Republicans instantly attacked the numbers as twisted numerical spin, even fraudulent.  And they very well may be, as I discuss below.

But I have long argued that Republicans should be cheering these numbers, and the nominal lowering of the unemployment rate that could have easily been predicted almost a year ago.  This prediction was not because of some great confidence in the Obama economy, but simply looking at the realities of the hard data, and making logical projections.

So why should Republicans cheer these numbers?

1.  Don’t be the pessimist in the room.

Republicans have largely been the party of optimism and hope for America since Ronald Reagan’s ‘Morning in America’ campaign.   While Democrats always talk about the looming disaster to befall the American middle class, Republicans have always talked about giving the middle of America more hope for the future.

In this campaign, we should be promoting the future of an ever great nation, not one in decline.  If the employment numbers are good…we should applaud, and then give a reason why they should be better, instead of simply declaring failure at every turn.

2.  Accept that the numbers right now don’t mean much.

Let us take a look at the unemployment rate.

First, definition.  The unemployment rate is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the persons who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work (Otherwise defined as the unemployed) divided by total number of people available to be working.

The key disclaimer here is that those who are neither receiving unemployment benefits nor otherwise not actively looking for work are not included in this number.

If you look at January’s numbers, the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3% largely because of people dropping out of the workforce (thus, decreasing the number in the denominator) than by the additional 243k persons who gained employment during the month.

How does one verify this?  By looking at the labor participation rate.  Labor force participation rate is defined as the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population; or in other words, the number of people employed, divided by the entire adult population.  This is a much more gross number. In January, the labor force participation rate dropped to 63.7%,  its lowest level since the early 80s recession.

What does this mean?  Well, what it means is that although the BLS numbers on unemployment are accurate, they are misleading.  Overall, the number of people working today is far less than before Obama took office.  Furthermore, if you include the people that are no longer looking for work, the unemployment rate is 10.3%.  And, in fact, that number has largely been stable since 2009, even considering the Obama stimulus and other work programs.

The above graph is a little confusing, but here is the basic take home point:  the dotted red line is the TRUE unemployment rate, if you include people no longer looking for work, but actually able to work.  The solid red number demonstrates the unemployment rate as defined by BLS.  The difference between the two lines shows you all the people that are no longer working, are unemployed…but do not show up in the actual unemployment numbers.

NPR states it another way:

“The number of ‘discouraged workers’ — those who have given up looking for work and thus aren’t counted as being part of the labor force — went up to 1.1 million from 950,000 in December. Also, slightly fewer people either reentered the workforce or entered it for the first time. Those are among the reasons why the ‘labor force participation rate’ went down to 63.7 percent from 64 percent in December.”

This difference, between the two graphs above, is equivalent to approximately 3 to 6 million people.  Even if you argue that Obama was not responsible for the disaster of 2009, that still does not blunt the argument.  If you take the labor force participation rate as of January 2011, the unemployment rate would still be 8.9%.  That is wholly owned by the Obama Presidency.

 3.  The numbers ultimately may work in our favor.

Let us stipulate that the worst of the recession is likely over.  I think conservatives even accept that.  What we don’t accept is if we are in a robust recovery.  Clearly, with the numbers laid out as above, we are not.

Let us assume for a moment that this is a lagging recovery.  Then, the unemployment rate is likely to stay the same or even drop, and the people leaving the workforce is still quite large, and jobs are being created.  If you take this presumption, the unemployment rate, at current growth levels, will be around 7.5% in November.

However, in this scenario, do any of us believe that the American people will simply look at the unemployment rate, and accept all is well?  That is presuming that the public is so stupid as to accept the number, while ignoring the reality of parents, children, siblings, and friends remaining unemployed or struggling. Ultimately, I seriously doubt that the public would accept the number for anything but a fallacy.

Let us put forth a second scenario.  Let us assume the economy is really picking up. This, ironically, is even a worse scenario for the Obama Administration.  Why?  Because this would cause people who are currently so discouraged as not to be even trying to obtain work to re-enter the workforce.

This would be disastrous to the unemployment rate.  If you assume that 100k people will re-enter the work force per month, then the unemployment rate would actually increase.  In fact, using this scenario, the unemployment rate would hover around 8.5% by November, and could skyrocket to over 9% if there is a large influx of workers into the labor market.

The irony here is, it is not Republicans but possibly Democrats who are hoping that the economy doesn’t recover too fast to hurt their election chances.  They want people to stay out of the labor market, because otherwise, the true unemployment rate will be expressed in the actual unemployment rate, at which this entire mirage falls apart.

This was cross-posted on Neoavatara.

