Mitt Romney for President

This post was originally published in Bearing Drift, under a different title. I am reposting here because it provides the best explanation of my decision regarding the vote I will cast on March 6. For those curious, Communist China as an issue and the performance of the candidates were what led me to Mitt Romney even when candidates not named Ron Paul were options.

This is a post that has been brewing in my brain for some time, but was finally pushed through to my fingers by my friend Shaun Kenney’s post on Ron Paul. Shaun, forced by the utter incomptence of the other campaigns to choose between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, made his case for the latter. Given the choice in front of us, my preferences lean heavily toward the former, and I can’t think of a better place to explain why than here at BD .

I will not discuss the various character and association issues that critics of Paul have raised, mainly for two reasons: first, Ken Falkenstein did it already; second, those who still support or are considering supporting Paul have already discounted much or all of that on the assumption that he represents the best chance to advance limited government. It is that assumption I will challenge in this post.

Let’s go right to the heart of the problem most conservatives have with Romney (including myself): Health Care. Just about everyone knows of Mitt Romney’s support for the individual mandate in Massachusetts and nationwide. However, it takes more than a mandate to bring about socialized medicine (in fact, a mandate might not even be necessary – Barack Obama vehemently opposed one in 2008). It also requires a willingness to use the government’s monopoly/monopsony power in the market to regulate prices and deny services. This is the great danger of single-payer systems such as the British or Canadian examples; this is the concept that led to Obamacare’s “death panels”; this is the danger that in my view is far greater than the mandate discussion (although the mandate is no small potatoes).

Which candidate has supported using the American government’s monopsony power to distort the market in such a fashion? Not Mitt Romney

Moving on, let’s look at social issues. Ron Paul repeatedly refers to himself as “pro-life,” but it would be more accurate to say he has a “popular sovereignty” view on the matter (i.e., it is purely a state issue). That would certainly be an improvement over the status quo, but it hardly means much given that the only way that scenario occurs is an overturn of Roe v. Wade. While I am fairly certain Dr. Paul would do his best to find Justices that would bring that about, the endorsement of Mitt Romney by none other than Robert Bork tells me I can trust either man on this point. Beyond that, Romney’s admittedly unusual travels on this issue (many move one way or the other; he is one of the very few to double back to the pro-life position) are largely irrelevant for now. If Roe were overturned, there may – stress may – be some space between the two, but I’d be happy to see that bridge in my lifetime, let alone cross it.

Shaun also mentioned gun rights, and I’d be a fool to say Romney is better than Paul (or even equal to him) on this; but a Republican presidential victory in November will mean a fully Republican Congress (the Democrats have to defend nearly two dozen Senate seats next year), and if a Republican Congress passes restrictions on gun rights, we have much bigger problems than Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Finally, it might be a good idea to take a look at Romney’s budget record, which involved erasing a large shortfall without a general tax increase despite a hostile legislature – something for which many conservatives have praised Bob McDonnell for two years now. Personally, I’m not comfortable with either Governors’ over-reliance on revenue-generating fees or the closing of tax “loopholes,” but I’ve been deep in the minority on that opinion for a good while now. What’s good from Richmond (for those who think it is) should be just as good from Boston.

Paul, by contrast, has greatly over-leveraged his old reputation as “Dr. No.” Lest we forget, the man who repeatedly talks about the proper role of constitutional government sponsored legislation that would have created an insurance moral hazard and could have partially reflated the housing bubble. He even had this to say about it:

Providing tax relief to first-time homebuyers and to those affected by natural disasters should be one of Congress’ top priorities.

I don’t remember that priority coming out of Philadelphia in 1787.

This leads me to a greater problem with Dr. Paul: his limited government mantra disappears when microeconomics are involved. From a macroeconomic perspective, Paul checks all the boxes on limited government; move to the micro-level and he becomes much more comfortable with economic distortions than his supporters like to admit. As a Congressman, that problem can be manageable, as a President, it can lead to the “targeted tax-cuts” fiasco of the Clinton years, or the above monopsony issue. Compared to this, Mitt Romney’s economic record, while hardly sterling (see above), holds up quite well.

