Quotulatiousness

February 14, 2012

Santorum is “libertarianism’s sweater-vested arch-nemesis”

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:40

For pretty much any position you could name, if you mapped the libertarian opinion on it, diametrically opposed on the chart you’d find Rick Santorum. Gene Healy explains why there’s no libertarian case for voting Santorum:

To borrow from Mitt’s rhetorical stylings, I’m not severely conservative, but I do have a case of Stage IV libertarianism. And anyone who shares that condition will find Santorum’s rise particularly vexing. The former senator from Pennsylvania is libertarianism’s sweater-vested arch-nemesis.

In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation’s schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.

Santorum voted for the 2005 “bridge to nowhere” highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: “On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable.” Rick Santorum: He’s from the government, and he’s here to help.

[. . .]

A recent Time magazine symposium asked leading thinkers on the Right, “What Is Conservatism?” Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist offered this answer: “Conservatives ask only one thing of the government. They wish to be left alone.”

Tell that to Santorum, whose agenda rests on meddling with other people, sometimes with laws, sometimes with aircraft carrier groups.

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do,” Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, “that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

January 16, 2012

That pesky Constitution and the weird candidate who thinks it somehow matters

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:07

Rob Long writes about Ron Paul and his constitutional fixation:

It was always fun to see Paul’s dyspeptic, curdled expression during the 16,000 Republican debates this autumn. (There were 16,000 of them, weren’t there?) It was bracing to see him shrug off appeals to weasel-word his responses — just shutter the Fed! dump NATO! — and it was especially interesting to watch the other candidates, who, philosophically, aren’t supposed to be all that different from Paul, ballet-step around him, like he was one of those loud talkers at the neighborhood bar who make a lot of sense, mostly, but then every now and then say something — Lincoln was a tyrant! — that makes everyone think, “Oh, I get it. You’re just . . . insane.”

Ron Paul isn’t insane, of course. His views on sound money and central banking, and even his narrow interpretation of the national-defense interests, are principled — and not novel — conservative positions. You and I may not agree with them — I do, mostly, up to the part about allowing Iran to bomb Israel — but on the crackpot scale of 1 to Lyndon LaRouche, they’re barely a 3. And if we’re all really honest about it, the sainted Abraham Lincoln did, in fact, violate the Constitution on several occasions. And over a few beers, say, among friends, these are interesting and diverting topics of conversation.

But like all of those kinds of conversations, they always end up the same way. The conversation winds along interesting abstractions and what-ifs, and then someone — usually the old guy at the end of the bar — says something truly out-there — “There’s no constitutional reason, for instance, why the children of illegal immigrants cannot be eaten” — and then the conversation devolves into weird irrational tributaries, and everyone moves on to something else, but you always have the feeling that one guy — usually the old guy at the end of the bar — really meant it.

January 15, 2012

Steyn: Ron Paul’s military policies would be a disaster for the Pax Americana

Filed under: Liberty, Military, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:29

While I generally enjoy reading Mark Steyn’s writing, he does have a fixation with America’s burden to be the world’s policeman and he (correctly) sees Ron Paul as a threat to that role:

No candidate is ideal, and we conservatives are always enjoined not to make the perfect the enemy of the good — or in this case the enemy of the mediocre: sitting next to me last Tuesday on Fox News, the pollster Frank Luntz said that Romney in his victory speech was now starting to use words that resonate with the American people. The main word he used was “America.” On Tuesday night Romney told us he wants to restore America to an America where millions of Americans believe in the American ideal of a strong America for millions of Americans. Which is more than your average Belgian can say. The crowd responded appreciatively. An hour later a weird goofy gnome in a baggy suit two sizes too big came out and started yakking about the Federal Reserve, fiat money and monetary policy “throughout all of history.” And the crowd went bananas!

It’s traditional at this point for non-Paulites to say that, while broadly sympathetic to his views on individual liberty, they deplore his neo-isolationism on foreign policy. But deploring it is an inadequate response to a faction that is likely to emerge with the second-highest number of delegates at the GOP convention. In the end, Newt represents Newt, and Huntsman represents Huntsman, but Ron Paul represents a view of America’s role in the world, and one for which there are more and more takers after a decade of expensive but inconclusive war. President Obama has called for cuts of half a trillion dollars from the military budget. In response, too many of my friends on the right are demanding business as usual — that the Pentagon’s way of doing things must continue in perpetuity. It cannot.