But it hasn’t always worked out that way.  Bob Dole crushed right-winger Pat Buchanan there in 1996.  And John McCain defeated a divided conservative field in 2008 on his way to the nomination.

But this year, the firewall is back.

Newt Gingrich’s surge from virtual oblivion is stunning, and will keep the nomination fight going for a significant time.   After Iowa, it looked like the ‘new’ Gingrich was going to revert to the ‘old’ Gingrich: a brilliant man who, when angry, would self-destruct and become more destructive than constructive.  Newt’s attacks on Romney, whether it be about the Political Action Committees or Romney’s days with Bain Capital, were awkward, reactionary, and eventually, not that effective.  And that is why Gingrich lost ground to Romney, Paul, and even Santorum in New Hampshire.

But after New Hampshire, Gingrich finally accepted a basic fact.   The ‘old’ Newt would lose in dramatic fashion.  So he quickly course corrected, gave up the anti-capitalistic rant regarding Bain, and became the guy that had convinced a lot of conservatives to give him a chance in the first place:  an intelligent and eloquent voice in defense of conservatism and capitalism.  He stuck to the script, laid asidethe Romney attacks for the most part, and focused on the Gingrich persona that had created his first national surge last fall.

It has worked, beyond I am willing to bet even Newt’s immense dreams.  Newt kept on course.  And while he did that, Huntsman and Perry dropped out.  Santorum didn’t make a significant move.  And Mitt?  Mitt Romney incomprehensibly stumbled on an incredibly stupid and easy issue:  his tax forms.  Instead of simply answering that he would release him, he gave inept answer after inept answer, to what end I have no idea.  His campaign appeared to be on cruise control, assuming they could just walk in and do well in South Carolina.  They were wrong.

So Newt’s victory in South Carolina alters the entire dynamic of the campaign.  This more and more looks like the Democrat nomination of 2008.  Romney, playing the role of Hillary, is the establishment candidate that has weaknesses, but is safest for the party apparatus.  Gingrich is the insurgent candidate, who no one inside the party or out are sure where he will take them.  And the Democrats nomination process in 2008 went well into the summer, if you recall.

So 10 days until the Florida primary.  Romney has the edge in support and money, but Gingrich has the momentum. Momentum may not be enough in a large state like Florida, where retail politics doesn’t really work, and advertising is essential.  And Gingrich, unlike a Democrat, cannot depend on positive free media despite his stunning victory in South Carolina.  But enthusiasm means a lot in politics, and the question becomes can Newt convert this victory into an enthusiasm gap that Romney cannot overcome.

The best thing that could happen for Gingrich would be Rick Santorum dropping out.  I cannot see that happening, with Santorum gaining social conservative backing over the past week.  So if the conservative vote remains divided, I still have to believe that Romney is the favorite in Florida.  Only time will tell if conventional wisdom wins out, or if Newt turns the entire establishment on its ear.

This was cross posted on Neoavatara. 

This week saw a lot of tumult in the nomination race.

First, Gov. Huntsman left.  Today, Gov. Perry will leave.  The former endorsed Mitt Romney, the latter is to endorse Newt Gingrich.

Today, we learned that Rick Santorum actually edged out Romney to win the Iowa caucus.

And on Monday, we saw a debate that was finally…well, a debate.  Although all candidates did have their moments in the sun, the general consensus, and my own personal opinion, is once again Newt came to the top.

So where does this leave us?

Mitt Romney is still the presumptive leader.  Let it be said that I am a marginal Romney supporter.  However, Romney has not had a good week.  He had a middling performance in the debate, although he had no major blunders.  However, his handling of his income tax statements and his now claimed 15% tax rate.  None of this would be damaging, except for the inept fashion in which the Romney people rolled out the information.

Newt Gingrich has struggled to find his footing after stumbling in Iowa.  First it was blaming PACs for all of his troubles.  Then it was attacking Bain Capital, which seemed like a silly reactionary measure.  But this week, Newt fell back to reason he surged in the first place:  his eloquent defense of conservatism.  He shined on the debate stage, especially in his unemployment.

Rick Santorum remains…Rick Santorum.  Yes, he can mobilize some social conservatives, but much like Mike Huckabee 4 years ago, his power base does not go much farther.  He on Thursday discovered that he, not Romney, won the Iowa caucus, which frankly matters not at all.  Santorum’s argument to stay in the race will be determined in South Carolina.  If he doesn’t finish at least a close third, or worse, he will have to ask questions from Gingrich and others on his rationale to go forwards.