Of course, there is foreign policy: perceived to be Paul’s greatest weakness. Even Shaun admits he has a problem with it (so I’d advise you to just read what he has to say on the matter first), but I would also add two other points. First, unlike any of the other candidates, Romney clearly perceives the economic danger from the Chinese Communist Party – both in their currency distortions and their lack of respect for intellectual property rights. In fact, Romney is the only presidential candidate I have seen focused on the intellectual theft issue. In response, his opponents have sneered at him for daring to spike the “engagement” Kool-Aid. Secondly, but just as importantly, Dr. Paul completely fails to understand the importance of a vigorous foreign policy in aiding limited government. Jefferson suffered from a similar lapse in his Administration, and he found himself caught between the French and British Empires. The result was the Embargo Act fiasco – the closest that 19th century America ever came to a police state – and the catastrophic War of 1812.

Romney, for all his faults, understands the threats to America and the havoc they can wreak. While this election season has focused far less on foreign policy than it should, we cannot forget it.

I would add one more item to my list of reasons why Romney deserves a second look in the Old Dominion: he has been the best performing candidate, by far, of any in the field. As the other candidates have moved from gaffe to gaffe (Bachmann on vaccines, Paul on foreign policy and the supposed bigotry of his opponents, Cain on foreign policy, Gingrich on judges, Perry on just about everything, and Santorum on whining about debate time), Romney has been near-perfect. The only thing that comes close to a slip-up was his attempt to goad Perry into a $10,000 wager.

I am loath to mention general election polling, in part because only Romney has been consistently polled against Obama, but it is telling that despite the turbulent reaction from Republican voters, the general electorate has nearly always put him ahead of Obama or in a statistical tie with him. Clearly voters are seeing something they like, or can at least entertain seriously, in November 2012.

Virginia Republicans and conservatives are faced with a choice between two men who are far from perfect; both have admirable qualities, to be sure. However, a thorough and detailed examination of the choices reveals that Romney is better on the critical matters in front of us than he appears, while Paul is a good deal worse than he appears on these same matters. I can understand why my good friend Shaun would lean Paul’s way, but for the reasons above, I can not agree with him.

Can we please dispense with the whining about the Virginia ballot rules?

I can understand the frustration of numerous voters and bloggers to the state of the Virginia Republican Primary ballot. I just wish the frustrations were aimed in the right direction – at the incredibly incompetent or uninterested candidates.

Does 10,000 signatures sound like a lot? Sure it does, until one takes a look at the State Board of Elections’ rules – in particular, the start date for candidates to get signatures: July 1, 2011.

In other words, candidates had nearly six months to get this done. Even the 15,000 number that RPV used for “automatic” certification translates to less than 100 signatures a day statewide. With just one volunteer in each Congressional District, the candidates needed less than eight signatures per day per circulator to ensure they qualified for the ballot (Perry declared on August 13, so in his case, he needed just under 10.5 per day).

Am I really supposed to believe that candidates for president can’t find 11 volunteers throughout the state of Virginia, or that those volunteers couldn’t do eight signatures (or ten and a half in Perry’s case) a day? During my almost-candidacy for school board, I could get ten in less than an hour.

Fact is, no candidate not named Romney or Paul had the dedication or forethought to make sure they made it on the ballot. That’s on them, not the State Board or the RPV.

Here’s the reality: there are only two serious candidates for president left. The rest have been proven to be pretenders, pure and simple.

Cross-posted to VV

Opening Day in the NBA

Christmas was many things to many folks – as always – but for yours truly, one of those things was the first day of the NBA season.

What a day it was. The Knicks actually played defense for the 1st and 4th quarters, which was enough to beat the Celtics 106-104. Dallas saw the raising of their first championship banner; then the Heat thumped them by 11, and it wasn’t really that close! The Lakers choked a home game to Chicago, then saw the other LA team stomp Golden State (welcome to Hollywood, Chris Paul, enjoy your stay). Now the Lakers are looking up at the Clippers – a rare and painful view for Laker fans.

All on day one! Imagine what the rest of the season will bring.

Ken Cuccinelli for Vice President

As of 2AM, the Virginia Republican primary ballot was finalized. The choices are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul; no one else made the ballot. As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t make the Virginia primary, you won’t be the nominee. Virginia has held primaries for President on the Republican side since 1988, and the winner has been the nominee every single time. In 2000 and 2008, the Old Dominion was a critical stabilizer for nominees Bush and McCain, respectively.

In other words, the choices are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. I sincerely doubt Paul will win, and I prefer Romney based on foreign policy (he’s better on Communist China than Paul is). That said, Romney will be one of the weakest – if not the weakest – party nominee in recent memory. The base doeesn’t trust him; he will be the obvious last choice for a number of primary voters; and his persona, while reassuring to many, will be bland (at best) to others.

