Political News and Election Info

Next Tuesday’s Missouri primary is little more than a “beauty contest.” It’s a non-binding primary that doesn’t even have Newt Gingrich on the ballot because he failed to qualify. On March 17th, Missouri holds  a caucus that will determine how the delegates will be allocated among the candidates. But for this upcoming non-binding primary, Newsmax reports that Rick Santorum leads Mitt Romney 45% to 34%. Ron Paul gets 13%. I’m not sure if Gingrich has qualified for the March Missouri caucus.

See the original post here:
Missouri Primary Poll – Santorum 45 percent, Romney 34 percent, Ron Paul 13 percent (Gingrich didn’t qualify for the ballot)

Don’t think it’s lost on us that you are the same people who were saying that a vote against debt ceiling increases would be a vote for Obama, and that to hold the line against further increases marked us as naive and unnuanced (right before the credit downgrade you pretended your capitulations would prevent); the same people who called us Hobbits for demanding the GOP stay good to its word on spending cuts, rather than fold yet again in the face of pressure from an activist media working on behalf of progressive Democrats; the same people who chide us about our desire for “purity” and a “True Conservative” when the fact is, all we really want is a nominee who, say, hasn’t implemented socialized health care or spoken earnestly about the necessity of regulating human exhalation or engaged in a full-throated defense of ethanol subsidies or warned against the heartlessness of not providing illegal aliens tuition waivers or or blamed the US for the deaths of 3000 citizens or joined in the populist attacks on capitalism such that they sound like caricatures from an Oliver Stone movie. That is, for all of you “electability conservatives,” don’t think it’s lost on us that you have once again taken our support for granted — that in your desire to win over “moderates” and “independents,” you’ve marginalized, diminished, and demonized your party’s base, sneering at those who won’t join you in rallying behind a man who rejected Reagan; that you’ve spent months since the 2010 elections chiding principled conservatives for their “extremism” and “fringe” beliefs in an effort to convince unprincipled middle voters that you really aren’t so bad and icky and heartless as the media is going to depict you no matter the Republican nominee; that you’ve chosen party over principle yet again. You’ve sold us out. And while you can offer any number of earnest rationalizations for doing so, the fact of the matter is, when push comes to shove, you simply aren’t prepared to fight for conservative beliefs — assuming you ever had them in the first place (some of you do, some don’t, and many, I’ve come to believe, haven’t the first idea what conservatism even is ). And though you’ll work to shame us for saying so, that won’t change the underlying truth. Have a nice day.

See the rest here:
A note to the GOP leadership and all the establishment conservatives who will now begin telling us it’s our duty to rally around Mitt Romney

According to one of the biggest Marxists in the United States Senate, from Obama’s home state of Illinois, if the 2012 elections are a referendum on Obama, then Democrats are in trouble. Well Dicky, you’d better sound the alarm bell because the 2012 elections are going make the 2010 elections look like small potatoes. Daily Caller quotes Durbin as saying: “If it is a referendum, then we’re in trouble because the economy’s not good and people’ll say, ‘well, I just want to make it clear I don’t like the way things are,’” Durbin said. But in Dicky’s warped little Marxist mind, he of course doesn’t think the elections will be about Messiah Obama. Personally, I say to Dick Durbin and the rest of the Marxistcrats, keep your arrogance going and keep thinking that way. It will just make November 2012 that much sweeter.

Go here to see the original:
Dick Durbin – If 2012 is a referendum on Obama, then Democrats are in trouble