Ron Paul is…Ron Paul.  He got slapped down in the debate regarding his opposition to killing Osama Bin Laden while in Pakistan, and rightfully so.  This will not change his supporters glowing opinions of him, and he is guaranteed 10-15% of the vote all the way through the nomination process, and he will be there until the end.

Overall, this was a very bad week for Mitt Romney, and a good week for Newt Gingrich…at least, until today.  ABC News apparently has an interview with Gingrich’s first wife, Marianne, in which she unloads on every little sordid detail of their marriage.  She apparently says Gingrich wanted an ‘open marriage’, and repeatedly had double standards for his public stands on morality and his personal behavior.  This was all known, frankly, and I am surprised that she spoke to the media now.  But this is damaging to Gingrich in a period where he has clear momentum.  And even worse, it further strengthen’s social conservatives resolve to back Santorum, making it less likely that he pulls out of the race any time soon.  Gingrich’s daughter is public, defending her father, but that may not be enough.  Only time will tell.  In any case, this is horrible timing for Gingrich, and questionable editorial judgement for ABC News.

Gingrich has closed the gap in the past few days alone.  Although most polls show Romney leading, there is no question a surge has occurred, and Gingrich actually leads in one poll.  Will the ABC News interview blunt the momentum?  I don’t think we will know until we see actual votes Saturday night.

Hang on, it is going to be a bumpy and interesting ride.

This was cross posted on Neoavatara. 

I just shuddered at that statement.

But there it is.  There is the reality that 13 debates, months of bickering and intrigue, and countless discussions with conservative brethren have brought me.

It is kind of a sad reality. Is this the best conservatives could do?

So here has been my calculation for who I would support, from the beginning.  First, the candidate must be electable and able to defeat Barack Obama, both electorally and intellectually.  Second, they must broaden the base of the Republican Party, both on the conservative and moderate sides.  Third, they must be economically intelligent and have a pro-growth plan that will overturn the Obama economic disaster.  And fourth, because of the Obama experiment, they must show some executive level experience.

If you look at our current crop of candidates, the Congressional candidates (Paul, Bachmann, Santorum) all lack significant executive experience.  Newt Gingrich could be argued to have some executive experience as Speaker of the House, but that is stretching the definition to the breaking point.

I think all of our candidates have more of a pro-growth plan than Barack Obama.

As for broadening the base, this is the one I had the hardest time with.  For example, Mitt Romney.  He would definitely appeal to independents and moderates who like a milquetoast candidate.  Could he broaden his conservative wing?  I think he could, but that is a hard slog for him.  Could Newt Gingrich, who has years of baggage and is relatively well known, broaden his likability among moderates?  Doubtful.  Can Rick Perry overcome his stumbles and convince non-conservatives that he is intelligent?  Unlikely. In short, I am not sure any of our candidates significantly broaden the party.

As for electability, as time has gone on, it is clear that Paul, Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain would have great difficulty defeating Obama, both electorally and intellectually.

So after all of that angst, you are basically left with potential candidates Romney, Perry, and Gingrich.

But after Perry’s stumble after stumble in the debates, I can see him getting torn apart by Barack Obama in debates, in a style reminiscent of what Reagan did to Mondale.  I really wanted to like Perry, but he has never risen to the occasion.  His brightest moment was when he presented his tax plan, and he never showed another policy initiative as grand.  And he still appears more a caricature than the man that longtime supporters of him describe.

The best qualified candidate of the remaining opposition to Romney is Newt Gingrich.  All things being equal, Gingrich would get my vote.  But all things are not equal.  Every time I think Gingrich can leave his past behind, something comes up.  He cannot seem to keep his mouth out of the way of his campaign.  And he has been on top for about a month, and I am already fatigued trying to defend every new story about him.  I can’t imagine what another year of this would feel like.  Gingrich, ultimately, is a paper tiger.  He is the most well spoken of the group, bar none.  But is he really a conservative?  Is he, for that matter, even more conservative than Mitt Romney?  I am far from convinced of this.  And ultimately, he was the decisive argument for me between the two:   while Gingrich’s sacrifice of conservative principles largely came while he was in his own think tank with no outside pressures whatsoever, Romney’s betrayal came while surround by a horde of liberals looking to take a piece of him at every turn in the most liberal state government in the Union.  It is not an excuse for sacrificing his conservative ideals, so much as an explanation that makes far more sense than Newt sitting on a bench with Nancy Pelosi.

It comes down to this.  I have been waiting for the better part of 4 years for someone, anyone, to show me to be the standard bearer of the Conservative revolution initially started by Ronald Reagan 3 decades ago…and these group of candidates have failed.  I was waiting for a Mike Pence, John Thune, even a Jeb Bush to step forward and take the helm. They all took a pass, for one reason or another.  And so we are left with the current crop of candidates, despite all of our objections.

