Is it doable? Who knows. It’s certainly possible, however difficult.
But more importantly, it’s a goal that appeals to growth, prosperity, exceptionalism, and American industriousness and optimism. That is, a “Yes we can” that those of us who don’t favor larger government, decreased individual freedom, and the new normal of “social justice” that promises to punish the successful and “raise up” the unproductive — that is, to stoke class envy among the electorate while all the time growing government power and influence — can get behind.
It’s change back that we can believe in.
So. For those keeping score:
Yes (so far): Palin, Pawlenty, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann
No (so far): Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman
Amazingly, 2 of the 3 “serious” candidates are already proving themselves completely unworthy of a conservative / classical liberal primary vote.
Pawlenty is making all the right noises; and Santorum is a rock-ribbed conservative unequivocal about his pro-growth policies whose early interviews on Levin and Limbaugh have impressed me. Palin and Bachmann I would support unreservedly. And Cain, if he can catch the public imagination, has the right disposition to lead.
I think it would be possible if corporate and small business taxes were cut back, and a lot of onerous regulations were removed. Also, the government has to stop attempting to pick the winners and losers and leave it all alone. It’s worth attempting.
My problem with Pawlenty is I don’t believe him. Plus, he signed a bill that requires all gasoline sold in MN to contain 20% ethanol (it was already at 10%). If that’s not a subsidy, I don’t know what is. It’s also too high a content for older vehicles, and will likely cause damage and result in expensive repairs.
I’d probably still vote for him, though.
cranky, 20% ethanol will damage pretty much all vehicles, including those that will handle 10%. The seals etc won’t handle it.
Yes (so far): Palin, Pawlenty, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann
No (so far): Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman
Do you think Pawlenty would be a yes if Palin, Cain, Santorum and Bachmann were not in the mix? I doubt it.
SDN/cranky-d, don’t you mean 15%? All vehicles have to handle 10%. FlexFuel vehicles can go that extra 5%, to 15%. Stupid though because there is no savings whatsoever since you lose almost an equal amount of fuel efficiency when you use ethanol. There is a far greater loss when you consider the hidden federal subsidy.
Heard and liked Santorum on Rush just now.
Think Rush has lost me though. I might need to start auditioning new radio hosts.
Making projections based on 5% annual GDP growth is kind of silly, unless you let inflation do the work for you. Be careful what you wish for.
Even in the whatever golden times that never were you reach back for, a 5% CAGR for more than a few years is real hard to sustain. But I’m all for all the other nice sentiments.
Is it his defense of Palin, or his dislike of Huntsman / Huckabee / Romney as squishy replacements for Daniels?
It’s the thought that counts, charles. And here I believe the number is symbolic of a direction, not the result of a policy prescription.
OT: got NO sleep last night, and I’m finding any attempts to workout today as I’m scheduled to met with fierce resistance from both my body and my mind.
My shoes and my dri-fit muscle shirt, on the other hand, are all, like, “c’mon, pussies. It’s GO TIME!”
I would suggest not working out, simply because a lack of concentration can result in serious injury. The last time I hurt myself lifting, it took six months to heal, and I was a lot younger then.
Flex-fuel vehicles can go to 85% ethanol. That’s “E85” fuel which is 15% gasoline, mostly to keep it from being used as an intoxicant.
Nah, I really liked his defense of Palin. I’ve also gotten all the sand out of my vagina over Daniels.
He’s just doing some specific things that have been bothering me on the whole. Notice how he mentioned how Thatcher wouldn’t even talk like that (as a supposed aide supposedly talked of Palin) about her opponents? He said that as a plus. As in, Thatcher was classy. Well, that seems to be half of what he’s basing his opinions on nowadays. Who’s going to throw out the most red meat. Then, when it works for the argument at hand, he’ll quickly say the opposite about one of our legends. Before that, I was surprised to see how strongly he staked out a really positive stance on Pawlenty when Pawlenty has only been saying the right things so far.
Other discordant noises as well. He’s always running down the pointed headed wonks and then a second later he’s talking up Heritage. He’ll bust on a place like the U of C for taking Geithner and then he’ll talk up Chicago School themes for the next 15 minutes.
Sorry, that’s Goolsbee not Geithner.
Herman Cain was on Wolf Blitzer last nite and said that states should have the right to enact gun control laws. I don’t see how this can be squared with a strong support for the 2nd Amendment.
2nd Amendment speaks to what the federal government can’t do – abridge the right to keep and bear arms. Doesn’t (well, didn’t until the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine I guess) tell states what they can and can’t do.
“Think Rush has lost me though. I might need to start auditioning new radio hosts.”
I pretty much just listen to one talk show now. It’s all I have the time and inclination for. That would be Levin.
Through the years Rush has had some great stuff, but nobody agrees 100% of the time on politics, so there’ve been times he’s pained me too. Now there’s so many talk show hosts doing what Rush has done, four hours a day for twenty plus years, it’s easy to find some one else on a different station saying something you agree with, and, with a fresh new scent. That’s cool, as long as it’s interesting and informative and honest enough to challenge your positions.
When Levin started doing talk radio, I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t listen long enough to know what he was talking about because of his voice! and besides, Rush was truly championing the right already.
Now, as I said, I listen mostly to Levin. I think he has a better grip on the times than any of the others, Rush included.
“2nd Amendment speaks to what the federal government can’t do – abridge the right to keep and bear arms. “
Really? I thought it spoke to the individuals right to keep and bare arms, within the context of the right to self defense, unassailable from any government.
‘Course I’m no Constitutional lawyer, so I might be wrong.
I don’t think so though…
Romney on international CNN this am said he’d never back down on Romneycare.
