About Rick Perry

Hendrik Hertzberg, on the most recent not-yet-running heartthrob of the Republican base via the Dish:

On the other hand, Perry is a little bit “out there,” even in a Republican context. He loves the Constitution, needless to say, but he wants to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. That is, he wants to take the power to elect senators away from the people and give it to back to state legislators. He also wants to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. That is, he wants to outlaw the Federal income tax—a step which, given that he also wants to eliminate the capital-gains tax, the corporate-income tax, and the inheritance tax, would put Uncle Sam in a bit of a hole. He thinks Texas has a right to secede from the Union and maybe ought to do just that if Washington keeps oppressing patriotic Americans with things like health care. He wants to let states “opt out” of Social Security. In 2004, he refused to commute or even delay the death sentence of an almost certainly innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004. Last month he signed a Texas law that forces any woman seeking an abortion to submit to a pre-procedure sonogram and forces her doctor to hand her the image of the fetus, tell her the size of its limbs and organs, and make her listen to its heartbeat.

This spring, Governor Perry proclaimed “the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.” (When God didn’t come through, the governor sought aid from the federal government, which did.)  (emphasis mine) That time, at least, he invited participation from “all faiths and traditions” (other than the tradition represented by Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, and the First Amendment, of course). But then, last week—well, here’s how it’s described in the official gubernatorial press release:

Gov. Rick Perry has proclaimed Saturday, Aug. 6th, as a Day of Prayer and Fasting for our Nation to seek God’s guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation. He has invited governors across the country to join him on Aug. 6th to participate in The Response, a non-denominational, apolitical, Christian prayer meeting hosted by the American Family Association at Reliant Stadium in Houston.

It’s one thing—and not a good thing—for a governor to use his office to sponsor a “Christian prayer meeting” and instruct us to “call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles.” But the American Family Association? Uh, oh.

Wow.  I'm a bit overwhelmed by the crazy coming out of the Republican party.  The scary part is that this guy has a chance just by saying, hey look, Texas' economy is doing really well.  You know what, oil prices are pretty high too.  I don't think Rick Perry is creating jobs, unless he starts building up a campaign organization.  People do move to Texas from other parts of the country, big deal.  People flocked to California for 80 years.  People moved to Georgia in droves.  All I can say is that we've done the Texas governor as President thing, and it didn't turn out well.  I don't think this guy is any better than George W. Bush, and I just don't agree with the idea that Barack Obama is doing a worse job than GWB.  The only person I think who can complain about Obama's job performance versus George W. Bush would be Osama Bin Laden, and he can't complain because he's at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.

Republican Debate Tonight

At St. Anselm College.  Transportation for participants will be provided:

Paul Ryan will not be attending, the Wienermobile is broken down.

Michele Bachmann, Tea Party Favorite

Ezra Klein makes the case that Michele Bachmann is the candidate Sarah Palin was supposed to be:

And whatever it is that a tea partyer might not like about Palin, Bachmann’s got that covered, too. Want a candidate who can rattle off her reading list without embarrassing the ticket? “When I ask who she reads on the subject, she responds that she admires the late Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. ‘I’m also an Art Laffer fiend — we’re very close,’ she adds. ‘And [Ludwig] von Mises. I love von Mises,’ getting excited and rattling off some of his classics like ‘Human Action’ and ‘Bureaucracy.’ ‘When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises.’” Want a true believer who seems interested in winning the election rather than just carrying the torch? “We’ve got a huge messaging problem [on Medicare]. It needs to be called the 55-and-Under Plan. I can’t tell you the number of 78-year-old women who think we’re going to pull the rug out from under them.”
Bachmann is a better politician than Palin, a better policy wonk than Palin, and because she’s a better politician and a better policy wonk than Palin, she’s actually able to be a bit more extreme than Palin, as Palin rarely gets specific enough to do such precise ideological positioning. Put simply, Bachmann is the candidate Palin was supposed to be.

From what I've seen of Bachmann, she doesn't strike me as a mental heavyweight, even though she is an attorney and used to work for the IRS.  She definitely drinks the kool-aid, and she comes off to me as anti-intellectual, even when she's trying to sound smart, so that should be a benefit with the base.  I can't get over the crazy look in her eyes, and the fact that she can raise so much money totally floors me.  Overall though, the Wasilla Grifter has more people conned, and she will siphon off a ton of Bachmann support if she runs.  Neither would be qualified to be dog catcher in my opinion, but I can't control how crazy the GOP is these days.

