting, “man, did we fool all of you!” moment.  What a brilliant move that would have been: to clear Herman’s name while simultaneously shoving it right back into the face of a scandal-hungry, uber-biased, incompetent press.  It would have changed the landscape of political campaigns for generations.

But, alas, this fleeting plot must wait for a creative political novel or movie thriller.

Herman, you inspired me and gave me hope for bold solutions toward a more free America.  Yet you have also now built a border wall of cynicism that I will not easily scale.  I placed trust in you.  I trusted your ability to build a leadership team as President to implement your solutions and supplement your shortcomings.  But your total lack of judgment in selecting incompetent campaign leaders has proven your undoing. 

If some or all of these moral failing accusations are true, you lacked judgment to even seriously campaign for President.  If they are not true, you and your team have fumbled away the Super Bowl.  In either case, I feel betrayed.  You may have single-handedly set back for years the ability of conservatives to make serious roads in the black community.

You have taught me a valuable lesson: like those who were swept away by Barack Obama’s homelitical talents, I, too, am equally gullible to a golden tongue.

Herman, I thank you.  I suspect I will eventually forgive you.  But not today.

Please forgive the brevity of this post.  It’s intended as more of a news item than a posting of analysis.

According to my sources, former Arkansas governer Mike Huckabee is seriously considering venturing back into the GOP 2012 presidential race.  If he decides to do so, he’ll likely announce within the week.

ANALYSIS

As RedState’s likely staunchest Huckabee supporter in 2008, I have mixed feelings about him throwing his hat into the ring.  I think Herman Cain is a better selection this time around.  If Huckabee is concerned about the current field, specifically Romney and Perry, I’m not sure what he brings to the table now.  His stance on state college tuition assistance to children of illegal immigrants is nearly identical to Gov. Perry’s…and we all know how that’s worked out for Perry in the last few days.  Perry is also perceived as stronger on crime (due to Huckabee’s perceived pardon problem as Governor). 

Huckabee’s support of the Fair Tax has now been pre-empted with Cain’s 9-9-9.   He’s a good debator, but so is Cain.

I’d love to see Mike as Secretary of HHS under a Cain administration.

In Texas high school six-man football from last night’s season opening games, we have the following score:

Paint Creek 50, Novice 33.

Hmmmm, this score is rich with potential symbolism.  I know who is from Paint Creek.  The question is…who is from Novice?

Lost in the forest of today’s media theatrics is this little story:  ”Reform law won’t bend cost curve, CMS accountants say” from Modern HealthCare magazine.

“‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not bend the cost curve’ of national healthcare spending over the coming decade, according to the latest projections by the CMS’ accountants…..

“‘Many people would argue, and I’m one of them, that this law hasn’t had a very significant effect in bending the cost curve in any direction,’ Richard Foster, CMS actuary, said in an interview Wednesday following a news conference on the report…..

“‘Simply put, this report states the obvious that Americans have known for more than year:  the $2.6 trillion law only makes the fundamental problem of sky-rocketing healthcare costs worse,’ Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in a written statement….

“The spending increases will come as an estimated 13 million employers drop insurance coverage for their workers, 11 million of whom are expected to regain coverage through either Medicaid or new state insurance exchanges.”

Here’s the link to the full article:

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110728/NEWS/307289963/&template=printpicart

Here at RedState this is certainly no surprise.  Now President Obama’s own team is admitting it.  Just think how the conversation could have changed over the past few weeks if Speaker Boehner has used ObamaCare more forcefully in the debt ceiling negotiations.   Personally, I would have settled for a straight deal:  $2.7 trillion dollars in debt ceiling increase for repealing ObamaCare.

Mr. Ed

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

Let me be clear…I’m a big fan of Congressman Paul Ryan.

However, I strive for philosophical and intellectual consistency, and I’m having a hard time with all of the conservative applause for Ryan’s Medicare reform ideas.  I’m no longer a supporter of Newt Gingrich, but his recent description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” appears to me to be more accurate than we conservatives are willing to admit.

Let’s recap.  My understanding is that the Ryan plan calls for no changes to Medicare for those already over age 55.  No problem there.

For those younger than 55, there would be a “defined benefit” plan that would allow low-income Americans to purchase health insurance from federally-approved providers that would meet their basic healthcare needs once they reach retirement age (an age which is yet to be determined, but likely around 70).