America is responsible for about 43 percent of the planet’s military expenditure. This is partly a reflection of the diminished military budgets of everyone else. As Britain and the other European powers learned very quickly in the decades after the Second World War, when it comes to a choice between unsustainable welfare programs or a military of global reach, the latter is always easier to cut. It is, needless to say, a false choice. By mid-decade the Pentagon’s huge bloated budget will be less than the mere interest payments on U.S. debt. Much of which goes to bankrolling the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Nevertheless, faced with reducing funding for China’s military or our own, the latter will be the easier choice for Washington.

[. . .]

Ron Paul says he would pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan “as quickly as the ships could get there.” Afghanistan is a land-locked country, but hey, that’s just the kind of boring foreign trivia we won’t need to bother with once we’re safely holed up in Fortress America. To those who dissent from this easy and affordable solution to America’s woes, the Paul campaign likes to point out that it receives more money from America’s men in uniform than anybody else. According to the Federal Election Commission, in the second quarter of 2011, Ron Paul got more donations from service personnel than all other Republican candidates combined, plus President Obama. Not unreasonably, serving soldiers are weary of unwon wars — of going to war with everything except war aims and strategic clarity.

Ron Paul is neither isolationist nor anti-military (the donations from serving troops clearly proves that case). He is, however, against military adventurism and perpetual American involvement in the defence of rich countries who have been cashing in the “peace dividend” for two generations or more.

January 14, 2012

George Jonas: Ron Paul as candidate, Ron Paul as cult leader

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:17

George Jonas likes Ron Paul, but he does point out that as a candidate, he’s not cut from the same cloth as the rest of them (to say the least):

Appearing in turn a sober, even austere, public-spirited physician and a mischievous, even vicious, old crank, Paul is between a candidate and a cult figure. Candidates have supporters; cult figures have devotees. You may express reservations about a candidate without necessarily incurring the wrath of his supporters, but expressing reservations about a cult figure will result in his devotees trying to eat you alive. Being a cult figure, however, doesn’t necessarily predict what happens at the polls. My paternal grandfather, an old-style ward boss in Europe, called one office-seeker an unelectable idol. “It’s easier to find people who’d die for him,” he said, “than people who’d vote for him.”

There are quite a few people voting for Paul. When cult figures break through the numbers-barrier, you suddenly encounter the Real Thing. In 2012, could it be a retired obstetrician from Texas? While Paul has only a very remote chance of winning his party’s nomination, should he do so, his chances of winning the White House are actually better.

How so? Well, Republicans disenchanted with, say, Mitt Romney would hardly flock to Paul on the convention floor, but Democrats disenchanted with Obama might gravitate to him in November. This, ironically, would give Paul a better crack at the American presidency than the Republican nomination, though of course he couldn’t have one without the other. His chance is wafer-thin but “wafer-thin” is a real chance. While it’s unlikely to happen, it could.

What would the world be like the day after? Well, whatever the intended consequences of President Paul’s policies, their potential reminds me of an editorial cartoon published during the war years in London’s Daily Mail. It shows a neat little man in a bowler hat unhappily shaking hands with a disheveled colossus. The caption reads: “Ah, Mr. Policy, young Side Effect here has been anxious to meet you …”

January 11, 2012

New Hampshire breaks for Romney

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:13

After all the other candidates (except Ron Paul) effectively signed their Socialist Party cards during this campaign trying to portray Mitt Romney as the demon offspring of Ebeneezer Scrooge and Gordon Gekko, it’s probably no surprise that Romney won the state handily. Ron Paul managed a better-than-expected second place finish. Doug Mataconis wraps up the race:

Ron Paul came in second with 23% of the vote, higher than he had been polling over the past week and an apparent indication that he had been able to mobilize the independent/libertarian vote in the Granite State much as he had done in Iowa. In 2008, Paul had finished 5th in the state, with about 18,900 votes. This time, Paul garnered more than 55 votes, more than aall of the other candidates save Huntsman and Romney combined. Not surprisingly, Paul’s speech last night was as much a victory speech as if he’d actually won the night

[. . .]

Jon Huntsman, who finished a disappointing third with 17% of the vote, vowed to take the fight to South Carolina and did his best to spin an outcome that had to be a let down given his recent rise in the polls into good news

[. . .]