More on Pawlenty's "Plan"

ataxingmatter takes a look at Pawlenty's proposed tax plan (h/t Mark Thoma):

Former Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty is running for president.  Like the rest of the GOP cast of hopefuls, he is bound and determined to introduce radical changes to the federal tax system that will carry out a corporatist agenda and so has released a proposed tax plan.   There is lots wrong with his plan, from the likelihood of it costing 7.8 trillion to 10 trillion over a decade, to the fact that it reduces revenues to the federal government so much that it raises only about 13.6% of GDP, a starvation level (especially when you consider the military commitments that the right is so supportive of) that would jeopardize all important public services and public goods like public transportation, public health care, public retirement security, and public parks.  Then there's the wacky extremist right-wing corporatist tax policy that it incorporates--a policy designed to continue the raping of the American economy and the American middle class by the elite current owners and managers of America's concentrated capital.
It includes:

• a radically less progressive schedule of rates--10% and 25%
• zero taxation for almost all income from capital--capital gains, dividends, and interest
• elimination of the federal estate tax
• reduction of the corporate tax rate from a statutory rate of 35% to a statutory rate of 15%
• elimination of "special interest handouts, carve-outs, susidies and loopholes." 

There's nothing commendable about this so-called plan.  It is nothing more than a shifting of the tax burden to the middle class (and below) that furthers the corporatist agenda of allowing multinational corporations and their owners and managers a free reign, using all the benefits of the market established by government but sharing almost none of the burdens.

This is pretty much Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future.  It is a blatant attempt to make the richest Americans nearly exempt from taxation.  It is absurd, and anyone who proposes such a scheme shouldn't get a damn vote from anybody.  Tim Pawlenty has proven the farcical nature of his bid for President.

Pawlenty's Economic "Plan"

Daniel Larison:

Whether Gov. Pawlenty’s prescriptions—dramatically lower individual and corporate taxes, zero taxes on capital gains and dividends, sunset provisions for federal regulations and a growth-rate target of 5%—are provable as solutions is politically beside the point at this moment. As substantive brand differentiation, the Pawlenty speech was a success. ~Daniel Henninger

Henninger forgot the part where all of this supposedly slashes the deficit at the same time through the massive infusion of extra revenues. Yes, that’s “substantive brand differentiation,” all right. Pawlenty has branded himself as the candidate of wishful thinking and fantasy. Pawlenty’s “plan” is based on the idea that there are no trade-offs in making policy, and therefore there are no difficult choices to be made.

Someday, Republican voters may realize that tax cuts cause deficits, don't grow the economy or create jobs, and benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  I think someday is still a while off.  But if anyone takes Pawlenty's "plan" as serious, they are very misguided.  Because I think the economy will be struggling greatly in 2012, and Barack Obama will be vulnerable, I would really like to see the Republicans field a good candidate as an alternative.  So far, I don't think they will.  If a person seems competent, they are considered a RINO or Republicrat.  They have to go for the full crazy, or the base will hate them.  We really need a better conservative electorate.

Romney's Running for President

From Portfolio.com:

"From my first day in office my No. 1 job will be to see that America once again is No. 1 in job creation," he said as he officially announced his candidacy in New Hampshire, home of the 2012 campaign’s first presidential primary.

Does anyone know when the last year that the U.S. led the world in job creation?  I would guess late 90's at the most recent, if even then.  I would like to know how Romney will create more jobs in the U.S. than will be created in China.  Maybe by lowering U.S. wages to Chinese rates?

Update:  Better late than never, I changed the text color of the quote to make it more readable.  Sorry, I've been busy trying to get the crops in.

Huntsman Tries To Be A Likable Conservative

Joshua Green:

 Jon Huntmsan arrived in New Hampshire last week touted by much of the national press corps as the Republicans' miracle moderate: The former Utah governor and ambassador to China for President Obama acknowledges global warming, supports civil unions for gays, and has criticized Republicans' obstinacy and extremism -- shocking stuff in a party that's been galloping to the right. Now, he'd like that same party to nominate him to challenge Obama.