Greg Sargent and Kevin Drum seem to think so, at least conditionally — one idea being that, as Greg wrote me on Twitter, “people support jobs creation policies but see govt failing to enact them,” the upshot being that anti-government sentiment may be a product of ineffective government, not just a government that has grown too big. To lay the foundation for the thesis, Sargent points to a Pew Economic Mobility Project chart noting that 54% of Americans believe that government helps the rich “a great deal”, while only 6% believe the government helps people like them . Sargent writes: Why is it so widely assumed that polls showing high distrust in government automatically support the conservative narrative? It’s true that multiple polls have shown recently that trust in government to do the right thing is at abysmal lows. And when those polls come out you routinely see Republican operatives Tweeting them gleefully. But the problem with those polls is they don’t probe why distrust in government is running so high. For all we know, some of the reasons for it could also support the liberal narrative. For instance, what if anti-government sentiment is running high because Congress isn’t passing jobs creation and fiscal policies — including tax hikes on the rich — that are supported by large majorities of the American people? Folks who aren’t tuned into the details of Senate procedure might not know why government isn’t acting on those policies; they might just see government failing them even as the crisis continues, and react accordingly. Majorities say they want higher taxes on the rich and say wealth should be more even in this country. Congress isn’t hiking taxes on the rich. Fifty four percent tell Pew government protects the rich a “great deal,” versus a tiny minority who say they are getting helped by government. And at the same time, distrust in government is at historic highs. You think those things might be related? And how does all that bolster the right’s argument? First off, let me just say that I believe Sargent overstates the degree of anti-government sentiment on the liberal left; but even taking his hypothetical at face value, what are we to make of the idea that anger at government is anger at the government’s failure to take and redistribute more wealth, or create more government programs — all of which would require higher taxes, more deficit spending, and greater debt? Or better, what do we make of the suggestion that anti-government sentiment doesn’t overwhelmingly redound to the “conservative narrative”? My contention is that contemporary movement conservatism is almost by definition anti-government (that is, an explicit rejection of a government that has far exceeded its Constitutional mandates), and that it was the TEA Party, with their anti-big government, pro-Constitution message that overwhelmingly carried the 2010 elections. And while it’s likely true, as Sargent and Drum assert, that many who self-identify as “liberal” have adopted an anti-government sentiment since 2010, it is worth plumbing their arguments to find out just how “liberal” these governmental critics are. On the one hand, the logical end to those demanding ever more government to assure a kind of enforced social egalitarianism is a socialist police state; without such a system, enforcement of equal outcomes would be impossible, and disparities of income would return as a matter of course. Not surprisingly, Utopia requires a ruling class to keep order — and socialism generally stalls at its fascist stage. On the other hand, there are those railing against banks, or Wall Street, or “the rich” because they believe Big Banking or Big Corporations are responsible for the income disparity they’ve been taught to watch out for. And yet a closer look reveals that what those people are railing against, though oftentimes they don’t realize it, is precisely the kind of crony capitalism that marks a corporatist economy — that is, liberal fascism — itself posited as a necessary stage in the transformation from a capitalist society to a centralized socialist state by none other than Edward Bellamy in his Utopian blueprint, Looking Backwards . That is, they are railing against the transition to democratic socialism and away from free market capitalism. – All of which means that, far from adopting a leftist or liberal stance, these protesters — though they may identify with liberalism or the left — are actually adopting a conservative position, one that finds a home in, eg., the populist conservative rhetoric of Sarah Palin, or the libertarian rhetoric of any number of free market economic theorists, which rejects the kind of government “partnerships” with big business that create cozy government / client relationships. Cass Sunstein this ain’t. Where Sargent errs is in conflating “conservative” with Republican. The “conservative narrative” is not necessarily the Republican narrative, as any who’ve followed the GOP establishment’s clashes with the TEA Party implicitly understands. Republicans may be too quick to claim benefit from anti-government sentiment. But conservatives should take heart that, if anything, the underpinnings of their philosophy is crossing the political divide, much as it did with Reagan Democrats in the 70s and 80s. Many of those who are angry at government and identify politically with the left aren’t angry because they reject capitalism (those who do are a loud, drum-circling minority). Instead, they are angry at the kind of capitalism that is the result of cozy relationships between government and corporations. They’ve been taught to direct their ire toward Big Business. But what they want is the separation of business and government — and that is a fundamentally conservative, anti-big government, free market stance. Which benefits the conservative, constitutionalist movement. Discuss.

More:
Are conservatives overconfident about their ownership of anti-government sentiment?

No, ya think? WSJ : House Republicans are finding more than a few flaws with the “Gang of Six” deficit plan, but haven’t rejected it outright. The latest evidence comes in an analysis by House Budget Committee Republicans produced on Tuesday night. According to the analysis, the Gang of Six plan “appears to include a $2 trillion revenue increase” relative to current tax rules. That’s considerably more than the $1.2 trillion the plan claims to raise in new taxes. The Gang of Six plan says its tax increase is $1.2 trillion compared to a “plausible” baseline that assumes the Bush tax cuts for the middle class are extended permanently. But that baseline also assumes a revenue increase of $700 billion or so from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy – hence the $2 trillion total that the House Republicans claim the plan produces. The plan appears to rely heavily on defense cuts for its near-term spending reductions. The plan also is light on specifics when it comes to reducing costs of entitlements, and does not attempt to scale back the 2010 health-care law, which conservatives argue has increased problems with entitlements. So, it’s like a Democrat plan. Awesome! But that won’t stop our proud boys from climbing aboard the “Bipartisan Express,” nosiree: That said, even the House analysis finds many features to like in the plan. It recognizes the need to overhaul the tax code and lower rates to enhance competitiveness and economic efficiency. It has reasonably strong enforcement mechanisms to contain future spending. And it calls for changes to curb medical malpractice excesses, the analysis says. Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said in a statement:“Unfortunately, it [the plan] increases revenues while failing to seriously address exploding federal spending on health care, which is the primary driver of our debt. There are also serious concerns that the proposal’s substance on spending falls far short of what is needed to achieve the savings it claims. Nevertheless, this effort serves as a sign that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to make a serious down payment now to avert the debt-fueled economic crisis before us.” All the “serious” commentators will now debate the merits of the plan, all the while speaking in highminded and “serious” ways about pragmatism, compromise, bipartisanship, “what we can get,” how things really work in Washington, leaving ideology at the door, etc., etc. In other words, they’ll pretend that the wonkish attempt to cobble together another deal that kicks the fiscal can yet again down the road is somehow noble, conscientious, and the mark of real down-and-dirty leadership — while those Tea Party types, who are ruining everything , will just have to keep on bitching, the ignorant purists, because they just don’t understand what it takes to get ‘er done inside the Beltway. You’ve heard this all week, as the House plan on Cut Cap and Balance has been either derided or dismissed by everyone from the President and the leftist media to the more sober and serious “pragmatists” on the right, as purely symbolic, because the Senate won’t have the votes to pass it, and even if they did, the President has vowed to veto it. Nevermind that the American people seem to want it — and of course, let’s not stop to question why the Democrats and the President, who are now claiming to have concerns about debt and deficit, don’t support a plan that would structurally compel temporary politicians to restrain themselves, thereby preventing them from enslaving future generations under a crushing debt these politicians themselves will never have to pay back. These questions are so terribly beside the point. No. Instead, we’ll pretend that Tea Party types are an insignificant group of fringe extremists, to be tolerated but ultimately dismissed, and whose policy demands are simply unworkable in the “real world” of Washington DC; we’ll pretend the 2010 midterm elections were a license for both parties to carry on as usual, with the Democrats pushing us closer to socialism and a centralized tyranny, and the GOP talking tough then folding, content to be the foils in power until it is their turn to steer the gigantic ship of state. I’ve been saying this for some time now: this is not about political parties. It’s about a ruling class of professional politicians against the rest of us. The message sent by the 2010 elections was clearly not loud enough. So now we have to figure out our next move. Unfortunately, I predict that should the Gang of 6 prevail here, it will ensure Obama’s re-election. That’s how tone deaf are the GOP Senators who are willing to go along with this; or perhaps it’s just that they don’t much care either way: if they aren’t up for re-election, they can vote any damn way they please, and what seems to please them is surrendering rather than fighting, so they can get back to the business of spending our money and making laws telling us what kinds of lightbulbs and toilets we need to be using, and what kind of health care we need to purchase. Nice work if you can get it.

More:
“House GOP Finds Flaws in Gang of Six Plan”