The Spectacle Blog

Exposing 'Truth and Lies' in Afghanistan

Reid Smith — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:16:00 -0500

A veteran U.S. army officer has broken ranks, and written a scathing article about the war in Afghanistan.

In so doing, he's publicly confessed what many American servicemen have been hinting at for years, in private: reports of progress from the Pentagon are little more than window-dressing on a faltering campaign.

Davis, a 27 year vet with four combat deployments under his belt, spent the last year assigned to the Army's Rapid Equipping Forces, traveling over 9,000 miles to visit every important area where American soldiers engage the enemy. He now contends that there is a growing inconsistency between official statements offered to the American public and hard truth on the ground. As the mission drags on, and hopes of "victory" wane, this credibility gap is becoming chasmal.

LTC Davis reports our Afghan "partners" habitually refuse to fight the Taliban -- hedging their bets against a U.S. drawdown designed to exit the majority of forces over the next 24 months. According to his article for the Armed Forces Journal and a story published in concert with the New York Times, local governments are unable to provide basic services and the Taliban insurgency has free rein in territory outside U.S. eyeshot. At times, Davis plainly observed Afghan Security conspiring with the opposition.

According to Davis:

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

Understandably, American troop morale sits at an all time low.

Is any of this so shocking?

Probably not. One of the conditions that define American exceptionalism is our stubborn refusal to warm to defeat or failure. We do not casually quit the field. But according to Davis, current perspective and policy is based on illusion, not reality.

For his part, Davis is on a mission to see that the military brass quits "cherry-picking" the facts they're feeding us, back home. In his words:

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground...

No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect -- and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve -- to have our leaders tell us the truth about what's going on.

Let's face some facts. Despite the unstinting bravery of American troops, stable, constitutional democracy exists beyond the capacity of our dubious partners in the Afghan government. President Karzai serves his nation as the mayor of Kabul -- and a rapaciously corrupt one, at that. Yet victory in Afghanistan, as we have come to imagine it, requires a stable, liberal democracy that's generally pro-American. At present, such victory is off the table.

To expect any Afghan leader -- particularly one clever and strong enough to ply together his country's ragged tapestry of tribal, ethnic and religious identity -- to be pro-American AND to share our evolving goals for South Asia is to abandon prudence.

I imagine we can disagree about the strength and purpose of our mission in Afghanistan, how the war should be fought, and when it's time to pull up stakes. LTC Davis's report from the field shouldn't shock us… Afghanistan isn't a pleasant place to fight a war.

And far be it from me, from the comfort of my desk in Washington, to accuse senior military leaders of lying about what is going on in Afghanistan. More likely, we're receiving overly optimistic missives from military higher-ups who are famously reluctant to admit an unfavorable outcome. But, Davis raises an important question:

Is American military leadership changing its strategic logic to survive and win on the battlefield…or are they responding to pressures -- perhaps leveraged by President Obama and his staff -- to outlive opposition inside the Beltway and in next year's general election?

Obama WH Doesn't Care if the Senate Passes a Budget

Aaron Goldstein — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:44:00 -0500

Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard draws our attention to this exchange yesterday between ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. Tapper asked Carney if he agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the Senate did not need to pass a budget or if he agreed with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the Senate not passing a budget has created uncertainty and affected growth:

Tapper: So therefore, the Senate should pass a budget as well.

Carney: I don't have a --

Tapper: I'm asking.

Carney: Well, I don't have an opinion to express on how the Senate does its business with regards to this issue. The fact is because of the negotiations over the debt ceiling that resulted in the Budget Control Act, we have an unusual situation here in that the top lines for the budget going forward have already been set and agreed to by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Tapper: So the -- I'm not actually asking your opinion, but the White House's opinion, because it's the White House's --

Carney: Well, I mean, I don't have a --

Tapper: The White House has no opinion about whether or not the Senate should pass a budget? The president's going to introduce one. The Fed chair says not having one is bad for growth. But the White House has no opinion about whether --

Carney: I have no opinion -- the White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke's assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.

So there you have it. The Obama Administration does not have an opinion on how the Democrat controlled Senate "does its business with regards to this issue." Is it any wonder that the aforementioned Democrat controlled Senate has not passed a budget in 1,016 days and counting? If the Senate were in Republican hands and had not passed a budget in over a 1,000 days, I doubt Mr. Carney would reply in such a sanguine manner. I dare say Mr. Carney would accuse Senate Republicans of being "obstructionist" as he has done repeatedly with House Republicans.

Only in Obamaland can an elected body not pass a budget in over 1,000 days with its leader proclaiming that a budget need not be passed and it be deemed progress. Whoever Republicans nominate to run against President Obama should be point out the Democrat controlled Senate's inaction whenever President Obama accuses House Republicans of obstructionism.

Sen. Paul Introduces Amendment to Halt Aid to Egypt

Reid Smith — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:17:00 -0500

Senator Rand Paul has introduced an amendment to the Highway Bill (S. 1813) calling for an immediate suspension of foreign aid to Egypt until detained American citizens are released by the Egyptian government.

In the senator's words:

We are subsidizing behavior through US taxpayer foreign aid to Egypt that is leading and allowing for the unjust detainment of American citizens in Egypt.

[…]

Not everyone in this body agrees on foreign policy or on the role of US foreign assistance but the reckless actions of Egyptian authorities in the matter should bring us together to form one undeniable conclusion: American foreign assistance dollars should never be provided to any country that bullies our citizens, recklessly seeks to arrest them on imaginary charges or denies them access to their most basic rights.

The Egyptian Ministry of Justice recently announced it will try 19 American citizens -- many of whom have endured detention and interrogation since their pro-democracy offices were raided last month -- on charges of illegal operations and receiving funds from abroad without consent of the government in Cairo. This international incident represents the latest and most egregious effort on the part of military leadership in Egypt to hector any attempt to support the nascent democratic process.

Technically the amendment cannot be attached to the bill until the legislation is formally addressed later this afternoon or tomorrow, but Senator Paul has staked claim to the matter, which I expect will enjoy robust support among his fellow senators.

UPDATE: It appears the cessation of aid would also hinge on the return of "property" belonging to those non-governmental organizations and the personal property of staff. When the raids occurred, laptops, files and (allegedly) hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash were confiscated from IRI and NDI offices, among others.

The Origins of Romneycare and Coultercare

W. James Antle, III — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:14:00 -0500

Avik Roy has posted what may be the most comprehensive account of the individual mandate mania that once swept the right (or at least the subset of the right made up of health care policy wonks). Roy also points out that a lot of serious conservatives were actually anti-mandate way back in the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich felt they were necessary to combat Hillarycare.

I do have two quibbles, however. Roy writes: "Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who were both House backbenchers in 1993, were also in favor of an individual mandate in those days." Gingrich was minority whip, the second-ranking Republican in the House, in 1993. He was no backbencher. Second, I find the evidence Santorum supported an individual mandate inconclusive. There are at least two local newspaper accounts that I am aware of, both dating back to his 1994 Senate race, that say he supported a mandate of some kind. One says he supported an individual mandate specifically. No Santorum campaign then or now has, to my knowledge, disputed this. Yet the papers don't provide any direct quotes either, which makes me wonder if they were describing his position correctly.

UPDATE: Roy updates the record on Santorum's alternative to the individual mandate. Santorum denied on CNN supporting such a mandate during his 1994 Senate campaign.

No Waiver for Thee

Ross Kaminsky — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:55:00 -0500

There have been over 1200 waivers handed out for companies to avoid complying with parts of Obamacare, including waivers that cover over half a million labor union members -- and fewer than 70,000 non-union workers.

Today it is being reported that 10 states are being granted waivers from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act because they will not be able to have enough students proficient in math and reading by 2014. Did anyone think that a federal law would actually change student performance? Fox News quotes a government official who says that "28 other states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, 'have indicated their intent to seek flexibility.'"

These companies and states are getting waivers because they can't meet certain standards, or because the cost of complying with the rules are too high. These are all fine reasons, and I think the bar for a state or company to avoid a high-cost federal mandate should be fairly low. But none of these reasons has anything to do with a constitutionally-protected right (or at least not one that the Supreme Court has yet recognized).