For middle and high income Americans, the federal benefit would be slightly to more than slightly less than the actual premium price for the coverage.  In other words, wealthier Americans would be expected to pay more to have the same level of coverage that would be provided at no cost for low income Americans.

If correct, doesn’t this mean that high income Americans will be contributing more money in their pre-retirement years and will receive less “benefits” when they actually reach retirement age?  This sounds like old-fashioned wealth redistribution to me (or in other words “conservative social engineering.”)

Am I missing something here?

The most recent Zogby poll of likely GOP primary voters shows Herman Cain has rocketed from relative obscurity to the most preferred candidate (19%), ahead of Chris Christie (16%), and Mitt Romney (11 percent).

http://www.zogby.com/news/2011/05/23/ibope-zogby-poll-cain-passes-christie-among-gop-primary-voters-no-one-gop-field-leads-obama-/

In addition, Gallup is now reporting that Cain’s positive intensity is stronger than other GOP candidates and prospects.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147782/Herman-Cain-Begins-Race-High-Positive-Intensity.aspx

It is not surprising that the mainstream media haven’t picked up on what I call a significant event in the early election season.  It somewhat surprises me that Drudge hasn’t run the story yet.  However, I’m quite surprised that I haven’t seen these stories on RedState yet.  This looks like a front pager to me (and, yes, I know the serious observers don’t place a lot of weight on early election polling or the efficacy of Zogby).

Nonetheless, the former journalist in me senses a big story here…and no one seems to be covering it yet.

It’s been awhile since my last blog entry.  It’s not that I haven’t had things to say.  It’s just that I’ve been busy running my small business during tough economic times.  Nonetheless, I’ve been actively reading the site and keeping abreast of the issues.

Several months ago I made the decision to attend my first RedState Gathering…and I’m writing this blog from the event.   I can already tell this is not a decision I will ever regret.

Call me naive, but before today I had not heard of Herman Cain.  This is surprising because I’m truly a political news junkie.  Yes, I had heard of someone named “Cain” and had heard about a political activist who used to be the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, but I never paid much attention.  After all, the potential GOP field for 2012 President is already overloaded.

My eyes have been opened.  Cain was one of several speakers at today’s Gathering.  He brought the house down.  If he decides to run — and he is “prayerfully considering” it — he will be a force to reckon with.  A true, full-fledged, articulate conservative with the charisma to invigorate America in ways which will make Obama pale in comparison.  And, oh, yes…he happens to be a minority.

I look forward to hearing more from him and seeing him become more prominent and visible in the political arena.

I kid you not…if he decides to run (and I pray he does)…watch out!

Mr. Ed

“Straight from the Horse’s Mouth.”

Texas Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX-22) may not have to worry much about his upcoming re-election, but his opponent sure knows how to get attention.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6899832.html

Kesha Rogers called for the impeachment of President Barack Obama as the centerpiece of her campaign for Congress, and on Tuesday she won the nomination of her party.   The Democratic Party.

Rogers has “denounced warnings of global warming as imperialist genocide.”

But wait, it gets even better, this victorious Democratic Congressional nominee….is a “Rouchie.”

“Rogers…is a volunteer organizer for the LaRouche Youth Movement.”

Folks, she is a serious candidate.  She won her primary with a majority of the Democratic votes in a Houston suburban district.  While unlikely to win the general election, what if Rep. Olson — God forbid — gets tripped up with some sort of scandal during the next few months? 

The broader question is, will the mainstream media give this particular Democratic candidate the attention she so well deserves?  After all, her positions are certainly newsworthy, are they not?

Methinks we won’t hear much more about her anymore.  Probably part of the VLMC…the Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy.

I’m not a big fan of music videos or spoof songs with new lyrics (with the possible exception of Shanklin’s parodies on Rush and Weird Al Yankovic).   However, may college senior daughter forwarded this to me.  It appears to be relatively new and I haven’t seen it yet on RedState or elsewhere.

It sends a good message for those of us who base our political philosophy on our Founding Fathers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg

(Apologies.  I never can get the video imbedded feature to work in my diary.)

Utah (R) Senator Orrin Hatch and Massachusetts (D) Senator John Kerry are working with the Church of Science (and others) to find a way to incorporate into the Senate’s version of ObamaCare reimbursement for prayer.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_13871576

That’s right.  If they’re successful, and ObamaCare passes (which in itself may not have a prayer!), tax dollars will go to “spiritual advisors” who pray for your healing.