The last debate in December was a sort of epiphany.  That epiphany was that none of the non-Romney candidates was going to turn into Ronald Reagan.  Ever.  Maybe this wasn’t an epiphany so mach as facing up to the reality.  Oh, sure, there are a few Perry fanatics and Bachmann lovers still out there.  They will probably hold on until the California primary.  But both have stumbled too many times, and too consistently, to be considered serious any more.  Bachmann’s Politifact nonsense from the last debate was the last string for me.  As for Perry, if he was this good in debates in August and September, he would be the leader.  But it just seems to be too little, too late. Too many missed opportunities, with too much of his buffoonery now baked into the social consciousness.  Santorum has never made the sale.  And Ron Paul is…Ron Paul.  Fascinating on pure market economics and libertarian views, but he lives in an alternate universe on foreign affairs.  Jon Huntsman is a non-entity.

Almost makes you wonder if Tim Pawlenty, who was my early leader, left the race way too early, no?

So we are left with Willard Mitt Romney.

I know.  My friends that read here will say this is a sellout.  Maybe it is.  But logically, without any knee jerk reactions, I don’t see any way around this.  I have for months begged others and myself to come to a conclusion that is different.  But I simply can’t.

But here is, ultimately my logic.

I don’t think many people will rationally argue that Romney is unelectable.  He certainly is.  His record as governor is admirable for one of the bluest states in the union, and he has been in politics long enough to be adequately vetted.

Romney would likely pull a lot of independent voters.  My really concern is, would he broaden the conservative bloc?  I am far from sure about this.  My conservative brethren have a deep and well developed distaste for Romney, and I am unsure if Romney can overcome it.  But I think ultimately, our hatred of Mr. Obama’s liberal policies will unify the right.

Romneycare is the biggest hurdle.  Will Romney really stand for states rights?  I honestly believe he will.  I don’t think he will ever be the opponent to government health care we want, so don’t even propose such a thought.  But our goal is to end the mandate on a federal scale.  I believe Romney will be an ally in this small, marginal victory.

Economically speaking, Romney actually is the most well spoken and practical of the bunch.  Although he does not support more radical reforms in D.C. such as Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, he also has a more traditional approach put forward, which would do a lot of good in rolling back Obamanomics.  Romney likely would support a more radical conservative agenda for the economy if we can show there are votes in Congress for such a plan.

Furthermore, Romney has really show increased maturity on the campaign trail over the past few months.  What was a wooden caricature earlier in the year now shows some humor, fraility, and joviality.  His recent Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace showed a comfortable, relaxed, and human Mitt.

Last, and certainly not least, we found under George W. Bush that even a relatively well intentioned President needs to be reigned in by Congress.  A Republican Congress failed to do that for Bush…it needs to learn its lesson, and keep Romney on a tight leash.  Without that, no man sitting in the Oval Office can be trusted completely.

So, after all that explanation, I endorse Mitt Romney.  I am not happy about it, and can’t believe it has come to this. And I am sure a lot of my friends on the internet will wonder if I have lost my senses completely. But Romney is a good man, a better man than the one sitting in the Oval Office by far.  And if he wins the nomination, it is time for Republicans unify, even if it is for this flawed candidate.

This was cross posted on Neoavatara.

He stated the following:

“If you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period,” Gingrich said.  “If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”

Challenged by Michele Bachmann — “I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty” — Gingrich stuck to his guns.  “I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them.”

I have, for several years, argued for this exact strategy in dealing with illegal immigration, on this blog and elsewhere.

Let us accept a couple truths, which Gingrich reiterated last night.  One, we have a border problem with illegal immigration.  Two, there is no majority sentiment in this country to return illegal aliens that have lived he for decades, raised their families, and have otherwise lived within the bounds of the law.

Accepting those facts, Gingrich’s stance makes the most sense.  Yes, there is a hint of amnesty; but I think the counter to that argument is that this is not full amnesty.

Why?  This is what I would propose, and I think Gingrich would basically accept:

1.  Secure the border.  

Use a wall, use border troops, use virtual defenses.  Whatever it takes, but it must be secured to avoid a repeat of the Reagan-era failure on immigration reform.

2.  Find a path to legal residence for illegal aliens.  

This is where Gingrich and myself depart from prior amnesty proposals.  All illegal aliens should accept they committed a crime by coming to this country.

By accepting this as a crime, they have two choices. One, allow them to gain some sort of legal status, that allows them to become naturalized residents.  However, by this path, they would be prevented from ever applying for citizenship, as their punishment for coming here illegally.