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, came out of New Hampshire virtually tied at 9% of the vote, Gingrich with roughly 22,921 vote and Santorum with roughly 22,708. and both gave simultaneous concession speeches that didn’t really concede anything, arguing that the race had just started and that they were heading to South Carolina. One candidate who’s already down in the Palmetto State, Rick Perry garnered a rather pathetic 1% of the vote and issued a statement that basically said that New Hampshire didn’t matter. Of course, you’d expect the guy who came in last place to say the race doesn’t matter.

Taking a look at the Exit Polls, Romney’s victory was pretty widespread, and pulled in what some might consider some surprising demographic groups:

  • Romney won all income categories, except those earning less than $30,000/year. That group went to Ron Paul slightly more (36%) than to Romney (31%)
  • Romney won among both registered Republicans (48%) and registered Independents (32%)
  • Romney won all ideological groups except those who called themselves “somewhat liberal,” which went to Paul 33% and 32% for Romney
  • Romney won all religious groups, except “None” which went to Paul 47% to 21% for Romney
  • Romney won the support of 42% of those with a positive opinion of the Tea Party, and 40% of those with a neutral opinion. Huntsman received 42% of those who had a negative opinion of the movement

In other words, it was, unlike Iowa, a clear and decisive victory for Romney. Some will discount it by stating that this was all expected given the fact that Romney had been leading the field by double digits for months now, and while that may be true nothing succeeds like success and, right now, Mitt Romney has the wind at his back heading into South Carolina. Polling there is now showing him with a double digit lead over his rivals. Of course, the next ten days are going to consist of candidates like Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum trying to chip away at that lead. Gingrich and his SuperPac, for example, will reportedly putting as much as $3.5 million in to ad buys around the state, which is not an insignificant amount of mount for the Palmetto State. Rick Perry is already down there comparing Romney’s career at Bain to “vulture capitalism,” and Santorum is likely to spend his time trying to peal away the social conservatives in the South Carolina GOP, where he’s likely to find a friendlier venue than he did in the Palmetto State. The question is whether it will be enough. Romney will be able to match Gingrich or anyone else dollar-for-dollar and ad-for-ad for one thing. For another, it’s unclear whether the this anti-Bain message really works on Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents. If the results in New Hampshire are any indication, the answer to that question is a clear and resounding no.

January 4, 2012

Reason.tv: Ron Paul in Iowa

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 16:43

After a hopeful week, a disappointing finish in Iowa

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:04

Brian Doherty was covering the Iowa Caucuses for Hit & Run:

As you saw below here on Hit and Run, despite some pretty widespread hope and anticipation from both the media (a week ago and earlier tonight) and a lot of his eager fans and grassroots volunteers (until late tonight), Ron Paul failed to win, or even come in second. This was not, it seems (at least the failure to win part) a huge surprise to more higher-level campaign staff.

As a Ron Paul admirer since 1988, having the sweet hope of victory held over my head for a moment led to a frustrating and dispiriting night. But — while all discussions of “moods of the room” are suspect, based, as they must be, on long talks with what by necessity will be a narrow unscientific sampling of the room — I seemed to be perhaps the most bummed person at the Paul “victory party.” Even the many Iowans who started today expecting a win are still satisfied and eager footsoldiers in an ongoing Ron Paul Revolution.

Before the results poured in, I sat in on the caucus process in Precinct 5 in Ankeny, held in a high school gym about a mile from Paul’s state HQ. More than 200 people showed up. I didn’t stay long enough to see the official count. But the GOP precinct organizer — Ron Paul supporter Ross Witt — had the various candidates’ fans bunch up in separate parts of the gym to pick their spokespeople, vote watchers, and potential delegate candidates. When that happened, Paul’s crowd was the largest (and contained the only African-American in the room).

While I was sorry to see Ron Paul not win, I was much more alarmed at who came in second a bare handful of votes behind Romney. Santorum’s surge (yes, I know . . . “that’s disgusting”) puts the most authoritarian candidate back into the race in a big way. It might have been “Anyone But Romney” up to now, but I’d far prefer Romney get the nomination than quasi-totalitarian Santorum.

Yesterday on Twitter, there was a brief attempt to add a new disqualifier to Santorum’s name (aside from Dan Savage’s anal sex neologism) by tagging lots of Santorum-mentions with the hashtag #sexdungeon. It was amusing, but I suspect the folks who are most likely to vote for Santorum don’t have Twitter accounts.