This storyline proved irresistible to the media, if not to the residents of New Hampshire. During his five-day swing through the state, Huntsman's events were mobbed by reporters, who often outnumbered actual citizens. Part of the interest stemmed from the anticipated clash with conservatives upset at having a moderate in their midst.

That confrontation never came, and one reason why it didn't is that Huntsman showed himself as much more conservative than advertised. Without disavowing his earlier positions, he staked out territory well to the right of some other candidates, which suggests that he's less concerned with pushing new ideas than in presenting the old ones in a more palatable way.

I don't know that this will work well.  It's nice that a Republican candidate recognizes reality on global warming and civil unions, but wrapping up conservative boilerplate in niceness isn't going to fly again, I don't think.  Compassionate Conservatism was tried by somebody, and just ended up being taxes for the wealthy, wars, incompetent governance and a collapsed economy.  I don't think we can get buy the same crap again.  Unfortunately, it is going to take a complete electoral obliteration for the GOP to realize that taxes must go up on the wealthy, and we will need more government, not less in health care, among the more pressing issues.  As for the social issues, Republicans will continue to lose young voters as long as they insist on maintaining their hostility to gay marriage and immigrants.  It appears that they just don't care, and will tie themselves to the aging boomers and let the chips fall as they may.  I think I'll just steer clear of the crazy train.

W. Iowa county GOP Is Crazy

Des Moines Register:

The runaway favorite of the western Iowa crowd at a Republican fundraising dinner Friday was Georgia Republican Herman Cain – the guy everyone was there to see speak.
But even in absentia, Alaska’s Sarah Palin claimed a surprising second place in the Pottawattamie County GOP’s dollar poll, with 38 percent of the votes to Cain’s 55 percent.
“Of the approximately 230 people in attendance, 153 people voted,” said Jeff Jorgenson, the county party chairman. “Of course these results are not scientific, but I am going to say they accurately reflect the mood of the evening.”

Michele Bachmann, John Huntsman, Ron Paul and Mitch Daniels got 5%, 1%, 1% and 1% respectively.  Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty didn't receive any votes.  The 2012 election is going to be a train wreck, but maybe we'll get a sane Republican party out of it.

What Mitch Daniels Would Have Brought to the GOP Primary

Ezra Klein:

Would so many commentators be so positive on Mitch Daniels if he wasn't running for president? Probably not. As George W. Bush's budget director, Daniels helped craft and sell the Bush tax cuts even as he lowballed the cost of the war in Iraq. Together, those policies were the central legislative drivers behind the surpluses of the 1990s into the deficits of the Aughts. If Daniels was running -- and particularly if he was running a campaign based around the national debt -- he'd have a lot to answer for. But there's nevertheless good reason to lament Daniels' absence from the race. Over the past two years, many in the GOP have taken their opposition to Obama's policies so far that they've tipped into a kind of denial about the underlying problems themselves. Republicans have a plan for opposing the Affordable Care Act, for instance, but nothing for covering the uninsured. They have attacked both Obama's stimulus proposals and the very idea of Keynesian stimulus proposals, but that's left them with few answers for the unemployed. Daniels, however, was charting a different course.
In a series of op-eds for the Wall Street Journal, Daniels broke with the pack and began challenging Obama's policies by promoting solutions of his own. In September of 2010, he published a call for a second stimulus based around a payroll tax cut and full expensing of capital investments made by businesses. Both policies later turned up in the December tax deal. In February of 2011, by which time "repeal and repeal" had become the Republican Party's consensus health-care policy, Daniels wrote an article laying out six reforms that he thought could make the Affordable Care Act more appealing to conservatives, or at least to him. You didn't have to agree with Daniels' policy proposals to prefer his style of constructive engagement to the "just say no" attitude that had become dominant in the Republican Party.

I am with Ezra here.  Even though I think Mitch Daniels is a nicer version of John Kasich, I'm glad he was willing to propose some actual policy ideas, and to accept that taxes may have to go up.  The Republican party has been so taken with living in their own little make-believe world, it is refreshing to see somebody actually engage with the real world.  Somebody has to ignore the party base and recognize that government has an important function in civil society.  Daniels was as close to that as I've seen so far.  I think in the end, Daniels is just one of the many Republican governors in the Midwest trying to drag his state down to the level of Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas.  They seem to think that cutting education will benefit the state, and that lower tax rates and wages will lead to more business investment in their state.  I have my doubts.