So now we’re pitting Big Pharma against Big Church.  Science versus Scientology.  Render unto Cesaer versus praying so Cesaer can render unto you.  Prayer versus Payer.

I pray that reasonable legislators will “intercede” and bring the PrayerCare Option supporters “to their knees.”  Amen.

As a conservative, I am a strong believer in following the Constitution.  My political philosophy derives from following a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  The rule of law is paramount.

This way of thinking should also apply to interpreting how to view the prosecution of terrorist KSM.

Since I am not an attorney — and have little knowledge of military law — I have important questions to ask related to the KSM prosecution, the answers to which will craft my opinion on his prosecution process.  These are not leading questions…I really don’t know the answers.  I hope my Redstate colleagues will be able to respond with facts.  We cannot let patriotic emotion cloud reasoned judgment based on the applicable law.

Question:  From a legal standpoint, were the attacks on 9/11 an “act of war” or a criminal action?  The targets were both civilian and military, but since the perpetrators did not represent the government of another country, can such an act of terrorism legally be considered an “act of war”?

Question:  Can the U.S. “declare war” on a “group” rather than a “country”?

Question:  In a military action (such as in Iraq or Afghanistan) is it possible to capture and/or detain individuals who are known accused “criminals”?  I suspect the answer is “yes.”  Hypothetical example:  if Al Capone had been captured by the U.S. military during World War II in Germany, could our forces have detained him and transported him to the U.S. for criminal prosecution?

The legal responses to these questions are paramount in determining the appropriate legal approach to KSM’s prosecution.  My heart agrees with those demanding a military trial, but I’m not sure my “head” is there yet.

Depending on the legal responses to the above questions, one may be able to make a case that because KSM did not act on behalf of a government, his actions were not an “act of war.”  Therefore his actions were criminal in nature.  As a criminal, his capture by U.S. military forces is irrelevant to his legal status.  Therefore his prosecution should be handled in the same fashion as any other non-U.S. citizen who commits crimes within the borders of the U.S. and is captured and returned to the U.S.

Have I analyzed this correctly?  If not, where are the flaws in this logic?

This morning I was watching This Week on ABC.  During one of the commercial breaks a new Chevrolet advertisement appeared.

In the 60 second spot, the new Chevy CEO was walking and talking in glitzy Madison Avenue style in front of new or newly redesigned Chevy automobile products.  The music soundtrack was upbeat and positive.  I’m sure Mr. Chevy CEO was saying some really nice things about the quality and affordability of his company’s cars.

Only one problem.  You could see him.  You could hear the music.  His mouth was moving.  But nothing he said could be heard.

Not sure where the problem was.  It could have been in the original production.  It could have been a bad copy the network played.  It could have been a bad copy for the local station.  In any event, it was another embarrassing moment for Government Motors.

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a  year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles, so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

Five million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 to for every dollar saved.

How good a deal was that ???

They’ll probably do a great job with health care though!!

I don’t know Linda Franklin, but I received a forwarded email from her which is short and to the point.  It’s worth repeating:

Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it,

Passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it and whose members will be exempt from it,

 Signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,

Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke..

What could possibly go wrong?

NEW YORK (OP) — In a surprising move sure to rock professional sports, The National Football League announced today the creation of a 31st team.  Tentatively dubbed “The Federal Co-ops,” the new team is slated to begin play in four years, or for the 2013 season.

Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, said, “President Obama and the Democratic leadership have been in secret negotiations for the past several months to provide the funding necessary for a true ‘America’s Team’ in the NFL.  Team owners were persuaded by the fact that more than 60 percent of U.S. residents live outside the immediate market area of an NFL franchise.  This represents about 180 million people who are not directly covered by one of our teams, and the Administration convinced us our existing cadre of 30 teams did not allow for appropriate competition.”

