Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I’ve long-maintained that Rick Perry never really wanted to run for president. People who want to run don’t need to be pressured into doing so. Recall John McCain’s line that presidential ambition can only be cured with embalming fluid. Can anyone imagine Rick Perry holding to such sentiments? And yet, he entered: without a coherent message, without debate preparation, without a strategy.

Commentators have always breathlessly touted the fact that Rick Perry has never lost an election. This, of course, is his first loss — and in a big way.

But what exactly was there to fear in the first place about a presidential candidate who has never experienced a loss? Consider who in the field is used to losing: Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul. All of these men have suffered massive political setbacks in their careers. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush,. Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain all had lost elections before, as well. Losing teaches as many lessons as winning. History teaches that having suffered a loss is nearly essential in securing the presidential nomination.

Only an eternal winner like Rick Perry could have possibly thought that he could storm into the race in the late summer and have the nomination simply gift-wrapped to him. To be sure, he started with massive structural advantages: a multi-million dollar fundraising machine, marquee-name endorsements from the likes of Bobby Jindal, and national hype that translated into 30% showings in the polls. His political skeletons were minimal next to Gingrich’s and were completely manageable. And yet –what worked in Texas — what always worked in Texas — just didn’t work on the national stage. Only a lifelong winner could possibly think that he has no glaring weaknesses to overcome.

Not all former losers make for successful candidates (see: Rudy Giuliani). But when one surveys the landscape of Republican nominees over the years, it’s hard not to notice that not a single one of them could lay claim to the mantle of “never lost an election.”

I will never vote for Mitt Romney. He has disqualified himself from the presidency on several occasions: from the demagogic way he attacked Rick Perry’s accurate statements on Social Security, to his flip-flops on issues ranging from immigration to auto bailouts, he has revealed himself, over and over, to be a caricature of a politician — a man who will say absolutely anything to get to check that very last box on his resume.

This is where my opposition to Romney begins and ends. It isn’t worth our turn at the White House to elect this man, and I’d rather drop this cult-like obsession with the presidency in favor of focusing on neutering Obama by taking back the Senate.

The goal of stopping Mitt Romney was supposed to be about finding a viable, consistent alternative to oppose the Obama agenda. That person never emerged — and so the goal of finding an alternative to Mitt Romney has ended with the aim of simply denying him the nomination, no matter what the cost. The false idol of Defeating Romney demands sacrifice — and an embittered faction of the party is all-too-willing to appease this idol by slaughtering conservative principles at the altar.

It’s no longer about Romney, but what he represents. He has come to symbolize the ‘establishment,’ and denying him the nomination is now little more than a proxy war against it. The irony of a former Speaker of the House or the former #3-ranking Senate Republican (and K-Street point-man) leading an insurrection against the establishment is genuinely lost on many.

By what possible standard does Newt Gingrich represent any sort of alternative to the cowardice and hypocrisy of Mitt Romney? Newt Gingrich, who slammed Paul Ryan as a “right-wing social engineer,” who opposed the surge, who supported the largest expansion of the entitlement state since Lyndon Johnson in the form of Medicare Pt. D, who supported an unconstitutional federal-level individual mandate for health care, who explained his serial adultery by saying that it was because he loved his country so much, whose breathtaking incompetence as Speaker resulted in a coup against him just two terms in, and who now has joined the ranks of Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz in demonizing private equity firms with the worst kinds of socialist caricatures? This man is the ‘Reagan Republican’ alternative to the establishment? How can this possibly be so?

Rick Perry, too, has joined Newt Gingrich’s Occupy protest, claiming that private equity firms like Bain Capital are “vultures” who “destroy communities” and “pick the bones clean” from dying companies to “profit the few” and that “we need leaders like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate who understand this.” Okay, that last part’s not true — but what’s the difference?

In what parallel universe are these people our ‘conservative’ choices?

The only possible explanation here is that they are not Mitt Romney.

From Rush Limbaugh to Jim DeMint to Rudy Giuliani to Steve Forbes, conservative leaders are recognizing this derangement for what it is. It’s become apparent that the GOP has its Rominee,* and while we all lament the fact that people like Governor Christie, Governor Jindal, and Congressman Pence didn’t step up to the plate this year, there are certain principles that aren’t worth sacrificing to deny just one man a nomination in just one cycle.

Gingrich, Perry, and the other Occupy Wall Street Republicans are not “conservative alternatives” to Mitt Romney. They are on a kamikaze mission to blow up his candidacy, and their supporters are aiding and abetting it. In their eyes, the symbol of the ‘establishment’ must die, and what it takes to kill him doesn’t even matter anymore. They’ll blow up this city to save it. The cause of championing free-market capitalism in 2012 will lay in ruins, and Gingrich, Perry, and the anti-Romney cult will smile, nod their heads, and congratulate themselves on a job well-done.

* – Thanks to my friend Tim for this line!

Cross-posted at The Minority Report Blog.

My Iowa predictions were amongst the most accurate on the Internet, but besides calling Romney as the winner in New Hampshire, I didn’t get a single candidate’s order right, nor did I nail any of the percentages (except Perry’s 1%!). I reversed Huntsman and Paul, Gingrich and Santorum, and Perry and Roemer.

Oops.

My bad.

 

After slaying your lives with my highly accurate Iowa predictions, I now present to you: the greatest New Hampshire primary prediction in the world!

I’m giving Huntsman second based upon polls showing him surging. I’m also saying that Roemer defeats Perry and that Gingrich finishes a dismal fifth.

Romney – 37%

Huntsman – 21%

Paul – 19%

Santorum – 11%

Gingrich – 10%

Roemer – 1%

Perry – 1%

If I’m wrong, I sense that it will be insofar as I overestimated Romney at Huntsman’s expense. If Huntsman draws more votes, they will be drained directly from Romney (and, to a lesser extent, Paul). New Hampshire has a history of upending frontrunners, and they prefer not to waste their influence by rubberstamping the conventional wisdom. New Hampshire has given life to many campaigns, from Clinton ’92 to Buchanan ’96 to McCain ’00 to Clinton ’08. Will it do the same for Huntsman?

The cutting-edge V Magazine — which featured one of my all-time favorite Britney Spears photoshoots — is featuring Justin Bieber this quarter, and it represents, for him, something of a coming-out into the adult realm of pop culture.

Appropriate enough, since he’s on the verge of his eighteenth birthday. V Magazine ain’t Seventeen, Teen Vogue, or even Rolling Stone. It’s a very trendy, fashionable publication, and the photoshoot reflects it. The better photos in this batch take good advantage of the beauty of boys in late adolescence: the androgynous combination of wispy, youthful features and the distinctly masculine build of the emerging adult body. (Alas, the earrings are just completely ill-advised.) The tastefully sexy cover photo is the winner:

Anyone who doubts that Justin Bieber is going to be with us for a while should reflect on the fact that it was simply unfathomable that the likes of Miley Cyrus or the Jonas Brothers could cover Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, and V Magazine in a one-year timespan.

The full shoot, including a couple of duds, can be found here. Justin’s next album is expected to drop sometime in the early spring.

New material from Britney Spears — even if it’s actually old! — is always worth celebrating. This track, “Look Who’s Talking,” (download here) is an In the Zone/Greatest Hits-era outtake that eventually ended up in the hands of K-Pop singer BoA. Several years later, Britney’s version has finally surfaced — and it’s pretty good!

I can see why they passed this song over, but it’s a nice B-Side. This leak follows the deluge of others in recent months, including “Abroad,” “Everyday,” “911,” “Rockstar,” “Dangerous,” “Love 2 Love U,” and “Strangest Love.” We’re not too far from a full disc’s worth of leaks!

 

Earlier today in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney made a succinct little remark about the way that capitalism empowers consumers to rid the market of service-providers whose abilities aren’t quite up to par:

“I want people to be able to own insurance if they wish to, and to buy it for themselves and perhaps keep it for the rest of their life, and to choose among different policies offered from companies across the nation. I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy.

“It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.”

Democrats immediately ripped the phrase “I like being able to fire people” out of context. That shouldn’t be surprising.

Depressingly, it also is no longer surprising that Jon Huntsman, the first Republican candidate to sink to anti-capitalist demagoguery against Mitt Romney in attacking his successful tenure at Bain Capital, would also be the first to echo the Democrat lie about Romney’s remark:

“It’s become abundantly clear over the last couple of days what differentiates Governor Romney and me,” he said. “I will always put my country first. It seems that Governor Romney believes in putting politics first. Governor Romney enjoys firing people; I enjoy creating jobs.

“It may be that he’s slightly out of touch with the economic reality playing out in America right now, and that’s a dangerous place to be,” he said.

This is scandalously dishonest. Huntsman either is deliberately lying, in which case he’s a deceptive tool, or he actually believes that Romney takes glee in depriving people of work, in which case he’s a blithering idiot. Romney was obviously making a remark about how capitalism empowers consumers — not stating that he takes joy in taking people’s jobs away.

Huntsman’s record of dishonesty is breathtaking in scope. He has previously stated that it’s “legitimate” to attack Mitt Romney for being “responsible for layoffs” — contributing to a false portrait of the nature of growth. He has also, like Rick Perry, been unfair to Romney in comparing their relative state records of job creation — as if it isn’t easier to preside over growth in a ruby-red state like Utah (or Texas) than a deep-blue state like Masssachusetts.

Huntsman has spent the entire campaign as a deeply confused candidate — he came swinging out of the gate as the “sane” alternative to supposedly “insane” candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. He threw himself a jubilee celebrating his belief in evolution and global warming. His advisers — former McCain toadies — took open delight in bashing the Republican Party. Recently, shocked to realize that attacking the people he wants to vote for him ended up backfiring, he ran ads touting himself as the “consistent conservative” alternative to Mitt Romney, bragged about praise from the Wall Street Journal, and touted the words of George Will. I guess we’ve come full-circle once again — here’s Huntsman, engaging in deceptive, anti-conservative tactics, just like when he began.

There’s talk of a late Huntsman surge in New Hampshire. No matter. Whether Huntsman places second or fifth, he’ll be forgotten within days — he’s proven that his irrelevance is well-earned.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.