Apparently, then, the only people who can't get waivers are Catholic and other religious organizations whose objection to a rule is actually protected by the Constitution.

The Obama Administration is truly an anti-religion tyranny (and I say that as a non-religious non-Christian) with no understanding of or respect for fundamental American principles.

The only question left is whether the political heat to allow such organizations out of a requirement to provide their employees with birth control and other reproductive health care services through employer-purchased health insurance will be enough to get them to back down. At this point, it's 50/50.

The Day Ahead: Thursday, February 9

Matt Naugle — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:00:00 -0500

First day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)

Clarity Media Group's Red Alert Politics launched (Red Alert Politics)

Jonah Goldberg vs. Matt Welch: "Are libertarians part of the conservative movement?" (AEI)

Obama to meet with Italy's PM today at White House (AP)

Ten states today will be offered waivers from No Child Left Behind (The Hill)

Solyndra sold assets cheap for fast cash (Washington Times)

The most bourgeois Obama campaign gear (The Atlantic)

Chicago and Boston prepare for war (BuzzFeed)

Catholic nun pleads with VP Biden to correct contraception ruling (Politico)

US jobs gap between young and old is widest ever (AP)

The dramatic final days at MF Global (FT)

What percent are you? (NY Times)

VIDEO: Obama/Volt 2012

CNN Kicks Roland Martin Off The Air

Aaron Goldstein — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:25:00 -0500

CNN has suspended Roland Martin indefinitely for tweets he wrote during the Super Bowl which were construed as homophobic.

In one tweet, Martin writes, "If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him, #superbowl." CNN stated, "Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated."

Yet in November 2010, it was Martin who wrote, "Maybe someone should kick Sarah Palin," after Palin criticized First Lady Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign. Did CNN reprimand Martin in way, shape or form? What do you think?

Apparently language that demeans Sarah Palin (and conservatives in general) is not inconsistent with the values and culture at CNN and is not only tolerated but encouraged.

Morton Blackwell's Kind Words for Santorum

Quin Hillyer — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:49:00 -0500

Conservative movement leader Morton Blackwell, founder and head of the Leadership Institute and chairman of the weekly "Weyrich lunches" of conservative activists, AND longtime Republican National Committeeman from Virginia, had the final remarks at tonight's "Weyrich Awards Dinner" raising money for the Coalition for America, which sponsors the Weyrick lunches. He quite clearly refrained from any direct endorsement for president -- but he DID take the time to say specifically nice things about only one of the candidates. Remarking on Rick Santorum's big wins on Tuesday, he noted (without specifying examples in the cases of the other three candidates) that all four GOP candidates offer "advantages" unique to each. Santorum's advantage, he said, is that "the longer and better you know him, the more you like and trust him."

Very kind words from Blackwell... and very astute, as usual.

Who The BBC Calls Extremist

Aaron Goldstein — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:37:00 -0500

Over at NRO, Charles C.W. Cooke drew my attention to an article which appeared in The Telegraph concerning a meeting involving the mandarins at the BBC. Their discussion centered around how to describe Abu Qatada, the imprisoned al Qaeda terrorist who a British immigration tribunal ordered released on bail earlier this month.

Although Qatada is wanted on terrorism charges in the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy as well as his native Jordan, the BBC told its staff in no uncertain terms, "Do not call him an extremist - we must call him a radical. Extremist implies a value judgment." Its scribes were also told not to use images which might show him to be overweight. Well, I guess even jihadists have body image issues.

Cooke notes:

In response to the BBC's decision, Conservative MP James Clappison remarked, "It makes you wonder what you have to do for the BBC to call you an extremist." Given that a man such as Abu Quatada has fallen short of the mark, one can only hope that nobody ever finds out.

Well, how about being a Jew living in Israel? Consider some of the BBC's recent headlines:

Israel bars 12 "extremist" settlers from West Bank

Israelis rally against ultra-Orthodox extremism

Shimon Peres urges Israelis to rally against extremism

So while the BBC declares it is beyond the pale to impart a value judgment where it concerns a Muslim jihadist, it expresses no such hesitation when it comes to Israeli Jews. This, my friends, is nothing more than anti-Semitism.

Let's Not Measure Oval Office Drapes for Santorum Just Yet

Aaron Goldstein — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:10:00 -0500

At present, Quin Hillyer is in a state of euphoria and could probably leap across the Colorado River if he were so inclined and I wouldn't blame him for doing so.

After all, Quin was championing Rick Santorum as presidential material when nary anyone else thought he would be a viable candidate. A lot of people underestimated Santorum (myself included) but Quin deserves a great deal of credit in seeing in Santorum what others could not see. Because not only has Santorum exceeded all expectations but he has done so on a shoestring budget. What Santorum has lacked in financial resources, he has made up for in persistence, sincerity and an abundance of sweater vests.

With that said, I'm not ready to call him President Santorum just yet. The last thing he, Quin or any of his supporters should be thinking about is measuring the drapes in the Oval Office. Rick Santorum still has a Republican nomination to win and if there has been a theme to the 2012 GOP Race is that nothing is inevitable. Now that Santorum has demonstrated he isn't a one trick pony he's going to very likely face Romney's attack machine full throttle. Now he might well have a stronger jaw than Newt Gingrich. But sometimes Santorum can be his own worst enemy. If Romney's attacks render Santorum into a sullen, scolding, sanctimonious sourpuss then it severely undermines his chances of becoming the Republican standard bearer.

Please keep in mind that I say this as someone who finds Santorum infinitely preferable to Romney. Like Ross Kaminsky, I tend to disagree with his social views. Yet I needn't necessarily agree with someone on all matters to support their candidacy. I might not like everything Rick Santorum says but I know that he means what he says. The same simply cannot be said for Mitt Romney. But despite all the problems Romney is having with a critical mass of conservatives it would be foolish to write him off just now. Let's see where we are at after Super Tuesday.

But let's say Santorum does become the Republican nominee. As others have been guilty of underestimating Santorum, I think Quin is guilty of underestimating Obama. If the economy continues to improve, so does Obama's chances of re-election regardless of who the GOP nominee is. While it is certainly true that President Obama has had more than his fair share of petulant and prickly behavior during his term in office, he can easily turn on the charm. This could prove too much for Santorum to overcome especially if his sullen, scolding, sanctimonious side surfaces. If Americans see Santorum as a sourpuss, he won't be elected President.

I'm not saying Santorum couldn't beat Obama. At this point, nearly anything is possible. But I would be curious to see how Quin thinks Santorum can win about 300 electoral votes.

President Santorum

Quin Hillyer — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:05:00 -0500

As I wrote 18 months ago, back in 2010:

It is folly, if not sheer madness, to think that a former U.S. senator who lost his last re-election campaign in a home-state landslide could possibly turn around and be elected president.

Or at least that's what conventional wisdom would say. It's a good thing for Rick Santorum that conventional wisdom, especially in politics, is usually preternaturally stupid. It's also a good thing for Rick Santorum that he has a history of making absolute fools of the Washington chattering classes. Santorum, the courageously conservative former two-term U.S. House member and two-term senator from Pennsylvania, is openly considering a run for the White House. Conservative leaders and voters are preternaturally stupid if they don't at least give him a serious hearing...

I wake up this morning to hear pundits and DC activists still discounting Santorum's chances. Again, they are wrong. The shape of the nomination fight to come is now clear: With Ron Paul continuing to take his minority share of the votes, other conservatives will rally around Santorum rather than Gingrich. Eventually, a weak Romney, without a personal "connection" to voters and without any strongly philosophically committed base, will succumb. Santorum will be the nominee. Obama will overplay his hand attacking Santorum's allegedly awful remarks about homosexuals. He'll try to slime Santorum in other ways, too. But Santorum isn't really vulnerable to sliming the way other candidates are. He'll win swing states in the heartland and will make a good enough VP choice to shore up weaknesses elsewhere. I haven't done the state-by-state math, but he'll end up with about 300 electoral votes to Obama's 238 or so. Santorum will be the next president. And he'll govern very, very well.