The second path would ask them to return to their home country, and then apply for a green card like all law abiding persons.  Via this second path, they could then apply for citizenship in due course.

This would therefore NOT be amnesty, but a punishment system by which we legalize these persons, while at the same time punishing them by never allowing them become citizens because of their crime.

Gingrich is basically correct on this proposal.  There is no other logical way forward, and the sooner conservatives accept that, the better.  Deportation is a nonstarter for event the most extreme of conservatives.  Michelle Bachmann attacked Gingrich on immigration, but provided no alternative.  Romney attacked Gingrich, although he basically supported similar plans back in 2007.

Gingrich is now clearly shifting to a general election platform, much like Romney.  This is a smart move on his part.  Conservatives can decry his stance as ‘amnesty’, but such talk is naive and misses the point.  Ultimately, you have to deal with illegal immigrants in some way short of deportation, because deportation will never happen.  Gingrich is simply accepting the reality, and presenting the best plan available considering those facts.

This was cross-posted on Neoavatara.

I think we have seen OWS clearly cross that line this week.

Protests around the country, most spectacularly in Oakland, show the true nature of this movement.  This is a movement, at its heart, that is anticapitalistic and marginally anarchistic.  But they are also, by nature, unwilling to accept your right to practice your own free will…only their rights are pre-eminent.  The more we discuss issues with these groups, what we see is that they do not value your right to practice in a free market, or go about making a living.  Only their world view matters.

A perfect example?  In Oakland last week, we saw an unlawful protest turn violent.  When police legally attempt to clear the plaza, the protesters fought back.  They did more than peacefully resist; they attacked police members.  Many question the tactics of the police, and frankly, even I think they went overboard.  But the rights of the OWS cannot infringe on other Oakland residents’ rights either…and it has been, since they have occupied and restricted movement in that area.  The entire concept of ‘occupying‘, by nature, implies taking over an area that does not inherently belong to them.  And that is what they have successfully done over the past few months…only now are we seeing the far reaching repercussions for other citizens.

Then, the Oakland protesters went one step further.  In an attempt to call a ‘general strike’, along the lines of famously successful protest movements in Europe, the protesters in Oakland this week (which, according to police and the OWS leaders there, numbered about 7,000) attempted to ‘peacefully’ shut down the Port of Oakland.  In the process, they are endangering the jobs of thousands of middle class persons, who rely on the port for their income.  They will fail in their attempts for a ‘general strike’, of course, for a very simple reason:  people don’t want to strike and stop working; they, in fact, for the most part want to work more.  These protesters are doing more to stop commerce, and threatening well paying jobs, than actually supporting these middle classes persons in their quest to maintain their living.

You see this trend in the OWS protests across the nation.  In Manhattan, Michael Bloomberg is almost at the end of his rope, as small businesses continue to lose thousands of dollars weekly because of the protesters, and layoffs are beginning.  In Denver and Oakland, we see protesters destroying property of small business owners, most of whom are not anywhere near the 1% of income makers in this country.   Independent and swing voters abhor this kind of action; they want answers to real problems in this country…not a violent revolt.

Ironically, one of the main complaints from leaders in the OWS is that the mainstream media is ignoring them, and their petitions.  I would argue that the media is doing them a favor.  The more we learn about these guys, the less likely the mainstream of America is going to like what they hear.  For example, one common thread that now emerges, which was hidden in the early weeks of this campaign, is now quite apparent:  that the primary goal of many if not most of the protesters is, in their own words to end capitalism.  I would wager most Americans think such concepts are abhorrent.

Ultimately, this will have serious repercussions.  First and foremost, it will delegitimize what little mainstream credibility the OWS has.  It will continue to alienate most Americans, who want answers to their daily questions, like how to pay their bills, not new problems, such as the risk of violent insurrection.  We are already seeing these findings in new poll results by Quinniapiac, which shows 30% favorability rating for the OWS versus 39% unfavorable rating in their newest poll.  Finally, and maybe most interestingly, it is going to paint the Democrats as the party of violence.  This may not be 1968 again, but it is close.  And we already know that the OWS is planning protests at both the Republican and Democrat National Conventions next year, just to prove the point further.  Obama has also tacitly approved of these protests.  Many Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and others, went much farther in their support.  They are now bound to these protesters, whether they like it or not.

I still don’t believe that most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are violent…but that doesn’t matter.  In the same way that a tiny, tiny percentage of Tea Party protesters were fringe and painted the entire movement as racist or bigoted, we now have a small percentage of violent protesters involved in OWS.  I would wager that number is far more in number than the fringe members of the Tea Party, considering the number of arrests, injuries, and the gross amount of property damage resulting from the OWS movement, versus a practically nonexistent amount of those factors with the Tea Party.  The fringe will ultimately define the movement, whether they like it or not.  And painting the movement as anticapitalist, anarchist, and violent clearly will be detrimental to them, their allies, and the Democrat Party.