January 2, 2012

The Economist profiles Ron Paul

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:01

The latest Lexington column is entitled “Ron Paul’s big moment”:

People who say that politicians are all the same may be in for a surprise next week. Heading the polls in Iowa, whose caucuses on January 3rd mark the true start of the Republican race for a presidential candidate, is a 76-year-old libertarian from Texas with a worldview so wacky and a programme so radical that he was recently discounted as a no-hoper. Even if he wins in quirky Iowa, Ron Paul will never be America’s president. But his coming this far tells you something about the mood of Republican voters. A substantial number like a man who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, introduce a new currency to compete with the dollar, eliminate five departments of the federal government within a year, pull out of the United Nations and close all America’s foreign bases, which he likens to “an empire”.

How did such a man rise to the top of the polls? One thing to note is that his support has a ceiling: in no state do more than about a third of Republican voters favour him, though in Iowa’s crowded race that could be all he needs. Also, liking the man does not require liking his policies. During the candidates’ debates of 2011, Mr Paul won plaudits for integrity. Where slicker rivals chop, change and pander, the rumpled Mr Paul hews to his principles even when they are unpopular. Unlike Newt Gingrich, who seldom misses a chance to play on fears of Islam, Mr Paul insists on the rule of law and civil liberties and due process for all—including suspected terrorists. Unlike Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, who adore Israel and can sound impatient to bomb Iran, Mr Paul has no great love for the Jewish state, even though this hurts him with the evangelical voters of Iowa. He opposed the Iraq war from the start and wants America to shun expensive foreign entanglements that make the rest of the world resent it.

December 29, 2011

Even his detractors admit that Ron Paul raises questions for the GOP that need to be answered

Filed under: Economics, Government, Military, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:26

Jonathan Kay, no fan of Ron Paul, points out that his campaign is forcing some otherwise unexamined bits of Republican belief to be hauled out into the light and re-examined:

None of this is particularly surprising given what we already knew about Ron Paul and his oddball views on metal coinage, Pearl Harbor, the Federal Reserve, and a dozen other subjects. The guy is basically your classic American crank. If he hadn’t gotten fixated on Austrian-School laissez-faire economics, Ron Paul probably would be spending his free time studying the Zapruder film frame by frame, or writing letters to local newspapers about water fluoridation.

Yet, for all his weirdness, Ron Paul deserves credit for at least one very real and crucial insight. Of all the Republican candidates, he alone has called out the fundamental contradiction between the GOP’s two dominant obsessions: (a) small government, and (b) American “greatness” (or, as Mitt Romney recently put it, America’s status as “the greatest nation in the history of the earth”). Critics dismiss Paul as an isolationist. But at least he understands that superpowers can’t maintain 11 carrier battle groups, win Afghanistan, protect Israel, take on Iran, out-educate China, and run a humane society, all while disemboweling government.

On many domestic issues, Paul’s views aren’t that much out of step with the his GOP rivals. Paul wants to shut down the Department of Education. So does Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Paul wants to close down the EPA. So does Bachmann and Newt Gingrich (and Herman Cain, too, if anyone still cares). Paul, like Gingrich, wants to privatize the Post Office. Paul also opposes abortion, supports the repeal of Obamacare, rejects the idea of man-made global warming, champions English as America’s national language, and strenuously opposes illegal immigration. His only major dissents on social issues are the war on drugs (end it), and gay marriage, which he thinks should be left up to the states (as opposed to being pre-empted outright at the federal level).

[. . .]

What Ron Paul is doing, for those who can ignore his crankish ramblings about the gold standard and Letters of Marque and Reprisal, is creating a debate about the fundamental meaning of American greatness. Personally, I believe that his ideas about foreign policy are unrealistic and unsettling. But at least he is doing something that neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich nor Rick Perry has the courage to do: Acknowledge that American global leadership carries a price tag that, ultimately, must be paid with higher taxes and bigger government.

December 28, 2011

The racist origins of the drug war

Filed under: Government, Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:53

Back in the dim, distant past when Ron Paul was running for President on the Libertarian Party ticket, he outlined the reasons for the start of the war on drugs. Ryan Grimm summarizes the situation in the late 1980s:

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign has spent the last two weeks dealing with the political consequences of the reemergence of racist newsletters that went out under his name in the 1980s and ‘90s. During that same time period, however, Paul also laid out an historical analysis of the racist roots of the drug war that accurately and honestly reflects its origins.