Mitch Daniels Won't Run For President

Louisville Courier-Journal:

Gov. Mitch Daniels told supporters overnight that family considerations have led him to decide against running for president, despite pressure to run from top Republicans nationally.

“In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one,” Daniels said in the e-mail. “The interests and wishes of my family is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry.”

The decision comes roughly two years after he ran an ad in his gubernatorial re-election campaign promising that he would never seek another public office. And the governor’s move follows months of mulling over a race he has publicly said he never sought or wanted.

While I'm not really with the Mitch Daniels program, I would have liked to have seen him run, since he generally seemed to be somebody who would recognize that taxes must go up to help solve our budget problems.  He didn't square well with the mouth breathers of the Republican base, who were hopefully raptured up to Heaven last night.  That doesn't leave many non-idiot potential nominees for the Republican candidacy.  Right now, I would guess John Huntsman would be the best option, but I think he's really setting up to run in 2016, when many people think a moderate might have a chance after Republicans drive the crazy car off of a cliff in 2012.  I guess we'll see what comes about, but I think it appears unlikely that sanity will break loose in the Republican party in the next 18 months.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice.....

Are Americans really dumb enough to elect another Texas governor president after the experience with the last one?  Some people think so:

As many grass-roots Republicans remain in search of a conservative candidate with the pizazz to go toe-to-toe against President Obama, a man from deep in the heart of Texas who was tea party before the tea party was cool appears to be giving the presidential race some thought.
Gov. Rick Perry has insisted on multiple occasions that he has no interest in the presidency, but RCP has learned that political associates have begun to nose around quietly on Perry's behalf.
A Texas pol who is close to Perry has been telling a few key strategists that the nation's longest-serving governor sees a vacuum and is waiting to be summoned into the race. This source believes that could happen by late summer. Without fellow Southerners Haley Barbour or Mike Huckabee in the race -- and with Newt Gingrich's early troubles raising further doubts about the current lineup -- there could be a glaring niche for Perry to fill.
According to another well-connected Republican, at least one Perry confidant has been very quietly making inquiries about the political terrain in the nation's first voting state of Iowa. A third Perry associate, RCP has learned, has been heralding a small contingent of Iowans with the time-tested line that is often used by would-be candidates who are leaving their options open: "Keep your powder dry."
Perry's aides have long made it clear that the tough-talking Texan, who succeeded George W. Bush in Austin in 2000, would not seriously entertain the idea of mounting a White House run before the state's legislative session finishes at the end of this month. That date is now less than two weeks away, and the 2012 presidential field remains fluid.

This governor doesn't seem any brighter than the last one, so I hope to goodness that the Perry bandwagon doesn't get any momentum.  I would think that we ought to steer clear of Texans for a while, after the turd GWB dropped on this country.

Update:  I should include the classic GWB clip:

Add Another Clown to the Circus

Elspeth Reeve reports Michele Bachmann will announce her presidential candidacy in June:

Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign is "beyond speculation," a Republican consultant tells Fox News' Chris Stirewalt. "They are doing this." The Minnesota congresswoman's advisers are telling reporters that it's "very likely" she'll jump in the race now that the lineup is starting to shake out. With evangelical favorite Mike Huckabee dropping out, Newt Gingrich in freefall practically minutes into his campaign, and Sarah Palin looking like she won't run, only Rick Santorum stands between Bachmann and the social conservative vote.

In another good sign for Bachmann, the early favorable polls for Donald Trump's faux candidacy show that some Republican voters, at least, have an appetite for sharp attacks on President Obama, something at which Bachmann excels. Since Trump announced that, you know what, business is his "greatest passion" after all, calls to Bachmann's offices "have been burning up our lines," a source told Fox News' Carl Cameron. One caller deemed the Tea Party favorite "our Margaret Thatcher!"

The Republican candidates for president should ride to the debates in one car, and not because that would be fuel efficient.

Gingrich Attacks Ryan Budget?