Crossposted on Neoavatara.

To be sure, there is a real movement here.  Those on the right simply dismissing these people do so at their own peril.  The angst among the American people is real, and is very much similar to the forces that led to the birth of the Tea Party:  distrust in government, fear of corruption because of massive federal spending, and politicians complete failure to translate the needs of the people into thoughtful policy.

I am a First Amendment absolutist…unless you are committing a crime, I have no problem in their protests.  More power to them.  To be sure, there have been some ‘excesses’ by the OWS protesters, and some violent actions, but overall, I can’t say I can call them violent along the lines of the G7 protests in Seattle or multiple left wing European protests.  Time will tell if that will change.

That said, the differences between OWS and the Tea Party are stark as well.  Many of these are gross generalizations, to be sure, but I think they for the most part hold up factually.  While the Tea Party tended to be older, more suburban middle class individuals, the OWS tend to be younger, mostly college aged in nature, and generally urban in nature.  I think both groups ironically have a fair amount of educated persons in their fold.  Of course, the biggest difference may be their solutions to our problems. The Tea Party believes debt, and government intrusion, largely are responsible for the position we are in.  The OWS believe that corporate greed, and the rich ‘abusing’ the poor and the masses caused this crisis.

Republicans, such as Herman Cain and Eric Cantor, that are condescending to these groups and call them ‘mobs’ frankly are doing conservatives a disservice.  Cantor has since backtracked, calling the protesters’ frustration ‘justified‘.  Conservatives should accept these people’s complaints about the poor economy, and a broken system, while rejecting their ridiculous solutions.  More over, we gain nothing by using a failed strategy of Democrats.  Charles Schumer and others try to blame the Tea Party for everything from rising health care costs to the flailing economy…and that strategy continues to fail.  Why should we repeat their mistake?

In some ways, my problem with Republicans attacking the OWS protesters can be distilled to just this:  if a group is damaging your enemy, get out of the way and enjoy the show.  The OWS may have some good central themes, but ultimately many of those key items are co-opted by Marxist, Socialist and anarchist belief systems.  Not to mention, while Tea Partiers had their funny looking costume wearing folk, they also had their grandmothers marching.  The OWS protesters largely appear like the hippies that we like to believe they are.  There are several likely long term results of this movement:  it completely dissipates, especially as winter approaches; it survives, but does not transition to a mainstream political movement; or worst case, it becomes at some point violent.  In each of these cases, it seems unlikely that the Democrats will benefit.  There is, of course, the slim chance the movement will gain steam and go mainstream like the Tea Party, but considering the above, I am willing to roll the dice.

My one concern with this entire episode is that we are missing an opportunity to have our own discussion about how to fix what ails our economy.  When you take time and listen to the intelligent voices in the OWS, they have similar complaints to what most conservatives do:  a failing regulatory system, an economy that cannot compete on the world stage, and a system that is not doing enough to maintain the livelihoods for our middle class.

Conservatives have solutions to these problems.  First, reform the regulatory system, by streamlining it.  Dodd-Frank and other regulations have done nothing to make us safer.  Simple regulations, such as demanding people put more money down to obtain loans, would do far more than the Obama era regulations would.  Furthermore, the ever changing regulatory environment does more to hinder economic growth than many of these people believe.  Second, completely reform our tax system.  It is unfair to the middle class; but only a flatter tax code would solve that problem, not the inane solutions provided by this President.  And third, have a government policy whose first and foremost goal is to create private sector jobs.

No, conservatives will never win over these protesters, but that misses the point.  Many of these guys are the wacko wing of the liberal party.  But our argument is for the larger American public, who have real concerns, many of which are being voiced by the OWS, albeit in a strange manner.

So, I say let them eat cake.  Let them have their voice heard.  And let the American people decide.  Conservatives should feel comfortable enough in their own skin to have movements such as the OWS have their say.  In the end, do we really think they are going to win the argument?

Cross-posted on Neoavatara.

That can seem like a blink of an eye.

The field now appears to be set…finally.  Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. Sarah Palin, and other stragglers now have finally officially bowed out for 2012.

So where do we stand, after months of traversing the country, blabbering in somewhat useless debates, and after many foibles and flaws came to light?

1.  Romney still leads.

This will bother almost every conservative out there, including myself…but facts are facts.  While one candidate or another has shot to the forefront, Romney has been steady at his 20-25% of the Republican electorate.  He has fascinated nor excited no one.  He simply goes about his business, for good or ill.

The 25% ceiling, if it is real, is worrisome for many reasons.  Maybe most concerning to the Romney camp is that number is similar to his ceiling during the 2008 election cycle as well.  This could be coincidence, or a worrying indicator.

The problems for Romney will never go away.  But in a cycle where economic and political strife plague the country, Romney’s steadfastness and ability to be above the fray may pay off.  He is steady, if not boring.  He is moderate, which secures money donors.  And he does not scare away independents.    Unless a true conservative shoots the forefront, and is able to maintain their support, it is difficult to see anyone supplanting him from the pole position.

2.  The Social Conservative Shoot Themselves In The Foot.

First there was Trump (who wasn’t really a conservative, IMHO), who basically behaved like himself and self-destructed.  Then Michelle Bachmann, who behaved like herself, which was great until she blundered into the HPV/retardation fiasco, which basically took her out of contention.

Now it appears Rick Perry is taking his turn.  Before flaming out, Ms. Bachmann laid some significant blows on Perry with his HPV vaccination mandate, which was a foolish bit of executive privilege if there ever was one.  Then to compound matters, Perry virtually insulted every other conservative by calling them ‘heartless’ for opposing in state tuition for children of illegal immigrants.

Perry now confronts a N-word controversy that likely is more media bashing than anything else.  When Democrats who don’t even like his politics are defending him, you know how ridiculous a story it is.  We can whine about how unfair the media is, but in an environment where Herman Cain (?!?!) is being questioned on his racist comments, we should expect nothing different.  What is really disturbing is Perry’s complete and utter inability to react to any of these controversies.

Successful Presidential campaigns historically respond successfully to adversity.  Perry has not responded well so far.  Does he have the backbone and will power to sustain through the hardships?

Possibly an even bigger problem for Perry is that he may quickly lose the interest of undecided conservatives.  I consider myself in this group.  I really want to like Perry, but have been far from sold.  In some ways, this reminds me of four years ago, when I really wanted to like Mitt Romney, because I did not want John McCain to be our nominee.  Romney could never make the sale then; can Perry make it now?

Still, Perry has an opening if he can quickly right the ship.  He does have a lot going for him:  a great narrative with the state of Texas, the aura of leadership, and a lot of money (he raised $17 million in a month and a half, which is impressive under any circumstances).  However,  he has little time to solve the previously described deficiencies, otherwise he will quickly join Bachmann and Trump in the list of also-rans.

3.  Is Cain Able?

You have got to love Herman Cain.  He is a true conservative through and through.  Yes, he supported TARP.  Yes, he attacked Perry on the recent racist claim a little too fast.  But overall, here is a man that eloquently defends conservative positions.  That has gained him a fair amount of right wing support, much of it taken from Gov. Perry.  And maybe more of note:  it has drawn the ire of the mainstream media and liberal left, which means they are starting to fear him.

The problem with Cain is obvious:  he is a dark horse (and no, liberals, that is NOT a racist comment; duh).  He has no prior elective government experience, which is a good and bad thing.  But in an era where we criticize Obama’s naivete on a daily basis, how do we defend Cain’s inexperience?  Cain was a civilian employee for the Navy, was on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and he was subsequently elected their chairman. His civilian experience at Coca-Cola, Burger King, and as C.E.O. of Godfather’s Pizza is extensive as well.  Are those credentials enough to convince America he is ready to sit in the Oval Office?  For me, it is enough; I am not sure about the rest of the electorate.

Additionally, Cain has not truly been running a campaign for the nomination.  His campaign staff is bare-bones, to say the least. He has virtually no ground game in either Iowa and New Hampshire, and is spending the next few weeks…on a book tour.  No joke.  You cannot win in the early states without an infrastructure, and Cain apparently never believed he would need one.  More importantly, if he were to win the nomination, would he be able to ‘scale up’ his staff for a truly national campaign against Barack Obama?

I agree with many of the man’s ideas, and adore his eloquence on conservative issues…but I just don’t see how he brings it to fruition.  I hope I am wrong…I would love to see Cain make a serious bid well into the nomination process next year.

4.  Waiting For Christie

Governor Chris Christie was the establishment candidate that made the inner circle drool.  I like Christie.  He is eloquent, tough, clear spoken, and gets things done.  Yes, he has serious deficiencies in his political stances, especially on the 2nd amendment and on immigration.

But now that he is out of the race, it is good for the entire field.  Christie’s 2 week dance froze the field, for all purposes.  Donors wanted to be sure he wasn’t jumping in.  Voters that were already disenchanted of course held back any decision.  The media paid no attention to the other candidates at all.

There doesn’t appear to be any more saviors on the horizon.  The Palinistas have dreamed of her jumping in, but that ship has sailed.  Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee are making a little noise, but both are really  nonstarters at this point.

These are our candidates.  Love’em or leave’em.

5.  The Also-Rans

How long can Gingrich, Santorum, and the other stragglers hold on?  Gingrich and Santorum are good debaters, and that alone has kept them afloat.  Gingrich hovers in the high single digits in polls, while Santorum is around 5%.  Without a huge influx of dollars, neither is going to last long.  There is much to like about some of these candidates, but we all know they are not going to win the nomination.

Then there is Ron Paul.  Lets be honest…anyone who supports the Wall St. protesters and opposes the killing of Al Qaeda terrorists is not going to win the GOP nomination.  Enough said.

6.  Obama is still Obama

No matter what, keep up your optimism.  Most of these candidates can run a decent general election campaign, which is what we need to defeat our current President.  Obama seems unable or unwilling to simply move to the center, and attempt to take a political high ground.  He is simply not the political wizard people imagined him to be in 2008, and his inexperience and political incompetence is showing.

However, optimism is different than arrogance.  I have started to see many conservatives simply assume that Obama will be defeated next November.  We better get out of that mindset right now.  Obama will have close to a $1 billion to attack and destroy whomever wins the Republican nomination.  Along with a willing media, that is a huge impediment for us to get our message out.

So no matter who ultimately wins the nomination, we have a lot of hard work ahead of us.  But right now, approximately a year from the election, things are looking good.

This was cross posted on Neoavatara.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it. 

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs. 

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation. 

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country! 

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

But we have already seen that this President has little or nothing to offer the great state of Ohio.

Obama last week, in what can only be defined as a political stunt, went to the Brent Spence Bridge spanning the Ohio River near Cincinnati.  The choice of Cincinnati was not random, as it is the home of Speaker of the House John Boehner, and lies acrosss the Ohio River from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky.

So Obama, in his usual arrogant and condescending manner, proclaimed the bridge as a perfect example of why Republicans, and all Ohioans, heck, all Americans should support his jobs plan.  He stated that bridges like the Spence Bridge need to be fixed to prevent them from falling, and America could create jobs by immediately supporting his bill.  In fact, Obama specifically pointed to the bridge and said it was crumbling, and we should infer that Republicans are basically putting lives at risk by not supporting the funding.

Great story.  One problem:  there is virtually nothing factual about Obama’s argument.

First and foremost, the Brent Spence Bridge is 48 years old.  According to the Department of Transportation, and the website for the bridge repair or replacement that can be seen here, the bridge in fact is in such good repair, it could function for decades more.  In fact, by the websites own analysis, it is not crumbling at all.  According to the DOT, the bridge could last another 50 years with basic improvements.

There is one caveat.  People are pushing for funding…to replace the bridge in its entirety.  This is not because it is crumbling, or at risk of falling down.  It is because business leaders argue that it isfunctionally obsolete.  This means that the bridge, initially designed to carry approximately 85,000 cars and trucks a day, now carries almost twice that number.  The problem is not structural, so much as capacity, as the bridge is a common cause of backups and delays.

So Mr. Obama’s statement of a ‘crumbling bridge’ is totally and completely a misstatement.

Furthermore, the project to replace the Spence Bridge is nowhere ready to move any time soon.  According to supporters of replacing the bridge, the earliest work could even begin on a replacement is…2015.  In other words, Obama would be in the third year of his second term in office before a single job was created in either Ohio or Kentucky.  In fact, the project was considered so unworthy of ‘shovel ready’ status, that it was not provided funding in the first Obama stimulus specifically for that reason.

There are, of course, a multitude of problems with this.  First and foremost is Obama’s ability to try to use people’s vulnerabilities, such as fear of the bridge falling down and of course the larger issue of the lack of jobs, to scare them into supporting his plan.  But it gets even more fundamental than that. Obama’s jobs bill specifically states that projects must be started no less than 2 years after passage of the bill…thus making the Brent Spence Bridge ineligible for funds from the Jobs bill he is promoting, while standing in front of said bridge.

Another obvious problem is more basic with Obama’s, and most liberals, solution for economic growth.  Nothing they do today will have virtually anything other than a minimal effect for years.  And even then, the large stimulative effect on the economy is questionable at best.  In short, this administration is simply out of ideas on creating jobs or on moving the economy again, and simply is lying to voters across the nation in order to distract the American people from that reality.

This was cross posted on Neoavatara.