In short, Mitt Romney will need a game-changing running mate, from a critical swing state, and with the ability to win over conservative voters unsure about the guy at the top of the ticket. Marco Rubio could fit the bill, but Florida – even in 2008 – was better for the GOP than the national results were. Virginia, by contrast, was a carbon copy of the national numbers.

So Virginia would be a better place to find a running mate, and there is in fact a statewide politician who could solve several of Mitt Romney’s problems at once: Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

For those worried about “Romneycare” and Mitt’s on-again, off-again relationship with mandates, nothing would reassure them quite like a running mate who led a lawsuit against Obamacare, especially if the case hits the Supreme Court during the campaign season.

Given Virginia’s proximity to the national capital (and Cuccinelli’s career in Northern Virginia politics), his conservative credentials would be apparent almost immediately, providing an excellent “balance” to Romney.

Finally, a Romney-Cuccinelli ticket would, if victorious, bring us the first ever Italian-American Vice President. In addition to the historical importance of that, it could also make New Jersey competitive again.

Oh, and Cuccinelli would have two-and-a-half more years of executive branch experience than the entire Democrats’ ticket had in 2008.

I understand that most of the Virginia running-mate talk has centered around Bob McDonnell, but his persona is too close to Romney to be very effective. Cuccinelli, by contrast, could complement the ticket in all of the ways above noted.

So, yes, I will vote for Mitt Romney for president on March 6 (and no, it won’t be very much fun), but I consider it critical for Romney to pick the right running mate; and I am convinced that is Ken Cuccinelli.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Oh no, Newt

Once again, as he always seems to do when he is at the cusp of serious political accomplishment, Newt Gingrich ate his own foot – and I’m being kind.

Gingrich took an acceptable concern - a state of judicial power that even lefty historian Sean Wilentz called “judicial supremacy” – and made a complete hash of it.

Here are his comments courtesy of Fox News:

referring to historical instances in which Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR disregarded the Supreme Court, he explained there are two scenarios where the President has the “unique authority” to overrule the court. The first, he said, would be during times of war; he called the 2008 Boumediene Supreme Court case that ruled a Guantanamo prisoner has the right to habeas corpus a “direct assault” on the president’s powers to protect and defend the U.S.

The other situation, Gingrich argued, would be when the court makes a ruling “so egregious” — referring to Judge Biery — that it’s legitimate. He said that this kind of a system is “checked” by the principle of “two out of three,” which is how President Obama wouldn’t have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court if they ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

Now, let me say, there are ways Congress can react to judicial overreach. Article 3, Section 2 is a perfect example – one Gingrich did not care to mention. Instead, he went with this bizarre “two out of three” nonsense.

Until this point, I had narrowed my choices for the Republican nomination to Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. Now, Gingrich is with the rest of the self-disqualified crew. For me, it’s down to Romney and Santorum now.

Why I have never liked David Stern

For once, the week’s most egregious exercise of power for a petty political agenda did not occur in Washington. It was in New York, where NBA Commissioner David Stern vetoed a Hornets-Lakers-Rockets trade that would have sent Chris Paul to Los Angeles, Pau Gasol to Houston, and Lamar Odom to the Big Easy.

Stern insists that he did it because, as de facto owner of the Hornets (the league owns the team – but that’s for another rant), he decided the team was better off with Paul in the last year of his contract, rather than Odom, a couple more players, and a draft pick or two. Anyone who has followed the game thinks that’s laughable. In reality, small-minded, errrr small-market owners like Cleveland’s Dan Gilbert are whining that a star player made it to a big-city franchise. Gilbert was particularly incensed because the Lakers managed to cut payroll at the same time, meaning less luxury-tax money redistributed to him.

The mere fact that Stern thought he could get away with a ridiculous explanation like that shows how arrogant and self-absorbed he has become. He makes the European Commission look like a pillar of democracy.

I rarely, if ever, agree with Michael Wilbon (ESPN), but there’s no better takedown of this fiasco than his. In fact, the one decent thing that came out of this was this Wilbon quote:

Parity might have been a worthy goal for Pete Rozelle and the NFL, but it has never amounted to a hill of beans for the NBA. Neither has some socialist-style spreading of wealth.

If Michael Wilbon can appreciate the danger of “socialist-style spreading of wealth,” there’s hope for the country yet!

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

Egypt’s election: how the non-democrats collaborated to freeze the democrats out

The first phase of Egypt’s parliamentary election is in the books and outside observers are facing the reality of an Islamist majority in parliament. What is not as well known is how it happened.