In 1988 Paul made a presidential campaign stop at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws while running on the Libertarian Party ticket. “What was so bad about the period from 1776 to 1914?” Paul wondered, referring to a time in American history when drugs were legal on the federal, and, in many towns, local level. “In the 20th Century, the doctors, like all business people, decided that there ought to be a monopoly. ‘If you wanted a little bit of codeine in your cough medicine, it would be much better if you come to me so I can charge you $25 for a prescription.’”

Paul, in a speech aired at the time on C-SPAN went on. “Before the 20th Century there was none of that and it was the medical profession as well as many other trade groups that agitated for the laws. And you know there’s a pretty good case made that this same concept was built in with racism as well. We do know that opium was used by the Chinese and the Chinese were not welcomed in this country,” Paul said. “We do know that the blacks at times use heroin, opium and the laws have been used against them. There have been times that it has been recognized that the Latin Americans use marijuana and the laws have been written against them. But lo and behold the drug that inebriates most of the members of Congress has not been touched because they’re up there drinking alcohol.”

December 27, 2011

Finding the motivations for those scary “libertarian” folk

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:06

Jacob Sullum on a recent New York Times article that tried to define the typical Ron Paul supporter (and whether Ron Paul is responsible for their views):

Why does the Times think it is relevant to note that libertarians who focus on economic freedom are “backed to some degree by wealthy interests”? Isn’t that true of pretty much every political movement and organization, including Marxism and the Democratic Party? The implication seems to be that defenders of economic freedom are carrying water for special interests, who are in it only for the money.

Weirdly, the Times locates the scary militants in the part of the libertarian movement that focuses on “personal liberty,” which includes not only the rights explicitly protected by the Constitution (such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures) but also such unspecified rights as freedom to engage in consensual sexual relationships, to marry people of either sex, to bet on games of chance, and to ingest psychoactive substances (or even raw milk). So according to the Times, the right-wing extremists attracted to Paul are a tolerant, cosmopolitan group that nevertheless harbors odious views about blacks, Jews, and gay people. Also note that the Times, perhaps unintentionally, says the Constitution “at its extreme has helped fuel militant antigovernment sentiment.” All the more reason to be wary of defending this radical document.

In short, the libertarian movement consists of two parts: 1) self-interested tycoons seeking low taxes and minimal regulation in the name of economic freedom and 2) crazy right-wingers who take the Constitution too seriously and worry about personal freedom. I always thought the distinguishing feature of libertarianism was defending both economic and personal liberty, based on the insight that they are two manifestations of the same thing. But what do I know? I did not realize that the rule of law was a concept invented by F.A. Hayek until the Times explained it to me.

December 26, 2011

Brian Doherty doesn’t think the Ron Paul newsletters matter very much

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:08

Over at Hit & Run, Brian Doherty outlines why he doesn’t think the Ron Paul Newsletter kerfuffle matters:

Many voices whose accomplishments I otherwise respect think that the fact Ron Paul had associates who, for a brief period over a decade in the past, wrote some mean-spirited, nasty, and dumb stuff rooted in race and sexual orientation under his name is the most important thing to discuss about Ron Paul, and that the public condemnation and humiliation of those supposedly responsible is the most important public policy issue surrounding Paul’s campaign now.

Part of this seems to be based on a so-far completely imagined belief that this particular repetition of the newsletter story cycle is somehow destroying Ron Paul’s campaign and that such name-naming or “grappling with the past” is necessary to save that campaign. While this may become true (and the consistent harping on and reminding people of it can’t help), there’s no evidence for it yet; Paul’s still gaining in polls. Note this Fox story headlined “Newsletters, Statements Cause Campaign Problems for Ron Paul” where the only voices they can find who actually thinks it’s an important issue belong to Paul’s opponent Newt Gingrich and GOP apparatchik Karl Rove and National Review editor Rich Lowry (whose own publication’s history has worse to answer to in terms of racial insensitivity combined with actual expressed support for legal actions against the rights of African-Americans, which leads Paul fans to believe that none of this has to do with actual objections to anyone with connections to past awful race-based comments, but with scuttling what is good about the Ron Paul campaign).

[. . .]