Andrew Sullivan covers Newt Gingrich's surprising Meet the Press slam on Paul Ryan:

This is interesting. Gingrich has now gone on record against Paul Ryan's proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher system designed not to keep pace with inflation, on the grounds that it is too radical a change, and reiterates his support for an individual mandate. That's two kicks to the balls of the movement right, as the splutters from NRO and Hot Air illustrate. May I just point out that vast parts of the Obama health reform were once conservative orthodoxy (healthcare exchanges, for example, and building on the private industry), just as cap and trade was once conservative orthodoxy.
Nonetheless, it's a sign that Newt may surprise this campaign season, either because he fears that the current GOP strategy reminds him a little scarily of what he once went through or because he's trying to win elderly primary voters, or because he just thinks Ryan's plan for Medicare really is too extreme a measure, given where America now is.

Maybe there will be a little healthy discussion in the GOP primary race.  I wouldn't count on it from any of them, but this seems like somewhat of a good sign.

Update: Mistermix at Balloon Juice doesn't see this as a good sign for GOP reasonableness:

Since his campaign is built on coded dog whistles, Newt’s targeting a older, white electorate that knows the code and hears the whistle.  So it’s no surprise that he ditched the Ryan plan almost immediately. And since he’s Newt, he has to make the Ryan plan sound like something Stalin cooked up:

He goes on to say that Newt seems to be reprising his '90's role as one of the Democrat's biggest assets, which I guess would be a positive development in my opinion.

Gingrich Throws His Oversized Ego Into the Ring

Matt Taibbi on Gingrich announcing his presidential candidacy (h/t The Dish):

Purely from a political-theater standpoint, Gingrich brings several really outstanding qualities to this race. For one thing, he’s a legit threat to win the nomination. He wouldn’t be in any normal year, but when the field is Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum, anyone who can successfully lick a postage stamp without an instruction booklet is going to be a contender.

I can't believe that a single political party could come up with so many pathetic candidates for president, and yet they have.  It is going to be a very entertaining year-and-a-half.  And yet, if the economy tanks again, something I think is a very real possibility, one of these bozos may get elected.  That is not entertaining at all.

Being Catholic and Republican

Daniel Larison looks at Rick Santorum and analyzes the intersection of religious and partisan beliefs:

At the Republican presidential debate on Thursday Rick Santorum was asked about Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’s suggestion that there be a social truce. Santorum answered, “Anybody that would suggest we call a truce on moral issues doesn’t understand what America is all about.”
That is wrong. In fact, it’s the precise opposite of what America is about. ~Jennifer Rubin

They’re both wrong in different ways. America is not “about” anything in the way that these two mean it. America isn’t a creedal or proposition nation, and it isn’t an idea or an ideological project. Genuine constitutional conservatism is worthwhile, and it involves more than Berkowitz’s warmed-over fusionism, but it isn’t reducible to individual liberty or limited government, and one cannot claim that America is “about” either of these things. Despite their wishes to the contrary, Christian and especially Catholic conservatives cannot correctly attach moral or religious significance to the founding principles of a Whiggish republic.
What I will say in Santorum’s defense is that he has made this mistake because he considers moral issues, especially those that concern the protection of life and family stability, to be vitally important to a healthy and flourishing culture. At times, Santorum seems to want to argue that eternal verities and pre-political loyalties should take priority in how we organize our society and our polity, and he is probably one of the few Republicans to have held federal office recently to understand that obligations to a community and the common good are not the same as accepting the encroachment of the state. Then he often veers off on some strange militaristic tangent or, as he did the other night, endorses the use of torture on detainees, because he has already made the earlier mistake of attaching too much significance to the nation-state. That in turn leads him to support measures that directly contradict the moral principles that he normally defends. Santorum’s views are the unfortunate mish-mash that results from combining Catholic social teaching with Americanism and militarism, as the latter two tend to overshadow anything interesting that Santorum might have to say from his understanding of the former.

There are a lot of significant points which can be made about this subject.  Daniel pursues how pro-life voters became enmeshed in a bargain with the international interventionalist in support of wars which run counter to their moral values, and how the culture war is a way for the war hawks to co-opt the social conservatives to their war views. 

I think it is interesting to look at how Democratic and Republican Catholics cater their views about which social teachings by the Church are important to follow based on their party's interests.  Democratic Catholics are more likely to support gay marriage,labor unions, the legality of abortion and welfare programs, while being opposed to the death penalty and the war in Iraq.  Republican Catholics often want bans on gay marriage and abortion, destruction of unions, an end to welfare programs and support both the death penalty and the war in Iraq.  It seems like political platforms trump Church teaching nearly every time.  Not exactly a good trend for the stability of the Catholic Church in America.  I would guess that is a contributing factor to making "Former Catholic" the second largest "religious group" in the United States.