Elections in Muslim-majority nations are replete with tales of autocrats rigging the vote, largely to the advantage of “opposition” Islamists and to the detriment of genuine democrats. Pervez Musharraf did it repeatedly in Pakistan, which I mention because it was the one example Daniel Pipes and Cynthia Farahat neglected to mention in their otherwise excellent review of the subject (National Review Online, emphasis added):

Other Middle Eastern dictators, such as the Yemeni president and Palestinian Authority chairman, also play this double game, pretending to be anti-Islamist moderates and Western allies while, in fact, being toughs who cooperate with Islamists and repress true moderates. Even anti-Western tyrants like Assad of Syria and Qaddafi of Libya have played the same opportunistic game in times of need, portraying massive uprisings against them as Islamist movements. (Recall how Qaddafi blamed the Libyan insurrection on al-Qaeda’s lacing teenagers’ coffee with hallucinatory pills.)

But did this happen in Egypt? Yup.

Today, (Egyptian military chief Mohamad) Tantawi and his Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) still play this tired old game. Note the various methods:

Reports of electoral fraud have emerged, for example in Helwan.

SCAF has, according to the prominent Islamist Safwat Hijazi, offered a “deal” to the Islamists that it would share power with them on condition that they turn a blind eye to its corruption.

The military has subsidized both the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi political parties during the recent parliamentary elections. Marc Ginsburg reports on a SCAF slush fund totaling millions of dollars in “the form of ‘walk around’ money, clothing and food giveaways” that enabled hundreds of local chapters of Islamist political organizations to buy votes. Ginsburg tells of a SCAF emissary who “met secretly with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist oriented political movements last April to establish local political ‘action committee’ bank accounts to funnel an underground supply chain of financial and commodity support.”

So once again, the fellows who were the target of the popular uprising split the opposition – and made a deal with the Islamist fellows to freeze out the actual democrats.

At some point, the Egyptian military will pick a fight with their new allies and use it to pretend to America that it is our only friend in Egypt. We should pay no attention (let alone aid) to them, and make clear we will do what we can to help the Egyptian democrats. That will be easier than may think now that the MB and Nour become de facto partners in the corrupt kleptocracy that went right on running Egypt into the ground after Mubarak left.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

Initial Thoughts on the Bolling-Cuccinelli race

Well, having made my decision in re the U.S. Senate, I considered making an endorsement in the presidential nomination; but I’m just not comfortable making a decision yet. So instead, I’ll give a high-level view (admittedly completely from the outside) on the 2013 GOP nomination battle for Governor – as it now stands.

Assuming the two candidates in the running – Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli – will be the only candidates on the GOP side (and I wouldn’t take it as a 100% certainty yet), it looks like a race that will come down to style more than substance. Here’s why.

Very little distances either man on issues: In the State Senate, both Cuccinelli and Bolling established low-tax, low-spending, and culturally conservative records. They even made the same mistake (backing the Howell version of HB3202), and walked it back during the critical but now nrealy-forgotten 2008 special session. We may see some dramatic magnification of miniscule differences, but I doubt it will be enough for any neutral (of which I am one) to go one way or the other.

So it comes down to their styles as candidates, which makes things even more complicated.

As candidates, Bolling and Cuccinelli have very different skill sets. This is the political version of apples and oranges. Bolling is steady, predictable, and affable; all excellent qualities in a candidate running on a good record in an electorate generally favorable to him. Cuccinelli, by contrast, is dynamic, originial, kinetic, and on occasion hyperactive. Many more voters would be comfortable with Bolling than Cuccinelli (good for voter breadth). Cuccinelli forces voters to think, takes risks that could be game changers, and never backs down from a challenge, thus appealing to voters who are more focused and engaged (good for voter depth). To make things even more complex, each man’s traits could be strengths or weaknesses depending upon the political climate – and that means the political climate could be the one thing that determines which one would be the better candidate.

In Virginia, the political climate tends to be driven by who’s in the White House. So, in reality, we really won’t have a clue as to who would be better in 2013 until November 7, 2012 (all the more reason I will remain neutral until at least that time).

If Obama is re-elected, odds are the climate in Virginia will be favorable to the GOP. The party in the White House hasn’t won the Governor’s race in Virginia since 1973. Republican voters will be motivated, Democrats less so, and Independents will be looking for balance against the White House. In this environment – to borrow a football analogy – you go for ball control; for those of you who don’t follow football and prefer the “steady pair of hands” metaphor – well, there you go. In short, a re-elected Obama favors the GOP in 2013, and Bolling is the better candidate for “protecting a lead.”