By any standard of political or moral judgment that I can respect, that is what is important about Ron Paul and the story of Ron Paul now. And from my five years of experience reporting on the Ron Paul movement that’s arisen since 2007, both for Reason and for my forthcoming book, I can assure any old libertarian worried about old libertarian movement business that it is the good things about Ron Paul that have won him the support and love he has won, and that this old business is irrelevant to them, and thus irrelevant to the actual important political and cultural story about Ron Paul now.

December 22, 2011

Gingrich would attempt to “break” judges who issue decisions he doesn’t like

Filed under: Government, Law, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:57

And this guy is running for the Republican nomination? Here’s George Will on Gingrich’s latest campaign stance:

To teach courts the virtue of modesty, President Gingrich would attempt to abolish some courts and impeach judges whose decisions annoy him — decisions he says he might ignore while urging Congress to do likewise. He favors compelling judges to appear before Congress to justify decisions “out of sync” with majorities, and he would sic police or marshals on judges who resist congressional coercion. Never mind that judges always explain themselves in written opinions, concurrences and dissents.

Gingrich’s unsurprising descent into sinister radicalism — intimidation of courts — is redundant evidence that he is not merely the least conservative candidate, he is thoroughly anti-conservative. He disdains the central conservative virtue, prudence, and exemplifies progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power. He exalts the will of the majority of the moment, at least as he, tribune of the vox populi, interprets it.

December 21, 2011

Gary Johnson to formally leave GOP race

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:32

As I reported last week, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has been forced out of the GOP race and will seek the Libertarian Party nomination instead:

The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.

The move has been expected for weeks — Johnson had run a New Hampshire-centric effort that never got him past a blip in the polls. He appeared at only two nationally televised debates, and only one in which other major candidates took part.

Johnson expressed deep disillusionment with the process as his libertarian message failed to catch fire and he received almost no attention for his bid. He soon began flirting with the Libertarians when it became clear that he was gaining no traction in GOP primaries.

December 19, 2011

Mark Steyn on the “Gingrich Gestalt”

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:06

He’s willing to admit that he misunderestimated Gingrich earlier in the campaign:

I was wrong about Newt. Or, as Newt would say, I was fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally and profoundly wrong. I was as adverbially wrong about Newt as it’s possible to be. Back in the spring, during an analysis of the presidential field, I was asked by Sean Hannity what I thought of Gingrich. If memory serves, I guffawed. I suggested he was this season’s Alan Keyes — a guy running for president to boost his speaking fees but whose candidacy was otherwise irrelevant. I said I liked the cut of this Tim Pawlenty fellow, who promptly self-destructed. There would be a lot of that in the months ahead: Michele Bachmann ODing on Gardasil, Rick Perry floating the trial balloon of his candidacy all year long, only to puncture it with the jaunty swing of his spur ten minutes into the first debate. And when all the other Un-Romney of the Week candidates were gone, there was Newt, the last man standing, smirking, waddling to the debate podium. Unlike the niche candidates, he offers all the faults of his predecessors rolled into one: Like Michele Bachmann, his staffers quit; like Herman Cain, he spent the latter decades of the last century making anonymous women uncomfortable, mainly through being married to them; like Mitt Romney, he was a flip-flopper, being in favor of government mandates on health care before he was against them, and in favor of big-government climate-change “solutions” before he was against them, and in favor of putting giant mirrors in space to light American highways by night before he was agai . . . oh, wait, that one he may still be in favor of. So, if you live in the I-95 corridor, you might want to buy blackout curtains.

But, when you draw them, Newt’s still there, shimmering beguilingly, which is the one adverb I fundamentally never thought I’d be using for this most fundamentally adverbial of candidates. A year ago, we were still talking about Palin and Daniels and Christie and Jindal and Ryan, an embarrassment of riches. Barely a month ago, Cain and 9-9-9 were riding high, an embarrassment of a different kind, and Gingrich was still a single-digit asterisk. But, like Gussie Fink-Nottle, we are all Newt-fanciers now. On the eve of Iowa it seems the Republican base’s dream candidate is a Clinton-era retread who proclaims himself a third Roosevelt, with Taft’s waistline and twice as many ex-wives as the first 44 presidents combined; a lead zeppelin with more baggage than the Hindenburg; a self-help guru crossed with a K Street lobbyist, which means he’s helped himself on a scale few of us could dream of. For this the Tea Party spent three years organizing and agitating?

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress