Not Mitt Folks, Come to Terms Before Obama Gets His Second

At this point, I don't see how anyone other than Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination without going to a brokered convention.  Romney's 386 delegates are 138 more than Santorum and Gingrich combined.  It's not certain either "Not Mitt" candidate could beat Romney in a straight up contest, but after Gingrich's completely unsurprising win in Georgia last night, we won't find out.  If he has any bounce at all, it'll come at the expense of Santorum over the next week as a few more southern states vote, giving Newt even more reasons to stay in it.  Once March is over, though, the race moves into decidedly Romney territory, with a number of those being winner take all. 

A lot of folks are not particularly thrilled about Romney winning.  I'm not giddy about him, but I cannot possibly imagine Independents voting for Rick Santorum.  The 2006 PA Senate race shows how unelectable he really is.  Santorum's conservative record is as spotty as Romney's.  And the biggest kick in the nuts is that he's running as a social conservative.  Got news, people: that's not the winning issue of 2012.  Most independents do not want to trade one guy meddling in their pocketbooks for another meddling in their bedroom.  

Gingrich has just as many problems as Romney as well.  Hey, who worked with one of the most hated companies in America that brought on the housing market bubble and collapse?  And who has a record of dysfunctional leadership?  Speaker Gingrich.  And is he going to attack Obama on the individual mandate?  Hell no, the man supports it.  Yes, he's better at debates, but there will be all of 2, maybe 3 with the President.  We absolutely must have somebody who can run a campaign efficiently to stand up against the Obama machine; Romney's the only one who has consistently done that so far.  

And Ron Paul...you just keep being Ron Paul.  Actually, no, just go away.  I'm a libertarian and you're the single greatest thing holding that ideology back.  Publishing racist material will automatically disqualify you from being a person worth listening to.  Now if Rand Paul could step up, that might be interesting, but regardless of who takes the mantle, it is imperative that Ron Paul go away for the sake of liberty. 

Really, compared to the alternative, Romney's not so bad.  The best thing we Tea Party types can do is avoid the worst possible situation of having Obama nominate more people to courts over another four years.  We need to come out in numbers to win the White House and, perhaps more importantly, put liberty loving citizens in the House and the Senate, just in case Romney does let out his inner RINO.  But we cannot despair because our most likely candidate is not the solid conservative we might wish.  We have to be the realist we are and make the most of what we can.  

Our rallying cry that will work with independents is not going to be "Get Romney/Santorum/Gingrich In"; it's going to be "Get Obama Out!"  Going to a brokered convention with Romney leading and having GOP insiders pick anyone but the guy with the most votes is an absolutely horrible idea; I haven't heard people advocating it yet, but it's not beyond the more outspoken Not Mitt crowd to do so (looking at you, RedState). 

Again, a Romney win is not my wet dream, but the other two viable choices are not particularly conservative, either.  The passionately Not Mitt crowd needs to come to terms that Romney will likely win so that we can put the energy in tossing Obama out and weeding out the foes of liberty in Congress as best we can. 

A (Very) Simple Voting Test

Quick, who is the head of the Federal Reserve?  

If you can't answer that, don't vote.  If you can't tell me what the Federal Reserve does (or, more likely, have never heard of the Federal Reserve), don't vote. 

Don't know who your Senators are?  Don't vote.  Your Congressman?  Stay at home Election Day.  The nine Supreme Court Justices?  What the Supreme Court even does?  Don't vote.  

Don't know who the President is?  Um...I'm not worried about you voting, just stay in your cave without Internet access.  Actually, come to think of it, how are you reading this?

These are not particularly difficult questions; in fact, they are asking basic matters of fact about the composition of our government.  If you cannot answer everything of the above, I'm quite serious, you are not qualified to be making decisions about our government.  This doesn't even bring into question the strengths and weaknesses of particular ideologies.  Just flat out facts.  

Democracy: rule of the ignorant. 

Are We A Post-Constitutional Society?

This is about a week old, but didn't get nearly enough airtime for its importance.  A Gallup poll was taken asking certain questions about ObamaCare; the most important chart is likely the last one.

Only 20% of Americans believe this law is constitutional, yet 44% would oppose a Republican Congress and President from removing it?  At least a quarter of Americans, the vast majority of them Democrats, seem to be taking this stand.  As a basic policy preference, this large chunk of the Left is openly admitting that where their laws and the Constitution come into conflict, the Constitution should back down. 

I think it's also reasonable to question how many of that 20% stating ObamaCare is constitutional actually believe that but are rather saying that because it is politically expedient to have the two appear in harmony rather than in conflict.  It's also worth questioning the constitutional understanding of those who legitimately think this healthcare law is square with the Supreme Law of the Land. 

Libertarians and many Conservatives have been making the case that the Left sees the limitations on government as an artifact of the past that should be eliminated in favor of "progress" without understanding that "progress" is a subjective term.  This poll indicates that is the case.  Frightening news. 

Repeal Isn't An Option

Immediately after ObamaCare was passed, conservatives and libertarians have been calling for its repeal.  In some ways, Romney may have hurt himself as a candidate because his mandate for health care in Massachusetts was effectively the beta version of ObamaCare.  I don't believe it should particularly matter whether Romney will repeal a copy of his own bill, and that's not because I'm a fan of ObamaCare.  You can read through my blog to find that's not the case. 

Rather, I believe the Supreme Court is the only thing that matters now.  If they uphold the individual mandate, repeal means nothing.  Politicians on both sides (though particularly the Left) will undoubtedly abuse this power.  ObamaCare, as bad as it is, is just the beginning.  It isn't enough to close the lid on Pandora's Box.  The Court effectively decides whether we will open that box or not.  

If ObamaCare's repeal is an issue in October, liberty has lost already.  That said, Obama absolutely must be defeated in order to prevent a Court from being tipped to the left.

What's Super About Tuesday?

Tuesday is Super Tuesday, the day the largest number of states vote during the Republican Primary.  In the past, this event has been the opportunity to effectively clinch nomination for a party, but I rather doubt that will be the case this year.  The number of states and delegates awarded this Super Tuesday is significantly less than in past years, which combined with the proportional system of awarding delegates means the contest will almost certainly drag on past this media event.  

A candidate needs 1,144 delegates to win.  As it stands, Romney has the most with 135 for sure delegates, plus an indeterminate amount that are allowed to change their minds.  That gets him about ten percent of what he needs.  The total amount up for grabs Tuesday is 410; even if Romney won all of them, that wouldn't put him halfway to the finish.  And as I mentioned, with the delegates almost certainly to be divided up fairly equally, the odds of a knockout blow being delivered here are extremely low.  

Just to really throw a wrench in things, Gingrich will almost certainly win Georgia.  He's currently the number 2 man in terms of delegates and Georgia is the largest state up for grabs.  Based on polling, he'll suck just about everywhere else and Santorum should overtake him in overall delegates, but a big win in Georgia could convince Gingrich to stay in this race, at least for a few more rounds to see if he derives any momentum from his win.

There are only 8 winner take all races remaining, most of which are in April or later.  Utah and California alone would give Romney 200 delegates, but that won't be settled until June.  Romney would still need 800 delegates from the other races.  

My biggest concern is that he doesn't quite make it.  Newt and Ron Paul could easily rack up 200 delegates between them, enough to send this a brokered convention, which has nightmare written all over it. 

Two thoughts:

• I thought this during the '08 campaign as well: primaries should be closed.  There's no reason to give the opposing party a voice in choosing your party's candidate.  This is particularly true during a close primary when there is an incumbent president. 
• Move up the primaries, or move them back, but have them at roughly the same time.  Either that, or make them winner take all.  Dragging this out until June keeps the candidates shooting at each other rather than their November opponent.  Not particularly wise. 

As for Tuesday, Romney will obviously win Massachusetts and Virginia, Gingrich Georgia, and Santorum Oklahoma and Tennessee.  Ohio is close, but Santorum failed to get on the ballot in a few districts, meaning those are certain Romney wins.  Santorum may squeak out ahead on the total vote, but will lose in delegates by a few.  

Overall, Romney will gain a few more delegates in his lead, Santorum will solidly take second place in the overall count, and this thing will drag on at least through April.  Anything but Super, or even particularly interesting. 

No H8? How About No Single Payer Health Care

A good chunk of liberals celebrated Andrew Breitbart's untimely death yesterday.  As I understand it, these are the same enlightened people who should be running a government single payer health care system.  

The people who celebrate the deaths of conservatives should be making decisions about whether conservatives get treatment?  They should decide whether we live or die?  

Fuck that.  It's not much of a stretch to say those who celebrate our deaths would cause our deaths if given proper government protection.  A single payer, government run system would give such cover to deny coverage based on ideology.  It wouldn't need to be policy of the administration; faceless bureaucrats with a political axe to grind, above which there would be no timely appeal, could accomplish untold havoc.  I would not want to be a Rush Limbaugh or a Michelle Malkin under those circumstances.  And where else would you turn? 

As a principle, government should not be involved in our lives if at all possible, but most certainly these sick bastards celebrating Breitbart's death should be kept out of power at all costs.  Not ironically, they are the people calling for more government power.  Hard to abuse other people if Life, Liberty, and Property are respected. 

Bastiat, Call Your Office

"Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday, for example, said the amendment amounted to a “contraception ban,” and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday argued that an “extreme ideological” element of the right had hijacked the underlying transportation bill Blunt was seeking to amend."  The Hill, Senate Rejects Blunt Amendment

The amendment would allow religious institutions to opt out of paying for contraceptives.  Because, lo and behold, some religions do not support that.  

Note that is not a "ban" on contraceptives.  At all.  In any way, shape, or form. 

And while I'm at it, at what point in time did it become a fundamental human right that other people pay for your sex life?  I've got a crazy alternative: let people purchase their own contraception!  Oh my God, I'm a genius!  Nominate me for a Nobel Prize in Economics and I'll be on my way. 

So tired of this stupid shit.  Why can't Democrats fight our actual arguments rather than straw men? 

Thrasymachus Must Be Answered

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I've been pondering these lines and the question of what makes things right and other things wrong.  We establish government to secure our unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.  But what if there is no Creator, no God?  Does the theory of Natural Law still stand if there is no Natural Law Giver?  It can be said that Natural Law is the Best Positive Law that we can create...but the best for whom?  

At the beginning of our Republic, these principles were generally (though obviously not absolutely) held by the public, that the life, liberty, and property of others were sacrosanct, that they are granted by a Higher Power.  These values have largely been replaced in society with the idea that the wealth of others may be deemed unfairly gained without a reference to what fairness is, that liberty can be enhanced by the dictates of government.  In most aspects, people lack any guiding principles apart from personal gain, regardless of means.  In fact, most people consider the means of government appropriating and redistributing wealth gives the action moral credibility. 

The ideal of Life, Liberty, and Property as fundamental Natural Rights has been usurped for Might Equals Right.  Most will not be comfortable putting it so bluntly, but the idea that government actions are legitimate because it is a democratic government that took them is arguing that having the power of the majority makes an action right.  Of course, the same people that support government intrusion on the rights of others become indignant the second they become part of the minority, the abused class.  And sadly, many that denounce the abuses of government do so because they wish to be sucking at the tit of government instead.  It is not the abuse of government powers, but the recipient of the benefits that angers these people (the Occupy movement is a great example of this).  For so many people in this country, what is right equals what is good for me.  

The threat of an afterlife, the Myth of Er, may have been false but it certainly had its uses.  In a world without a Higher Power (and I am an agnostic myself), the whole question of right and wrong is often thrown overboard; there is no disincentive to do wrong, and often a great reward. 

Can a society survive if it embraces the philosophy of Thrasymachus?  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  But will such a society be happier than a free society based on respect for life, liberty, and property?  For a small group, yes; for the rest, no. 

And that's where I find myself.  I'm an agnostic.  I don't believe there is a Creator that particularly cares if our Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are upheld or violently raped.  I do believe that a free society, with positive laws upholding Jefferson and Locke's ideals, is the happiest of societies for most within it.  But I also know that those same political tools used to create positive laws will almost inevitably be employed to destroy what they are supposed to protect; politicians will forever bribe some people with the wealth of others.  Perhaps liberty is such a fragile thing that its existence cannot be maintained.  Like a silver coin passed around too many hands, perhaps we can't prevent its tarnishing and eventual ruin. 

But I intend to keep throwing objections at Thrasymachus, even if he isn't listening.  The political tools used to abuse our economic machine have taken that machine to its breaking point.  Europe may have passed that point already and we are definitely moving in that direction.  When the breakdown occurs, Thrasymachus will not be content to watch the world (and his privileged position) blow up into a billion pieces.  No, he'll have a new political system to mitigate the impact of the next economic implosion.  This one won't be democratic, though I can easily see it being demanded by the people. 

"You never want a serious crisis go to waste."  They won't miss their opportunity. 

2012 Presidential Election Predictions

Ok, so it is incredibly early to be saying for sure how the Presidential election will break down nine months from now.  Anyone who knows anything about politics can tell you a who lot of things can change during that time period.  The 2008 election is proof enough of that.  Currently, we hear a lot of moaning and whining about how the GOP field sucks and how this will lead to an Obama reelection.  I don't think that's accurate; the GOP field is definitely not great, but they have the distinct advantage of not being Obama.  Mitt and Newt will duke it out for a few more weeks, but come March I think the primary will largely be decided (with Mitt winning), at which point it becomes a referendum on the President. 

This is what an admittedly not great GOP candidate is up against.  I took these Gallup numbers and plugged them into the electoral college map provided by 270towin.com, with the following conditions:

• The Republicans win every state they won in 2008.  If these states stuck by the GOP during the landslide Obama win, there's no reason to believe they will switch now.  Polling indicates this is the case.  After the Census changes, the score is Dems 359, GOP 179.
• States with a 50% or more disapproval of Obama go Republican.  Disapproval of a President is very hard to overcome; people are more excited to throw the bum out than supporters are about going out to vote for him.  Even with an equal participation rate, Obama still loses.  Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, Ohio, and New Hampshire all go into the red column.  Obama 306, Romney (?) 232.
• Now we take all of the states that have higher disapproval than approval of Obama, but which are not at 50% yet.  Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Iowa all flip to neutral.  GOP 232, Obama 216.  
• I don't feel like playing with the Nebraska and Maine splits, so they will stay as they were in 2008.

Of those six states, I somewhat randomly predict the following:

• Oregon will stay Blue, despite the lower approval rating.  They haven't voted for the GOP since the year of my birth; it's not impossible this will change, but I wouldn't describe it as probable.  GOP 232, Obama 223.
• Iowa is almost exactly tied according to Gallup.  Romney did pretty well there in the primary, and if push comes to shove I don't see the more hardline conservatives sitting it out in favor of Obama.  I'm leaving this as a tossup for now. 
• My neighbor just to the south, Pennsylvania.  They swung pretty hard for the GOP in 2010 and the race was pretty close in 2008.   This could end up repeating the 2000 Florida mess.  
• Virginia has swung pretty solidly against the President, electing a GOP governor against the President's direct campaigning in 2009.  Nearly a 5% difference in approval/disapproval not favoring Obama.  Goes GOP.  Reds 245, Blues 223.
• The Tar Heels are pretty close to VA; while the African American community will still swing hard for Obama, they always go for the Democrats.  Obama has lost the independents in that state and has a 43% approval rating and a 48% disapproval.  GOP 260, Obama 223.
• Florida.  A must win for Obama if my other predictions are accurate.  Obama has a 43% approval rating, just short of 48% disapproval, and Romney just stomped Gingrich in Florida.  This one goes GOP.  President Romney 289, Former President Obama 223.  26 are tossups which Obama would have to win, along with flipping either Florida or Virginia and North Carolina. 

Again, a long way to go.  But the GOP should not be despondent about this situation.   Neither Mitt nor Newt is a great bastion of liberty, but either are strongly preferable to the current occupier of 1600 PA Ave.  I've heard a lot of worrying that the weakness of the Republican field could cost them the election, but if I had to bet, my money would be on Romney winning.  The President is not popular.  The nation elected a complete unknown in 2008 due to the unpopularity of the previous occupant; there's no reason to believe under qualified candidates can't be elected again under similar circumstances. 

To Read For 2012

The new year is upon us and has decided to immediately bludgeon us with a presidential election and a massive financial crisis in Europe.  Here's my to read recommendations to help you make any sense of it:

• Zero Hedge: And the first pitch of the new year is a knuckler!  In order to gain useful info from this site, you will have to learn a few things about the financial markets and have a good eye for separating what is complete hysteria from what is a logical threat.  That latter part is tricky, mostly because you can't assume the most dire predictions are necessarily the most outlandish ones.  
• Marginal Revolution: Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason U., is a pretty big name nowadays, routinely being published in places like the NYT and Wall St. Journal.  A very even handed fellow, he's also very academic and can be challenging for that reason, but that doesn't make him wrong.  Probably the most important thing I've picked up from him is the notion that starting a book is not an inviolable contract that you will then finish said book.  If it sucks, put it down.  
• The Volokh Conspiracy: Don't get fooled by the name, these are some top notch legal experts in the country, including some former clerks and current advocates for the Supreme Court, along with some guest posts by academics and sitting judges.  Very human group, by which I mean you'll often find some pretty amusing posts, but very bright jurists with a libertarian bent.   Will be a valuable source when ObamaCare goes before SCOTUS.  
• Instapundit: I check this about a dozen times a day.  Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, posts little blurbs on whatever happens to interest him on the Internet.  Lots of good finds on politics, law, transhumanism, sex, the bizarre, what have you. 
• Via Meadia: A lot of good stuff on what's going on in and outside of the United States.  

As for books, now is the time to read at least one of these if you haven't already:

• The Federalist Papers by Publius: The words "Supreme Court" or "Un/Constitutional" should not escape your lips/finger tips if you have not read this book first. 
• The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek:  Collective efforts are not particularly easy, especially when you have elected officials held accountable by different electorates.  The most common way of dealing with that deadlock is to just get rid of those pesky elections and representatives! 
• One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:  Why the above shortcut is a bad thing.  Also, you'll never look at a bad day the same way again. 
• Human Action by Ludwig von Mises:  This one is tough but worthwhile because Mises explains how economics works.  Not how it should work, but how it will work.  Most people do not understand how economics works.   
• Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand:  I know, I know.  I have my problems with it, too. Read it anyway.  The few fundamental truths she hammers away at are so important that the flaws can be overlooked. It's possible I want people to read this so they stop making criminally stupid criticisms about the book.   Like any book, read it before you praise or criticize it.