This is the man the gop wants, desperately, to run against Carter.
Because he’s juuuuust liberal enough to get those cool college kids and soccer moms and latinos to vote.
And that strategery worked sooooo well last time.
Somebody needs to carve “when Republicans run a liberal, Democrats run Mao and win” on Mt Rushmore. And no amount of Hannitizing will ever change that.
I catch Levin once in awhile and like him, Lee. I just wish he came on earlier. It’s 9 to 12 around here. Which is normally when I want to catch some TV or monkey around on the internet.
Yeah, you’re right about not agreeing with everyone all the time. And, the primaries are when all that normally comes into focus. I used to view that as a more positive thing but I’m just seeing a lot of arguing that I don’t think really focuses on the issues and instead focuses on whatever “class” or niche people fall into.
“I catch Levin once in awhile and like him, Lee. I just wish he came on earlier.”
if you’re on line try the wabc stream 6-9 est
The 2nd has yet to be completely “incorporated” which means for now it applies entirely to the Federal government and only on a case by case basis to the States. Recent rulings have brought it closer. Whether “incorporation” is a good thing or not is a separate question.
Thanks, nr. I’ll do that.
“Somebody needs to carve “when Republicans run a liberal, Democrats run Mao and win” on Mt Rushmore.”
Heh. And, Sigh.
Yes, if only we could crack the can-you-believe-the-person problem, we would be all set.
Didn’t Pawlenty also vote for the “cap-and-trade” scam?
I do appreciate seeing these optimistic comments from Pawlenty, and I really like the things you said about them, Jeff. That’s very heartening.
charlesaustin: you wield a mean non-punctuated multiword clause. that puppy is a thing of beauty; i probably would have sprayed hyphens all over the place and wrecked it.
“Didn’t Pawlenty also vote for the “cap-and-trade” scam?”
link
The 2nd has yet to be completely “incorporated” which means for now it applies entirely to the Federal government and only on a case by case basis to the States. Recent rulings have brought it closer. Whether “incorporation” is a good thing or not is a separate question.
Whether incorporation is a good thing or not (I happen to agree with it), is indeed seperate.
But if the bill of rights is incorporated it is incorporated and if not, it is not. Selectively choosing which rights to incorporate is poppycock. It’s blatantly hypocritical. The 2nd is clearly incorporated under current jurisprudence in a such a way that even Ginsburg ought to have issues saying otherwise.
Either the states cannot keep you from bearing arms, or they can establish a state religion and ban criticism.
At any rate I just double checked.
McDonald vs. Chicago incorporated the 2nd. It now applies everywhere.
(although Chicago still hasn’t complied with the court’s ruling).
Frum hates it. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/frigfrum.php
That’s good for Pawlenty.
See, that’s where I get confused. RSM already invoked Weigel saying that Pawlenty was serious to discount him.
So, reading the tea leaves. Let’s play this exercise. Frum hates it and we should never let the RINOs pick our candidates. Weigel says he’s serious so… we should run away from him.
We’re dealing with relatively strong correlation patterns here. That and only that. Not proofs.
What’s good for Pawlenty is that he’s staking out ground solidly on the right. Whatever anyone else says one way or the other.
Thank you Entropy. I had thought they were still dithering on it.
Or, here’s another. One of those guys… Brooks, Kraut, Kristol… one of them said that only Romney, Pawlenty or Obama will be there at the end. Making them either electable or serious.
So, we can’t vote for Pawlenty. We can’t let the RINOs pick our candidate. Or we can’t follow an “electable” strategy.
Yet, Rush said he was qualified and ready to bring the fight to Obama. And he has a really good track record.
At some point here we just need to talk about their records and their ability to inspire others towards our principles. The rest too quickly dissolves into contradictory axioms.
I can forgive Pawlenty’s sins I think. We’ll see how he shakes out over the coming months. It’s still a long way away in political time.
Only because SCOTUS finally realized the words “the right of the people” have an indisputably obvious meaning that trumps any malinterpretation of “well-regulated militia.”
Same here, cranky.
He’s an example for my purposes here, I guess.
A few various things are bothering me. I can’t put my finger on it precisely.
I know for a fact that I don’t like many of the arguments I’m hearing though. Not sure if there’s a general theme actually involved or if I’m just reading a bunch of nonsense into essentially random signals because of my own biases.
If you have Sirius/XM, give Andrew Wilkow a listen. If you don’t have Sirius/XM, get it, then listen to Wilkow. Same time slot. You’d like him.
Pawlenty doesn’t give me any reasons to hate him, and he’s saying a lot of the right things. Rolling into Iowa to talk about killing ethanol subsidies has a little OUTLAW to it.
Thanks, Pablo. I’ll check him out.
Not sure about Pawlenty either but this newrouter guy is showing some promise!
Thanks, newrouter. Encouraging words–more people should say “I was wrong”!
A report on the progress of the “bury ObamaCare” task:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-obamacare-lawsuit-from-the-courtroom-in-atlanta/
Excerpt featuring wonderful quote:
ATLANTA — In the most important appeal of the Obamacare constitutional saga, today was the best day yet for individual freedom. The government’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, spent most of the hearing on the ropes, with the judicial panel extremely cautious not to extend federal power beyond its present outer limits of regulating economic activity that has a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce.
As the lawyer representing 26 states against the federal government said, “The whole reason we do this is to protect liberty.”
Entropy, don’t forget that Heller gave the government at all levels plenty of scope for regulation. What is being litigated now is how close the government can come to an outright ban in the burden it imposes on exercising that right.
Now, my own preference would be for no burden. However, in a pinch, I’d settle for the same burden a state is allowed to put in the way of an abortion…
Anyone wanna’ see what I’m wielding right now?