Give Peace a Chance

Jeffrey Lord — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:01:00 -0500

Allllllllllllllll we are sayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying….is give peace a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, there is no need for an apology from Quin Hillyer to Jeff Lord. None.

Conservatives are the ones who make a big deal about "character." My friend Quin has it, has always had it, and I know it. (He can occasionally be a character too, but that's another issue altogether!)

But I confess I was baffled at first when seeing his missive, and after hearing from a number of people, more irritated than mad. I was inclined to just not respond, then, grudgingly I confess, I decided it had to be done. As someone who is always advising friends in the public eye on the importance, in the age of the eternal Internet, to respond to unfair accusations because the original charge can and will sit in cyberspace unanswered for eternity as we know it, I felt I should take my own advice.

It's my job -- Quin's job -- to observe, investigate, report, opine. This is the very heart of the existence of The American Spectator, Bob Tyrrell's great creation that will be celebrating its fiftieth anniversary a mere five years distant in 2017.

What Quin and I are here to do, and in fact what the entire conservative movement is about -- is to provide sharp, insightful, hopefully always clear conservative thought on the issues of the day. In the doing of this there is bound to be disagreement sharply expressed. Is Newt a conservative? I say yes, Quin says no. Bob Tyrrell himself is no Newt fan and has, in his typical and now famous style, said so. Is Christine O'Donnell the right choice in Delaware? I said yes, Quin passed out. I'm a fan of Rush, Sean and Mark and the work they do every day. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul on foreign policy. Hundreds and hundreds of Dr. Paul's legions regularly disagree and tell me what an idiot I am.

All of this is to the good.

In other words, disagreement between and among conservatives is the coin of the realm here. While it understandably can get lost in dust-ups like the one Quin and I had, in fact it is a sign of intellectual vitality. If everyone agreed we could all sit at home eating, drinking and making merry knowing our only job is to pull the lever for Obama in November. Fat chance!

This, to me at least, is an important thing to understand. In his wonderful Reagan book The Age of Reagan 1980-1989, Steven F. Hayward writes this:

In a manner that eludes many historians, political scientists, and reporters, the most successful presidencies tend to be those that have factional disagreements within their inner councils, whereas sycophantic administrations tend to get in the most trouble. Fractiousness in an administration is a sign of health: the Jefferson-Hamilton feud in Washington's administration, the rivalry within Lincoln's cabinet, and the odd combination of fervent New Dealers and conventional Democrats in FDR's White House provided a dynamic tension that contributed to successful governance. Though the partisans of the distinct camps in the Reagan White House would be loath to admit it, their feuding probably contributed to better policy in many cases. An attempted Reaganite purge, of either the party or his own staff, might well have backfired and snuffed out the spontaneous slow-motion revolution within the party that was already under way, and which gained new momentum in the 1990's under the spur of figures such as Newt Gingrich.

Steve Hayward, I believe, has it right. And I for one believe this thought applies not just to presidencies but conservative magazines and the conservative movement as a whole. This sentiment was also expressed by General George Patton's remark to the effect that if everyone in the room was thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking. Not for nothing did I title my post (OK my "rambling" post in Quin's view) about Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin "The Fractious Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin." While I know many of our conservative compadres, I don't know Rich or Jennifer. But most certainly I have great respect for them individually and in their respective roles at National Review and the Washington Post. Perhaps it's not obvious, so let me say it: if what they wrote was not worth commenting on, I wouldn't. It is. And in the fractiousness that is the conservative movement -- a movement not a club (ahem!) -- this is a sign of health, not a sign of Ins versus Outs.

So when I give Jennifer Rubin grief, or take on our friends at National Review (and make no mistake, they are our friends) or chastise Elliott Abrams, someone who, in fact, I really do like -- I do so here out of genuine intellectual disagreement. Knowing full well that no one, least of all myself, has all the answers. And that the best way to move forward always is to keep our collective intellectual blades and political sensibilities sharp.

Otherwise, what lies ahead is dismal. Conservatives will lose -- and we will deserve to lose.

So Quin, my friend. There is no need for an apology. Period. I've never met Jennifer Rubin, doubtless she's a wonderful person. My task is to simply challenge her thinking, as is hers to challenge the thinking of those she disagrees with.

You and I disagree over the Abrams issue. You see no proof that Elliott wrote his National Review take down of Newt as a bid for a job in a Romney administration. I see the very writing of the piece as evidence of exactly that. There's nothing wrong with that, as I've said. It's standard procedure. Jeane Kirkpatrick, after all, became Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations because Reagan read a piece she wrote in Commentary titled "Dictatorship and Double Standards."Intellectuals and policy wonks as a rule are not wealthy people, they can't fund Super PACS. What they bring to the political table is their policy wonk brains, and one of the ways to do that is do exactly what Elliott did with Newt, the rival of the moment to Romney. And do it in a magazine that, for better or worse, has chosen to self-identify as RomneyLand.

As to Jennifer Rubin, it seems pretty clear to me that there is some type of relationship between Rubin and both Rachel and Elliott Abrams. Namely, friendship. Indeed, based on her own statement to the Ombudsman of the Washington Post on Rachel Abrams, and Caroline Glick's description in the Jerusalem Post of Jennifer as having Elliott as her "mentor," this seems very clear. Again, I like Abrams, and have great respect for his wife. But if one is going to write a column criticizing the criticizer of Elliott's piece -- and not reveal a relationship of whatever kind it may be in the process -- then, yes. I think that's both unfair and a mistake.

So there you go. I suspect between the hot-blooded Southerner and the native reserve of the New Englander-turned Pennsylvanian (that would be you and me) the intensity of our reactions to whatever can be wildly different. My piece made you "so angry." I managed puzzled bemusement and finally mustered pale indignation at your reply. To wax conservative, this is a good thing. I can't be you, you can't be me, and our mutual objective is to make sure that our fellow Americans continue to have the shot at being themselves.

Otherwise known as "individual liberty."

Now. Tell me the truth old pal.

At least one person in the Hillyer household loves me. When Tresy saw that piece… what sized antique frying pan did she hit you with?

The Reversal of Proposition 8: A Dangerous Precedent

Hunter Baker — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:33:00 -0500

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has acted to reverse the democratic decision of the people of California to confine marriage to its traditional parameters of a man and a woman. In making this decision, the court decided that it could overturn the will of the people of California on the basis of what is known in legal circles as "the rational basis standard."

When evaluating the violation of fundamental rights, the court has often used a standard of "strict scrutiny" in cases involving racial or religious discrimination. By that standard, the petitioner frequently wins. In cases of gender discrimination, the court has relied on a kind of intermediate scrutiny.

The rational basis standard is a different bird. We were taught (as have been law students for a long time) that under the rational basis standard, the government would almost always win because the burden of establishing irrationality is so high. My liberal New York Jewish law professor taught us that the court would only find a state action irrational if it did something like declare that everyone must wear one green shoe on Tuesday.

The Ninth Circuit has now effectively said that to believe marriage is a matter for a man and a woman is to be so irrational as to declare that everyone must wear one green shoe on Tuesday.

Now, I understand that many readers may favor expanding marriage to include same sex unions. And there are reasons to support that move. But the case is not so overwhelmingly strong as to render the opposite conclusion nonsensical.

This is an important case. If a handful of individuals can declare a particular point of view completely irrational (a democratically expressed view), then we are not a republic. We are an oligarchy.

Romney's Colorado lesson

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:05:00 -0500

Rick Santorum swept the Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado caucuses last night. Enough ink has been spilled on Rick's "big night," which indeed it was, and I think the political implications are fairly obvious: it will put increasing pressure on Newt Gingrich to get out of the race to leave just one non-Romney (whereas I incorrectly predicted that the pressure would be the other way because, frankly, I didn't see this coming).

It's true that Mitt Romney spent no resources in Minnesota and Missouri, and he would be expected to shrug off those losses for that reason, though the magnitude of the losses was significant. After all, if Romney spent no money in those contests, then that means that he and Santorum spent similar amounts of money -- leading to Santorum more than doubling Romney's vote in Missouri (55 percent to 25 percent) with another major drubbing in Minnesota (45 percent to 17 percent, with Ron Paul taking second with 27 percent).

But as a resident of Colorado, that's the caucus I want to talk about. I attended my local caucus, but since it's in Boulder, there were only about 200 people there. Also, since it's in Boulder, it is not reflective of the larger, more conservative parts of the state. That's why the results at my caucus location had Romney just barely beating Ron Paul, with Santorum and Newt Gingrich a distant third and fourth. Like I said, not representative of more Republican areas of the state -- and obviously not representative of the more conservative caucus-goers in Minnesota and Missouri.

Although Santorum's victory in Colorado was narrower than in the other two caucus states last night, winning 40 percent to 35 percent over Romney, with Newt Gingrich taking 13 percent and Ron Paul taking 12 percent, anything other than a Romney win here is an important surprise.

Rick Santorum did have a couple of high-profile endorsements, such as from former Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer. But many big guns were out for Romney, including the popular former governor Bill Owens, former Senators Hank Brown and Wayne Allard, former Congressman Bob Beauprez, and current Attorney General John Suthers.

Robo-calls featuring recorded voices of many of the above were received with annoying frequency across the state in the prior 48 hours. I got at least two robo-calls featuring Mitt Romney and two more from Ann Romney.

Furthermore, Colorado was one of the strongest early pro-Romney states during the 2008 Republican primary contest, with Romney taking 60 percent of the vote, more than tripling John McCain's 18 percent second-place finish.

And the state Republican Party organized a live conference call (which I listened to) during which the very popular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie aggressively supported Romney as a true conservative, as most electable, and as a good person.

If there were any state in which Romney should have been a prohibitive favorite last night, it was Colorado -- and yet he lost.

Perhaps the recent endorsement by the Denver Post of Romney as "right for Colorado Republicans" might have been the kiss of death, since the small number of conservatives on the editorial board there are routinely swamped by typical big-city newspaper liberals.

So, what to make of a Santorum victory?

At least in Colorado, it's not just that Republican voters are worried that Romney isn't a true conservative. They're also sick and tired of "the establishment." They're tired of Republicans nominating the person who can claim to be "next in line", who has diligently waited his turn, and who might lead to defeat against a beatable opponent, as we saw Bob Dole and John McCain, among others, do.

Also, as a resident of Colorado, I didn't see or hear a single negative ad aimed at Rick Santorum, quite out of character for Romney and the Super-PAC supporting him. Maybe they were around and I missed them, but there was certainly no saturation like we saw done to Newt Gingrich in Iowa. Maybe Romney was so confident that he decided not to spend money on advertising in that way. Maybe the fact that delegates won't actually be awarded until April meant this contest was not worth buying airtime for. Who knows? But negative ads work, whether we like them or not, and it was surprising that there were so few here.

But whatever the reason, losing Colorado should be a big wake-up call to Mitt Romney: He needs to show more passion and more principle. He has to be a better champion for conservative principles, not just technocratic "turnaround" expertise. He has to be more inspiring than his refrain of late that he "believes in America." Heck, even Barack Obama can probably say that without his nose growing too much, just because it means so little.

Romney has tremendous organization and a lot of money behind him. But as the country gets to know the candidates better, so that messaging in a particular state just before that state's contest becomes a less dominant factor in voters' opinions, he will have an increasingly difficult time winning if he doesn't become a more appealing candidate to Republican activists.

For this libertarian-leaning Republican, there is plenty not to like about Rick Santorum, not least his repeated statements that "I support the 10th Amendment, but..." with the next words being about some social issue that he wants to make a federal issue. There is, of course, plenty not to like about Mitt Romney, too, though those things are better-known than Santorum's less-than-conservative positions. And I continue to believe that when the "mainstream" media is done with Rick Santorum, he'll have a hard time winning anything.

But when no gloves are laid on him, he's proven himself with last night's results to be the last anti-Romney going through the GOP wringer. Whether he'll survive better than Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and others is yet to be seen.

While I (and political bettors) still expect Romney to be the Republican nominee, his loss to Santorum in Colorado is, more than any prior result in this political season, a signal to me of Romney's inherent weakness, and the remarkable change from 2008 when he ran as the conservative alternative to John McCain.

No doubt Santorum struck a nerve last night when he said "“I don’t stand up here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I am here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

And as Rick Santorum was tossing that red meat to his Missouri audience, Mitt Romney was in Denver offering pablum about "restoring the values that have made America the greatest nation in the history of the earth," calling for "fundamental, bold, dramatic change," and asking supporters, with nary an ounce of passion, to "fight for the America we love because we believe in America and its Founding Principles...We have a long way to go, and I sure love this country."

Yawn.

Come on, Mitt, you barely sounded sincere. The way you said "and I sure love this country" sounded as if you remembered a talking point which your consultants told you to mention every time you speak. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe in something, that you're principled and not just a pragmatist. But you're not making it easy. And with speeches like that, you'll also start making me and others wonder whether you are indeed reasonably likely to beat Barack Obama. Everything Obama says is wrong, but at least he says it like he means it (his last State of the Union speech notwithstanding.)

Colorado's caucus results should be a slap in the face to the Romney campaign, perhaps the biggest one so far. Romney's remarks last night show that at least in the minutes after he realized he was likely to be swept in three caucuses by a semi-appealing opponent with no financial backing, Mitt still hasn't understood why.

Thoughts on the Santorum Sweep

Aaron Goldstein — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:25:00 -0500

As both John Tabin and Jim Antle have noted (as did Team Romney even before the results), Rick Santorum has no more delegates this morning than he did 24 hours ago. Yet there is no question that Rick Santorum is in a far stronger position than he was 24 hours ago, delegates or no delegates.

More than anything else, it is irrefutable evidence that there is still considerable resistance amongst Republicans towards Mitt Romney as their standard bearer against President Obama. Republicans simply do not want to have their nominee spoonfed to them. But it isn't clear that conservatives are necessarily going to coalesce around Santorum and as Stacy McCain points out neither Santorum nor Gingrich have the resources to take on Romney one on one and would need to embark upon a strategy of divide and conqueor. The only way for that strategy to work is if Santorum and Gingrich agree that Romney must be defeated at all costs and that both men could accept the other as the nominee if it came to that. However, I'm not sure if either man would be prepared to do so at least not at this point and if one of them eventually came round to that position it might be too late by then.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if Romney shifts his focus away from Gingrich and towards Santorum. Romney did a great deal of damage against Gingrich over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While Santorum doesn't have that particular association, he did spend more than 15 years on Capitol Hill and became a lobbyist. Romney will tag Santorum with the "Washington insider" label and characterize him as "someone who spent his adult life in government" who favored earmarks and pork barrel spending. If Santorum can respond to this critique effectively and more artfully than Gingrich while simultaneously casting further doubt on Romney's record, conservatives could coalesce around him. That is, unless, Newt finds a way to once again rise from the ashes like a Phoenix in the Arizona Primary.

The Day Ahead: Wednesday, February 8

Matt Naugle — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:59:00 -0500

Rick Santorum won 3 primaries last night in CO, MN, and MO (CNN)

9th Circuit Court overturns California's gay marriage ban (WSJ)

Democrats race to line up wealthy donors for Super PACs (NY Times)

White House plays both sides on contraception requirement (National Journal)

House GOP introduces their version of an insider trading bill (AP)

Occupy DC to protest CPAC (Politico)

The Republicans' enthusiasm gap (PPP)

Little room for new workers as workers are reluctant to quit (WSJ)

American borrowing is up (WSJ)

After wrecking banks, Federal Reserve targets money funds (Real Clear Markets)

George W. Bush defends auto bailouts (Bloomberg)

Greek Prime Minister seeks bailout consensus (Bloomberg)

VIDEO: Reason TV parodies Clint Eastwood's Super Bowl ad

How Mitt Could Be Beat

Robert Stacy McCain — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:47:00 -0500

Monday night, I sat looking at the GOP primary schedule and, considering Mitt Romney's enormous fundraising advantage, was filled with a sense of foreboding. After Newt Gingrich's meltdown in Nevada, the prospects for the conservative "Anybody But Romney" opposition looked grim indeed.

Rick Santorum's 3-for-3 hat-trick Tuesday night, however, revives the glimmer of a possibility that Romney can still be beat. But it will nevertheless be a difficult challenge and, in the short term, will require at least tacit cooperation between the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns.

After we get the results of the Maine caucuses on Saturday -- a near-certain win for Romney -- Arizona and Michigan hold their primaries on Feb. 28. With Romney's vastly superior financial resources, he would likely win both states unless Santorum and Gingrich strike an unofficial deal: Let Gingrich concentrate his campaign on Arizona (a Sun Belt state that matches Gingrich's political strengths) while Santorum focuses on the industrial "Rust Belt" state of Michigan. Both of the conservative "not Mitts" would face long odds against Romney in those states, but the odds will be slightly shorter than they would be if both of them were shuttling back and forth between the two states. They could economize in terms of campaign staff, travel expenses and advertising and, if they get a lucky break somewhere along the way, might conceivably score twin upsets, so that Romney loses both Arizona and Michigan.

The Washington State caucus intervenes March 3, the Saturday before "Super Tuesday" March 6, when Santorum and Gingrich could again improve their odds against Romney by a tacit and unofficial division of states. Ohio is another industrial "Rust Belt" state that matches Santorum's strengths, while Gingrich can count Georgia as his home turf. Of the other Super Tuesday states, Vermont and Massachusetts are practically "gimme" votes for Romney, who will almost surely also defeat Ron Paul in Virginia, where neither Santorum nor Gingrich qualified for the primary ballot. That leaves Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee as possibilities for either Santorum or Gingrich. Would Santorum be willing to cede Tennessee and perhaps also Oklahoma to Gingrich in exchange for a clear shot at Romney in the other states?

Some such arrangement would seem to offer the best hope of stopping Romney, if the conservative rivals Gingrich and Santorum are really serious about stopping Romney at all costs. The two conservatives would have to be willing to postpone until after Super Tuesday a showdown between themselves, knowing that neither of them has a good chance at the nomination unless -- by a modicum of tactical cooperation in the near term -- they can deliver enough defeats to Romney to stop him from building an insuperable early lead in the delegate count.

This kind of cooperation between two candidates in the GOP nomination contest would be unprecedented, but would simply replicate how the campaign has played out accidentally so far: Santorum upset Romney in Iowa and then, after Romney won New Hampshire, Gingrich won South Carolina, depriving Romney of a snowballing "inevitability" momentum. After two more Romney wins in Florida and Nevada, which threatened another "inevitability" snowball, Santorum came back to score big Tuesday in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. What the Santorum-Gingrich tag-team has so far achieved against Romney in sequential contests, they must now attempt to repeat in simultaneous contests.

Certainly, after Santorum's impressive victories Tuesday, Gingrich will look silly if he doesn't cease his oft-repeated arguments that Santorum should drop out and endorse him. And while Santorum now asserts that he is the only conservative choice in the Republican campaign, he doesn't yet have the financial or organizational resources to match Romney's powerful machine. The only way either Gingrich or Santorum can realistically keep up the fight against Romney with any hope to prevent him from getting the nomination is to "spread the field," forcing the Romney campaign to defend against different opponents in different states, at least during the next four weeks.

One final thought: Both Gingrich and Santorum are hostile to Ron Paul's anti-war libertarian ideology. Yet if they are really serious about stopping Romney, Gingrich and Santorum should tell their supporters in Virginia: "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for me!"

Rick Santorum Pulls the Trifecta

W. James Antle, III — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:02:00 -0500

Rick Santorum has won Colorado in addition to Missouri and Minnesota. Ron Paul finished second in Minnesota, ahead of both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is only a point ahead of Paul for third place in Colorado.

In terms of the delegate count, this means virtually nothing. No delegates are directly awarded tonight and Missouri's primary is purely a beauty contest. But this is a huge embarrassment for Romney. It also raises the question of how long Gingrich can keep going as the chief anti-Romney. People who were avoiding a vote for Santorum because he wasn't as viable as the former House speaker may rethink things going forward. No candidate will drop out after tonight.

A brokered convention? I still doubt it. But we still have four active candidates for the Republican nomination who don't seem to be going anywhere.

Santorum's Big Night

John Tabin — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:28:00 -0500

Rick Santorum has won the Minnesota caucuses and the nonbinding Missouri primary. At this writing it looks like he may win the Colorado caucuses, too, but even if Mitt Romney pulls out a win there, this is Santorum's night.

As noted here at the time, Santorum was campaigning in Missouri and Minnesota (and Colorado) when Romney and Newt Gingrich were still slugging it out in Florida. The strategy paid off; Santorum was in these states significantly more than his rivals, and Nate Silver notes some empirical evidence that spending more time in a state helps a candidate outperform his poll numbers.

While tonight's contests don't push Santorum very far forward in the delegate count, he will undoubtedly get a fundraising boost out his victories; the question is how far it can take him. When the Conservative Political Action Conference convenes in Washington later this week -- with Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich all slated to speak -- you can bet that activists will be conferring at the bars in and around the Marriott Wardman Park to puzzle over that question. As it always is during a hotly contested primary, this should be an interesting CPAC indeed.

Now Can I Get an Acknowledgement That Supporting Santorum Wasn't Meant to Help Romney

Quin Hillyer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:52:00 -0500

For months and months now, some readers have accused me of being for Mitt Romney because I "only" wrote about ten or 11 columns and blog posts criticizing him (and none overtly praising him) while I expressed numerous criticisms, shared by may other solid conservatives, about Newt Gingrich. They had no evidence, but they impugned my motives. When I noted that it was more than a two-person race, they said that my praise for Rick Santorum was just a smoke-screen because "everybody" knew he had no real chance to beat Romney and was merely a way to keep Gingrich down and thus help Romney.

When the race was seen as Romney vs. Perry, I said, no, it was not a two-person race. When it was Romney vs. Cain, I said, no, it isn't. When it was Romney vs. Gingrich, I said that was a mistake, too. This is and always has been a volatile, multi-person race -- and Santorum always had a higher upside vs. Romney than Gingrich did, because he had turned off fewer people and was less prone to huge mood swings, etcetera, than Gingrich was. None of this was meant to help Romney; it was honest analysis, based on 36 years of studying, participating in (statewide ExecDirector for a presidential campaign, veteran of caucus organizing in several cycles, attendee at four GOP national conventions going back to 1980, wearing a total of seven different hats) and writing about this stuff.

Now, tonight, it looks as if Santorum is achieving even bigger victories than anything Romney has achieved in any state anywhere. It looks like he is showing major staying power in the heartland. And he's also four points up head-to-head vs. Barack Obama, while Romney is four points down and Newt Gingrich significantly below that.

In short, Santorum is a real contender, perhaps even the front-runner (if he pulls an upset in Colorado on top of Minnesota and Missouri, he will have won four contests to four for Romney, despite spending about one-fiftieth of the money). This is exactly what was always a serious possibility. And it is consistent with most of Santorum's career of beating the electoral odds and showing up te pundits who repeatedly write him off.

The point here is not that I'm so smart. The point is that what I was seeing was so real: Rick Santorum has staying power. Others could have entered, and others (Jindal, Ryan, and others) could have filled the spot Santorum now is filling. Nobody else stepped up to the plate. Santorum isn't afraid to take on a tough task. Never has been. He deserves some credit.

Why The Pats Losing The Super Bowl Wasn't So Bad After All

Aaron Goldstein — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:56:00 -0500

Maria Menounos, co-host of the syndicated entertainment show Extra and a diehard New England Patriots fan, lost a bet with correspondent A.J. Calloway. If the Giants lost, Calloway would dress up as a Pats cheerleader. But if the Pats lost to the Giants, Menounos agreed to host the show in Times Square wearing nothing but a New York Giants bikini. Well, Menounos, a native of Medford, Massachusetts, was true to her word.

Well, there's a silver lining in every cloud and this one came in the form of a white robe.

Peace Pipe with Jeffrey Lord

Quin Hillyer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:40:00 -0500

First, I owe Jeffrey Lord a bit of an apology. But it will come in roundabout fashion, because I must digress to say that his opening line in his post below is absolutely classic, hysterically funny, and well aimed. Injecting some levity into the situation was very much needed, and is appreciated. Nobody has called me an "ignorant slut" before, but it does sound sort of fun! And I certainly could do worse than to have my own spot on Saturday Night Live.

Now, as to the apology: Jeffrey Lord is a gentleman and a good guy. In retrospect, my opening line in the post in which I castigated him was overkill. I was trying for a clean, hard takedown, but it ended up being too hard and appearing not fully clean. I was writing fast, as I often do with blog posts rather than formal columns, and I already was trying to catch up from losing two solid hours that morning to computer problems, so I didn't do the final read-through I usually do in order to catch anything that didn't come out quite right. I had started to write that Jeff had not shown intellectual consistency, but that wasn't quite right. So I changed it to a lack of "intellectual integrity," in the sense of "integrity" meaning "wholeness" and "coherence" -- as in structural integrity of a building. (I.e., to distinguish it from personal or professional integrity, which is a measure of character rather than just the fullness and fully realized fairness of thought processes.) But, having then -- and all of this was very quick, mind you, far quicker than it takes to explain it -- having then come up with the term "intellectual integrity," I then looked for the metaphor and came up with what I thought was a good strong comparison: Bill Clinton. Big mistake. Clinton's character is so low that any use of the word "integrity" in conjunction with Clinton automatically calls to mind a character issue, not just an issue of coherence, etc. In short, by quickly trying to make a good, strong, hard statement, I went too far -- and didn't realize it until several professional friends and colleagues emailed me to say as much, one of whom understood my point but said the overall effect was "shi***y."

The criticism was right, and I apologize to my once and future friend Jeff.

NOW, that said..... I do NOT withdraw the substance of my post, but instead wish to soberly elaborate on it -- not to belabor the dispute with Jeff, but to make the bigger point I tried to make in my original post, which is that there is far too much questioning of motives and far too much use of perjorative labels (RINO, etcetera) on the right these days -- far too much of the assumption that somebody opposing one's own candidate is therefore deliberately trying to help another one, even if they don't say so or indeed say just the opposite, and far too much assumption that a difference of opinion on a particular candidate's bona fides, or of a particular tactical consideration, is evidence of some deep-seated lack of true conservatism. Criticizing or praising candidates, ideas, policies, etcetera, is what we opinion journalists do; but attacking or carelessly and perjoratively labeling their supporters en masse, or individual supporters without relying on actual evidence, is what I object to. I hope even Jeff notes that these are things I never do -- that I can write very strongly in defense of conservatives I think have been unustly attacked, but that I never do the original attacking (except, of course, in criticizing candidates or policies, etcetera, which of course is part of my job).

To dispose of his most recent complaints: I don't give two figs what others have said about Jennifer Rubin being a shill for Romney. I just care what she has actually written, and I was angry because Jeff wouldn't even acknowledge the simple facts -- again, FACTS -- that she has consistently written favorably about Rick Santorum. Much of her reputation for being pro-Romney comes not from her praising Romney, which in truth she has done only a little of, but because she has so strongly criticized other conservatives challenging Romney -- which really has nothing to do with Romney unless one buys into the absurd notion that this contest is a two-person race, which it never has been. If I can very quickly produce 21 examples of what I am talking about, and Jeff won't even look at them, then I would say the facts are on my side. If I played Jeff's game of citing OTHERS who have adjudged Rubin's leanings, I could just as easily produce examples of those (such as the Village Voice) who just as strongly have accused her of an unseemly bias in favor of Santorum.

Meanwhile, I never objected (although I strongly disagree with his tendentious analysis of the Gingrich speech in question) to Jeff defending Newt Gingrich from Elliott Abrams' column against Gingrich. Instead, I thoroughly object to JEff alleging, without a shred of evidence, that Abrams was somehow trying to prostitute himself out to Romney for a job. THAT, yes THAT, is a scurrilous attack. Wrote Jeff Lord:

In fact, I'm sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment's Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really???? What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan?

Jeff repeated the accusation in a subsequent post. That is why I was already so angry when he further took up the cudgel in much the same way against Jennifer Rubin.

I could go on, but I'll stop. The point is not to rehash every bit of the dispute. THe point is to ask that conservatives stop accusing each other of bad motives, especially without proof, and that we keep it as civil as possible. My first sentence the other day about Jeff came out, unintentionally, as not just a strong dispute, but positively uncivil. I was wrong. That's why, again, I apologize.

Rubin Again Wishes Santorum Well

Quin Hillyer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:54:00 -0500

It is quite clear to me, from reading almost all of her posts, that Jennifer Rubin isn't turned off by Mitt Romney, but that she also is very favorably disposed toward Rick Santorum. Indeed, her writings indicate, I think, a slight -- very slight, but also very consistent -- preference for Santorum, not Romney. Latest case in point, a long advice post from her today for Santorum. It certainly is no ringing endorsement of Santorum ove Romney. But it is full of good will for the Pennsylvanian. Here's how she ends it:

[T]he good news for Santorum is that the Republican electorate seems especially susceptible to impressive debate performance, feisty rhetoric and bold attacks on Obama. Santorum will need to do all that and more. But if anyone in the GOP field (past or present) can do it, Santorum's the guy.

Toward that end, Rubin offers a lot of sound strategic advice. The best is to continue stressing his economic platform, so as to dispel the notion that he is only a social-issues candidate.

The point here is not to bait those who think (wrongly) that Rubin is a shill for Romney; the point is that her advice for Santorum is good, well worth reading, and also worth it for readers as a way to adjudge, going forward, if Santorum is being successful, and why or why not he is or isn't.

Jennifer Rubin to Endorse Santorum, Reject Romney?

Jeffrey Lord — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:17:00 -0500

Quin, you ignorant slut.

(Sorry, I still love that old Dan Aykroyd/Jane Curtin Saturday Night Live routine of TV pundits with Dan's classic opening line to his presumed colleague.)

Now, I like my friend Quin Hillyer. Seriously and really, I do. Life is too short for silly feuds. Particularly when one party to the feud has no idea whatsoever what can generate such emotional, visceral…well…I don't know what to call it. You decide…here is his all-points bulletin about me from last week.

So.

Let's indulge Quin. Let's help Jennifer Rubin out, shall we?

She's for Santorum, my colleague Quin Hillyer says flatly. Not… repeat not… Romney.

"She" would be Ms. Rubin, the Washington Post's designated conservative columnist who has been widely and repeatedly reported to be a supporter of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

As seen here in US News and World Report, here in the Daily Caller, here in New York Magazine, here in Forbes Magazine, here in Politico quoting Blogger Dan Riehl and here and here in Red State, the first time by Erick Erickson. Also here, at Let Freedom Ring.

If you don't have time to read, Ms. Rubin is routinely described in media outlets from right to left variously as a shill for Romney, a fan of Romney, the unofficial spokesperson for Romney, compared to Romney's in-house PR, a Romney blogger and so on. And on.

None of this is true says my friend the indignant (thin-skinned?) Mr. Hillyer. None of it.

These are nothing but what he likes to call "smear jobs, plural." (The fact that Erick Erickson of Red State notices Rubin's enthusiasm for Santorum seems at times strangely paired with Santorum's jabs at Romney competitors is surely interesting -- precisely since some of the examples of Santorum support cited by Quin fit Erickson's observation to a tee.)

I confess I'm somewhat taken aback at the notion that noting the obvious -- a clear attachment to Romney on the part of Rubin -- is somehow a "smear." Be that as it may, in spite of my shamefully displaying the "intellectual integrity about equivalent to Bill Clinton's" and being a "purveyor of smear jobs utterly divorced from facts, logic, and decency"…I will see what we can do to get this matter clarified. Pronto.

Here's a fact.

Of note yesterday was this news release from the Santorum campaign announcing the endorsement of Santorum by Hot Air's Ed Morrissey. It follows similar endorsements by the great David Limbaugh and the ever-shy Michelle Malkin.

These three Santorum supporters said what they said simply, clearly and well, as is their individual and collective norm. There is no one out there saying…"Ha! David Limbaugh is a shill for Romney." Nobody is saying: "There goes Morrissey, the Romney cheerleader," or "Malkin writes like Romney's in-house PR." Not a prayer. For that matter, no one anywhere thinks Ann Coulter is for anybody but Romney.

But mysteriously, this is exactly the problem Jennifer Rubin seems to have. For someone who is supposed to be in the business of communicating, she is isn't getting it done if she is the huge Santorum supporter Quin claims her to be. All manner of people (see those cites above) see her as a solid Romney supporter -- except Quin Hillyer.

So let me come to Quin's aid.

Jennifer Rubin, as Quin furiously insists in his own e-mails to me, is for Santorum. Period. Not Romney.

OK.

This is easily resolvable.

Here's the headline I will write on a blog post when she expresses exactly what Quin says to me that Rubin believes. I will treat Jennifer Rubin precisely as the Santorum campaign has treated support from David Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey.

"Jennifer Rubin endorses Santorum, Rejects Romney."

There it is. Crisp, clean, simple. I have removed the question mark. No mistake, No hedging, no nonsense about "writing nice things" and all of that baloney. And I will happily report all the details she provides of her endorsement, as well as linking to it.

Now.

One of two things will happen as a result of this offer.

Rubin will write her own piece and say: "I Endorse Rick Santorum." In which case the Santorum campaign will write up its own press release as they did for Malkin, Limbaugh, and Morrissey. I will be wrong and everybody out there who believed to the contrary will be proved definitively wrong, exactly as Quin fervently insists us all to be. And I will write a heartfelt apology. ("Dearest Jen, what was I thinking? What was US News, Red State, Forbes and all the rest thinking???? I have the sack cloth and ashes… wearing them now. So uncomfortable at the Giant frozen food section, but people are kind…)

Or…she won't. She will simply ignore the whole unpleasantness of being called out and won't deign to acknowledge, much less respond. Or…she will hem, haw, hedge and fudge. She may say she wrote something nice here, or she believes Santorum right over there. Yada yada yada. But at the end of the day she will not endorse Rick Santorum. Period. There will be no press release from the Santorum campaign as there was for Malkin, Limbaugh, and Morrissey. And hell will freeze over before she abandons the Good Ship Mitt.

And all of the latter, if it comes to pass as her answer, will have you, Quin, hemming and hawing and fudging along the lines that an endorsement isn't necessary yada yada yada. To which the only proper and printable response, now that you personally have put her on the spot, will be….baloney.

So. We shall see, Quin.

In fact, I will make a point of looking for the Santorum press release that announces Jennifer Rubin's Santorum endorsement just as the Santorum campaign announced those of Malkin, Limbaugh, and Morrissey. (Here, for example, is the way it was done with David Limbaugh.)

As with many of us, I hear all the time from the press offices of this or that candidate, including Santorum's. I will, if need be, contact the Santorum press office every single day to ask if Jennifer Rubin has endorsed Rick Santorum yet.

I will check the Santorum site daily. Hourly. (Where, as this is written, the Malkin, Limbaugh and Morrissey endorsements are prominently displayed -- although, curiously, none from Jennifer Rubin. An oversight, no doubt?) But trusting in your good calm political judgment, Quin, I know I will see that endorsement. I'm sure our readers will be looking, and certainly, good conservatives that they are they will be checking out the Santorum site as well.

Tick…tock. Tick….Tock. She loves Rick…she loves Mitt more. Tick…tock.

Will she or won't she?

At your own insistence, Quin, nothing less than "I endorse Rick Santorum" will do.

Oh…and by the way. The notion that I have smeared Elliott Abrams by noting what is confirmed by Ed Rollins, Mrs. Reagan, Michael Reagan and Mark Levin -- Reaganites all (do I need to actually point this out about Ronald Reagan's own wife and son?) is interesting indeed. Fact: I read the entire Congressional Record entry in question. So did others. It was decidedly inaccurately presented. Fact: You, my friend Quin, were not there in the day. The people mentioned above were there. I was there. You, respectfully, are clueless on this as well as factless. But if you think Newt Gingrich snookered Nancy Reagan about his loyalty to her husband than…well…God bless ya, buddy.

Conservatism is not a "club" (but nice try). It is a "shared philosophy," as Reagan said, not a "fraternal order." Something Ms. Rubin seems to disagree with as exemplified in castigating those terrible conservatives with "a disdain for productive governance," political speak for the moderate mantra of "can't we all get along." As our publisher and friend Al Regnery notes in this month's magazine, conservatism is essentially four things: liberty, the rule of law, tradition and order, a belief in God or a power greater than ourselves. I try repeatedly to write to those four principles as they are interpreted in everyday life. Period. Erupting in visceral, thin-skinned emotionalism over this or that personality simply because of a political disagreement is not my thing. At the end of the day…politicians (and scribblers) come and go, conservative principle is forever.

And a second "by the way"….did you, Quin, read the piece from the Jerusalem Post by Caroline Glick last December? This one on the Palestinian-Israeli issue and Newt Gingrich? Deep in the article, in which Glick, the deputy managing editor of the paper and a columnist as well, discusses Romney supporters in Washington, she specifically describes Jennifer Rubin as having a "mentor" in… Elliott Abrams. Another fiendish smear, no doubt. All I did was say that Jennifer Rubin should have told her readers that the anonymous "Gingrich critic" she was defending -- Elliott Abrams -- was in fact the husband of someone -- Rachel Abrams -- with whom Rubin herself had admitted to (in the Washington Post!) having a relationship of some kind. Hardly offensive, much less a smear. And -- yes -- a hard fact, pesky as those things are for some.

Now that we know, thanks to Ms. Glick, that Elliott Abrams is a "mentor" to Rubin, meaning at minimum a friend (like his wife?), the fact that Rubin did not mention Abrams' name -- and the allegation that he is her "mentor" -- when discussing me is even more startling. If you think Nancy Reagan was snookered by Newt Gingrich, perhaps you might consider whether you are being snookered by Ms. Rubin. But I digress. Just another day at The Washington Post where hidden anti-conservative agendas are a dime a dozen.

Ahhh, the Washington Post…where the liberal chosen "conservative" columnist writes a scorching column titled Egomaniacs R Us -- because Donald Trump endorsed, so she thought, Newt Gingrich. Then, red faced when it's Romney, is all oh-never-mind.

But at your instigation, Quin, we will pursue the question of Jennifer Rubin and whether she is willing to put herself on the line for the man you insist she supports, Rick Santorum.

Hmmm. Just checked. No Jennifer Rubin endorsement listed by the Santorum people yet.

Tick.

Tock.

Will she? Or won't she? Rick -- or Mitt?

Mark Levin on Clint Eastwood

W. James Antle, III — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:48:00 -0500

I listened to the Mark Levin clip that Aaron mentions below. It seems to me that he does pick up that the ad was intended as propaganda for the bailouts, though he points out that Karl Rove's boss George W. Bush was actually the first to pay the auto manufacturers out of TARP funds. He just gives Clint Eastwood the benefit of the doubt on being drawn in by the ad's effective pulling of patriotic heartstrings. Yes, the commercial is a tribute to American resiliency -- which it invokes to defend policies that will undermine that resiliency.

Levin is right.

Ninth Circuit Court Panel Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

W. James Antle, III — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:25:00 -0500

In a move that will shock few people, a panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, a voter-passed California constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court held that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment by not offering sufficiently compelling reason for treating different classes of people differently under the law.

"All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation 'marriage,' which symbolizes state legitimization and social recognition of their committed relationships," the decision reads. "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." The judges conclude: "The Constitution does not allow for 'laws of this sort.'"

The ruling purports to be narrow, addressing only the context of Proposition 8 itself (California already briefly had same-sex marriage, which this initiative reversed) and not the question of whether it could ever be constitutional to define marriage as a man and a woman under California law. This makes it more likely that Proposition 8 and the issue of same-sex marriage will come before the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the court cites the 1996 Supreme Court decision Romer v. Evans as precedent. Justice Antonin Scalia said at the time that the logic of Romer demanded same-sex marriage. The ruling also comes on the same day that Rick Santorum, the most outspoken opponent of redefining marriage, is expected to have a strong showing in three Republican nominating contests.

In Defense of Clint Eastwood

Aaron Goldstein — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:00:00 -0500

As I wrote here shortly after it aired on Sunday night, I really liked the Clint Eastwood Chrysler Super Bowl ad and said it was the only ad worth remembering.

Well, it may very well be the most remembered Super Bowl ad of all time. However, a lot of conservatives weren't so receptive. Karl Rove was "offended" by the ad. Over at NRO, Christian Schneider claimed the ad was nothing more than "a few vacuous bromides, masquerading as profundity" and for good measure reminded everyone that Eastwood had fathered five children with seven different women. Geoffery Norman at The Weekly Standard was a little more tactful but no less direct. "The ad was about politics, not cars," writes Norman, "and it was an endorsement of bailouts, not hard work and grit."

For his part, the 81-year old actor and director insists he is not affiliated with President Obama.

I think conservatives are not only shooting the messenger but they don't get the message.

I never took the ad as an endorsement of President Obama. Rather I took it as a tribute to America's resilience and can do spirit. I particularly liked the line, "We find a way through tough times and if we can't find a way, we'll make one."

Frankly, the only reason that Karl Rove is "offended" is because he wished he had put out an ad like that. That ad said more in two minutes than not only what the Republican candidates have had to say in the past six months but also more than what President Obama has had to say in three years in office. But if Rove and other conservatives are going throw a fit over this then the Obama Administration would be foolish not to embrace this commercial.

As for Eastwood, he sounds positively Reaganesque. But I wouldn't expect less from a man who understands not only the medium of film and television but the meaning of words especially when used sparsely. If Mitt Romney had narrated these lines, they would have gone in one ear and out the other.

Not all conservatives are attacking Eastwood. Here's a defense of Eastwood by Mark Levin.

Murderous Iranian Thinking

Ross Kaminsky — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:29:00 -0500

For those of you who still don't believe that Israel's isolation by the Obama administration substantially increases the chance of war, or that Iran would risk nuclear retaliation by Israel for the chance to eliminate "the Zionist entity," one need look no further than the conservative Iranian web site alif.ir, where an author makes the case for attacking Israel:

In the name of Allah
Iran must attack Israel by ۲۰۱۴

The necessity of Israel annihilation in Imam Khomeini’s view
“Today, the first Qibla of the Muslims has been occupied by Israel, a cancerous tumor for the Middle East. Today, Israel is causing division using all evil means. Every Muslim is obliged to equip themselves against Israel . For about ۲۰ years, I have been warning about the danger of international Zionist, and right now its danger for all the liberation revolutions in the world and the recent Islamic revolution of Iran is not less than the past .I have already warned that the Israeli usurping government, with the aims which it is seeking for, is a great danger for Islam and all Muslim nations, and it is likely that if Muslims leave Israel alone, the opportunity could be lost and it may not be possible to stop them; and since the potential danger is facing the foundations of Islam, it is necessary for the Islamic governments in particular and other Muslims in general to remove this corrupting material by any means . All our troubles are due to Israel! And Israel results from America too.

Some points regarding the upcoming approach

Point ۱: This article discusses tow THE JURISPRUDENTIAL JUSTIFICATIONS OF NECESSITY OF AN IRANIAN MILITARY ATTACK ON ISRAEL, and the necessity of attacking Israel and its military aspects
Point ۲: In this approach, only the first step of the first curtain for Iran military invasion to Israel will be discussed and the complete explanation of ۲ curtains and ۸ steps will be published in the proper time
Point ۳: This approach is just the personal opinion of the author and there is no guarantee whether the government of Islamic republic of Iran will accept and apply it or not

If you're only going to read one more thing today, I encourage you to read the complete article from alif.ir, "captured" on Feb 7, 2012, and which contains not only radical Iranian and Muslim reasoning to attack Israel, but also strategic descriptions of population centers, key infrastructure, and military issues, click here. The link to the original alif.ir page is here. If this doesn't convince you of the error of Barack Obama's view that a diplomatic solution is possible, much less likely, then you're probably more interested in defending Obama than anything else.

One might argue that the mullahs are using aggressive rhetoric to improve their negotiating position at some future multilateral forum. But as a Jew I've long realized that when people say they want to kill not just you, but everyone like you, the prudent course of action is to believe them. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Iranian regime's intent is not precisely in line with the chilling article on a conservative Iranian web site. Unfortunately, our president has neither the wisdom nor the courage to do anything but talk, in a continuation of his feckless "apologize for America" approach to foreign policy.

Obama Flip-Flops on Super PACs

W. James Antle, III — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:28:00 -0500

Remember those "shadowy groups" the president said were infiltrating our democracy? The political action committees created by the Supreme Court decision liberals love to hate, Citizens United? The ones that can take bottomless contributions from the 1 percent?

Well, Barack Obama's campaign will use super PACs. CNN reports "that senior campaign and administration officials who participate at fundraising events for the president's campaign will also appear at events for Priorities USA Action, the PAC supporting Obama." Naturally, they blame the success of Republican super PACs for this decision, saying they will not "unilaterally disarm."

Unilaterally disarm? This is a campaign that once talked about raising $1 billion on its own and, failing that, has raised more money than all the Republican candidates combined. At the end of December, Obama had four times as much cash on hand as Mitt Romney. Super PACs are the only thing keeping it even. Now, I don't object to the president's supporters having super PACs. But give me a break.

Jimmy Carter II Plays into Iran's Hands

Ross Kaminsky — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:25:00 -0500

In an interview with the Today show's Matt Lauer recorded on Superbowl Sunday, President Obama said that "Our preferred solution (to the Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon) is diplomatic." Although he also stated "we're not taking any options off the table," it's hard to imagine the mullahs who rule Iran thinking that military action by the US has ever been on the table during this president's administration.

So it's hard to believe that Obama thinks he is accomplishing anything of significance with his Monday order to freeze all financial assets (which are under American control) of the Iranian government or Iranian banks.

A British attorney quoted in a Bloomberg News article on the policy shift said "It’s a declaration of economic warfare, to the extent that it’s not already been declared." But do the mullahs actually care about "warfare" that doesn't include weapons capable of destroying their uranium enrichment or missile production capabilities?

Iran might rattle some sabres regarding disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but they probably won't go far enough to start actual fighting because they know that as long as Obama feels like he's doing something, or fooling people into believing he's doing something, they can keep on working full-speed-ahead on a weapon intended to turn a major Israeli city into rubble. Furthermore, everybody talks about how much oil goes through that ocean passageway, but it must also be remembered that Iran is a large importer of gasoline. Thus interrupting shipping through the Strait would not be without major domestic economic and political consequences. The only reason they might pick a fight on the ocean is to rally internal support for their regime, creating the external enemy to blame for the nation's problems. It's a time-tested tactic, but one I doubt the mullahs will use.

David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council, is also quoted by Bloomberg as saying that Obama's move “should end any doubt about the president’s singular commitment to ensuring Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon." Actually, Harris has it exactly wrong. Obama's move, while welcome, coming in the context of his reiteration that he wants and expects a diplomatic solution where it is increasingly obvious that none is possible, ends any doubt that the mullahs are laughing at the reign of Jimmy Carter II. The mullahs reaction will be "Obama just pulled the biggest weapon he's actually willing to use. He is now toothless. We'll pretend to be perturbed, but we feel little worse about this than Br'er Rabbit felt about being thrown into the briar patch."

Their view is all the more accurate given this president's internationalist mindset, wanting to use the UN for every hard decision, now that we have seen Russia and China defend the indefensible Bashar al Assad, the murderous dictator of Syria.

Barack Obama is out of his depth, and the world is a much more dangerous place for it. Israel is indeed, as Jed Babbin explained so well yesterday, sadly and perilously alone.