According to sources, the White House pushed hard for the Co-ops to begin play as early as this season.  However due to funding concerns, as well as the influence of a vocal minority of team owners, the introduction of the new team will not begin play until 2013.  The funding for the Co-ops is being generated by a surtax on the revenues of the Dallas Cowboys and the Pittsburgh Steelers, the two teams with the current highest market value.  The remaining teams will not be subject to the surtax, however the agreement allows for the surtax to be leveed among the other teams as soon as 2011.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “It is frankly immoral that so many of our citizens have gone so long without a professional football team they can call their own.  No longer will residents of Omaha have to feel like second-class citizens by having to identify with the Chicago Bears, Minnesota Vikings, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Rams or Denver Broncos.  All of these are fine teams, but they just don’t provide the access and affordability that a federal team will be able to provide.”

The Co-ops will be owned by a group of football fan citizens from each market area without a professional team.  These individuals will be named by a soon-to-be created “Football Czar,” who will be based in the White House.  The team will not have a formal home stadium, but instead will rotate its home games throughout the regions of the country which — until now — did not have a professional franchise.

Ticket prices for Co-op games will start at $5 for end zone seating and top out at $20 for luxury suites.  The team will also provide up to twenty percent of the seats in each game free to residents with an income lower than five times the national poverty level.  In addition, Goodell announced that television rights and revenues will be shared disproportionately with the new league entrant.  “Initially, the Co-ops will receive ten percent of television revenues, building up to 80 percent by their fifth year in the league.  We feel certain this distribution ratio will have no material impact on the rest of the league.  Our existing franchises have a history of financial stability, though it’s obvious they have inflated their ticket prices.  The new competition will keep all of our team’s pricing structures at a competitive level without jeopardizing their ability to make reasonable profits.”

In another major announcement, the NFL plans to widen the standard football field by ten yards and will add ten yards to the length of each endzone.  Goodell stated, “The White House has also reasonably demonstrated the size of the field used in the Canadian Football League provides for a more open, fast-paced game.  We agree.”  Sources indicate the NFL Competition Committee is also privately giving serious consideration to modifying the shape of the football to become more spherical, resembling the type of ball used in other countries’ version of football.

For months, two notorious, wicked, evil, immoral brothers — Public Option and Co-op Option — terrorized the country.  One day, Public Option died and his brother, Co-op Option, was given the responsibility of organizing the funeral.  He went far and wide to find a minister who would officiate at the ceremony, but alas, he could find none.

The clergy hesitation wasn’t due to their fear or callousness, but rather due to the surviving brother’s requirement that the appointed minister describe at the funeral his Public Option brother as a “Great Man.”  None of the ministers could ethically do so.

However, a little known minister who went by the name Mark O’Bryan (MOB) finally volunteered.

At the funeral, millions of citizens attended or viewed the ceremonies, not out of interest in the deceased Public Option, but rather to see if Rev. O’Bryan would actually compromise himself by calling Brother Public Option a “great man.”

When Rev. Mark O’Bryan stood to give the eulogy, he said, “We all know that Public Option was a most vile, wicked, evil, immoral person.   But compared to his brother…………”

There is an aspect to our conservative response to healthcare reform which is growing increasingly troubling to me.

When we provide our own “solutions” to the perceived healthcare “crisis,” one particular proposal is to enhance healthcare insurance policy portability by breaking down state regulatory barriers prohibiting a person in one state from purchasing a less expensive or more appropriate policy in another state.

On the surface, I think this proposal makes a lot of sense.  It seems to promote the free market and consumer empowerment.

However, as a federalist and constitutionalist, what business is it of the federal goverment to meddle with state laws and regulations?  If one state wants to have more or less healthcare insurance regulation, doesn’t the constitution permit it to do so? 

If, as conservatives, we promote the idea of the federal government forcing states to fall in line on health insurance portability, aren’t we opening up ourselves to allowing the federal government to usurp state sovereignty in other areas as well?

The Rasmussen polls released yesterday reported on Mitt Romney’s and Sarah Palin’s competitive state against President Obama in 2012.  Another reputable polling outfit, Public Policy, released its latest poll yesterday, with some interesting results:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_720.pdf

Among other things, Sarah Palin appears to be more popular among Northeastern Republicans than in other parts of the country.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/notes-on-palin-and-gop.html

And, among four potential GOP contenders (Romney, Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich), Huckabee’s spread versus Obama and his overall favorability numbers are the best.

It would be interesting to have Rasmussen include Huckabee in their next 2012 polling exercise.

Each May, we all honor our precious Mothers.  By “all,” I mean individuals, institutions (such as churches), the media, and others.  We call our Mothers and send them cards thanking them for their love, support, gifts, and all the things we know about — and sometimes don’t know – which have brought richness to our lives.

We attend church services where we present roses or other flowers to the mothers in attendance.  We publicly thank them for their love, support, gifts and all the things they have done which brought richness to our lives.

We watch news shows and other television programs about our mothers which bring tears to eyes.

This is how it should be.

Then, inexplicably, a month later, it seems much of society takes a different tact on Fathers’ Day.

On an individual basis, I think we well honor our Fathers.  The calls, the cards, and the gifts we give our fathers tangibly demonstrate our love, affection and appreciation for the support, guidance, sacrifices and wisdom they have provided.  This is how it should be.

Why is it, then, that so many institutions, media outlets, and commentators use Fathers’ Day as an opportunity to bash fathers?

Instead of flowers (or, perhaps another more appropriate masculine gift…say a sleeve of ProV1′s?), our pastors preach about the “death of fatherhood” and all the things fathers should be doing — and aren’t — to fulfill their family responsbilities.

Commentators remind us of the societal ills caused by absentee fathers, by abusive fathers, by deadbeat fathers.

Can you imagine the uproar if a pastor or commentator used Mothers’ Day to rail against the ills of unwed mothers or the abortion rate?

This year, let us all — individuals, institutions, and media commentators — celebrate the joys of fatherhood and the incredibly important role fathers play in society.  Or better yet, let’s just pick up the phone and tell our own father we love him and appreciate the sacrifices he’s made for us.

Many marraige counselors say what men want most from their wives is honor and respect.  I agree.  We crave this from our wives…and our children.

So, Dad…or “Pop” as we sometimes call you…thanks for living your life as an honorable man.  I respect you because of your values.  Later this year you will turn 70 years old, though you still have the clarity of mind and stamina of one half your age.  I know you won’t be around forever.  I hope God sees fit for you to see your own son become a grandfather and perhaps even a great-grandfather.  That would be that finest Fathers Day present I could ever have.

Several months ago, I made my first political contribution to the NRSC.  I promised the telemarketer who called that I would contribute $X  for every GOP senator who voted against the TARP bill.

Last month, the same telemarketer called again for more money.  I basically told them to take a hike because I was furious that Sen. John Cornyn and the NRSC had endorsed Florida Governor Crist for U.S. Senate on the day Crist made public his intentions to run for the seat.

In addition, I had several Facebook exchanges with Sen. Cornyn regarding my distaste for cutting Marco Rubio’s knees out from under him so early in the process.  After all, the GOP senate primary in Florida was a year away at the time.  (I learned from an acquaintance on Cornyn’s staff that he really does personally post and respond on Facebook…it’s not a staffer.)

Cornyn’s reasoning for the Crist endorsement went something like this:  we have limited financial resources at the NRSC, so we need to focus our resources on other states where competition will be stiffer but where we may have a shot at saving or picking up a critical senate seat for the GOP.  Crist’s name recognition and approval in Florida would likely give him general election success with little difficulty, or so Cornyn surmised.  I was not persuaded by his rhetoric as I thought it was shortsighted, given the GOP’s long term needs to build conservative support among Hispanics.

Lately I’ve been pondering the irony of the Crist-endorsement having the exact opposite effect of its original intent.  It has stirred the competitive juices of the GOP base, which will now require the NRSC to allocate funds to Crist to win the primary — exactly what Sen. Cornyn and the NRSC wanted to avoid by endorsing Crist in the first place.

But this evening, the “lightbulb” came on and now I understand what’s going on.  Please accept my apologies, Sen. Cornyn.  You are one step ahead of me (and likely many other angry GOP conservatives). 

Here’s what I believe is going to happen:

By endorsing Crist to focus limited financial resources on other races, the NRSC is now on record that they will not provide significant funds to Crist in the GOP primary.  In the meantime, Rubio’s fundraising is picking up steam and he will ultimately have a war chest that will allow him to effectively compete in the primary.  The NRSC is basically saying, “Charlie, you gotta win this one on your own, ol’ buddy.  You can do it.  We need our money in other places.”

It will be very interesting to see what the NRSC does when the primary race tightens in the polls and in campaign contributions.  My bet is that the NRSC will re-iterate its “endorsement” but never direct funds to help Crist win the primary.

By endorsing Crist so early on, the NRSC may have just assured Rubio’s primary victory.