On the other hand, if the Republican nominee is elected President, the party will face headwinds in 2013. Neither Romney, Gingrich, nor Santorum (I consider them the only candidates with a shot at the nomination – and Santorum’s is very slim) will have much of a presidential honeymoon. More likely, the GOP – which will almost certainly hold the House and flip the Senate if it wins the White House – will face crises in budgeting at home, in war and peace in the Middle East, and in financial problems in Europe. Republicans will be exhausted, Democrats motivated; Independents will look to balance Republican Washington by sending Democrats to Richmond. The Republicans will need a dynamic game-changer who forces voters out of their comfort zone and makes them think – it’s the only chance to upend the momentum against them; that makes Cuccinelli the better choice.

For all we know, the AG came to that conclusion himself.

Now, there are certainly other factors that could – and will – determine the nominations and the elections, but the biggest one – by far – will be the White House occupant on January 20, 2013. Until we know who that is, we’ll never really know which accomplished conservative would be best to carry the Republican banner in Virginia roughly ten months later.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

George Allen for U.S. Senate

One of the rules I imposed upon myself was not to make any endorsement in the 2012 U.S. Senate race until after Election Day 2011 had passed; by the time that happened, a number of personal matters succeeded in keeping me away from the blogosphere altogether. More importantly, though, I had the chance to see each candidate “in action” before I decided.

Given all of that, I have decided George Allen is the best choice to replace Jim Webb.

My decision was not based on the usual things one would hear from other Allen backers. I believe, for example, that Ms. Radtke has exposed some flaws in Allen’s record (although he has since walked back the most egregious ones, and I appreciate politicians who admit to mistakes) – to the exclusion of anything else a candidate should do. All in all, however, the four candidates are fairly and surprisingly close on domestic policy. I am also hesitant to use the “electability” argument – whatever one thinks of the four Republican candidates, none seem capable of making the mistakes Jerry Kilgore did.

For me, the difference in this nomination battle is foreign policy, which is nonexistent for three of the candidates. That leaves Allen’s record, and it’s a very good one.

During his time in the Senate, George Allen was one of the best anti-Communists in Washington. He co-founded the Senate Taiwan Caucus; he tried to address the ChiComs’ devaluation of their own currency; and he was the only U.S. Senator (as far as I know) to express support for the persecuted and beleaguered Falun Gong spiritual movement. Few if any members of Congress were his equal. None of his opponents have even tried.

This is not an election where foreign policy has been front and center; our enemies will not be so kind as to let us catch our breath. Only Allen has shown any appreciation of that fact.

That is why I have chosen to endorse him for U.S. Senate in 2012.

Please, Ken, don’t do it

The Ken Cuccinelli for Governor campaign may have begun last night, with the leak heard ’round the state (although the Bearing Drift folks caught wind of something like this much earlier), so far all I know, my cause is already lost.

That said, if the Attorney General is reading this, I beg him: don’t do this. Run for re-election instead.

My reason for saying this has nothing to do with the Republican Party, or Bill Bolling (I like and admire both men), or any other political dynamic about 2013. My concern is about the most important matter, by far, that is happening here in Virginia: the case against Michael Mann.

For those not in the know: Michael Mann is one of the leading “global warming” alarmists in academia. It was during his time at the University of Virginia when he first put out his infamous “hockey stick” graph (replete with his “nature trick,” exposed during Climategate); he also helped himself to $500,000 in state taxpayer funds. Cuccinelli is, to date, the only elected official in the world who is making an effort to recover taxpayer money that was used in this fiasco, and as such, the hysterical reaction from the alarmists has only revealed how much they have to lose if Virginia wins its case.

With all due respect to the various names already being floated as out next Attorney General, I trust no one not named Ken Cuccinelli to pursue this case to exhaustion.

The importance of this case can not be underestimated. If Virginia wins, then all will see and know that “global warming” is flawed at best, and a fraud at worst. Any and all attempt to use this issue to regulate the American economy and erode our sovereignty would be fatally crippled.

As much as I like Ken Cuccinelli (and I do think he would make a fine Governor), we simply cannot afford to have him leave his post at Attorney General. The Mann case is too important.

Please, Ken, don’t do it.

Cross-posted to VV