Update:  I neglected to mention torture.  Santorum explicitly supported the use of torture on detainees during last week's debate.  Daniel mentioned it, and I hate to leave it off the list of positions against Catholic teaching which Republicans have embraced.

More on the Endgame

John Mauldin, over at the Big Picture:

Let me jump out on a real limb. I was having dinner last Monday with Christian Menegatti, the #2 economist at friend Nouriel Roubini’s economic analysis shop. We were comparing notes (imagine that), and he said their opinion is that the US has until 2015 before the bond market really calls the deficit hand. Knowing that Nouriel is seen as the ultimate bear, it makes me nervous to put out my own even more bearish analysis.
I think the crucial point will be reached in late 2013. If the bond market sees a serious move to control the deficit, I think they let us “skate.” Then we Muddle Through. But if not, I think we begin to see some real push-back on rates then.
Why so early? Because bond investors are going to be watching the slow-motion train wreck that is happening in Europe and especially Japan. It is one thing for Greece to default (which they will in one form or another, with lots of rumors flying this morning), yet another for Japan to do so. Japan is big and makes a difference. Japan could start to go as early as the middle of 2013. As I have said, Japan is a bug in search of a windshield. Whenever this happens, 2013 or a year or so later, it is going to spook the bond market. The normal indulgence that a superpower and reserve-currency country would be accorded will become much more strained. It will seemingly happen overnight. Think Lehman Brothers on steroids.
I think the chances we will deal with this potential crisis are about 75%. Not doing so is such a horrific outcome that I think politicians will do the right thing. See, I am an optimist. (What was it Winston Churchill said? “You can always depend on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”)

He is endorsing $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.  I would think more along the lines of drastically overhauling the heath care sector with single payer, slashing defense spending and wrapping up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (and Libya), then $2 in tax increases/tax reform for every $1 of spending decreases.  I think he is right that the deficit and debt are huge issues, but I think he is slanted too much in an anti-government direction.  Likewise, he is much more optimistic about Republican politicians being able to fix this mess.  So far, I have yet to see a decent likely candidate for the GOP nomination in 2012.  I sure don't want any of the guys who participated in the debate last week running the country.  He also doesn't mention issues we may face with resource scarcity or climate change.  We face a lot of hurdles in the near future, and we're going to have to put aside much of our enmtiy with our political opponents and make true shared sacrifice.  So far, I don't see much of that from Republicans.  I don't even see them acknowledging what I think are pretty obvious facts.  This is going to be a tough process.

How Does Privatization Work in Indiana?

Kay at Balloon Juice challenges the alleged competency of Mitch Daniels:

Specifically, I’d like to look at one instance of his alleged competence and responsible stewardship of taxpayer money.
Daniels is currently, right now, embroiled in a lawsuit related to his failed privatization of the administrative services end of food stamp and Medicaid programs. Daniels outsourced the work to IBM. It was abundantly clear the privatization plan was a disaster right from the start for the people who receive food stamps and Medicaid, but Daniels waited two years to stop the statewide roll-out, because the conservative ideology behind the plan was pure and infallible.
IBM sued on the contract Daniels had negotiated and signed on behalf of the people of Indiana, when Daniels (eventually) fired them. That all by itself is amusing, because Daniels stripped middle class public employees of their bargaining rights with a stroke of his mighty executive pen shortly after assuming office. Sadly, Mitch found out IBM doesn’t go down as easy as teachers or firefighters do. They hauled his ass right into court, rather than having their lawyers march on the statehouse and sing solidarity songs.

One of the big things I noted in the discussion of privatizing the Ohio Turnpike was that Ohio's people said Ohio wouldn't get screwed like Indiana.  That takes a little of the sheen off of the mystique of one of the Indiana governor's signal accomplishments.

Foghorn Leghorn Sits Out the 2012 Campaign

So, Haley Barbour, the former tobacco lobbyist, former RNC chairman and White Citizens' Council supporter won't run for President.  That means I'll have to go to YouTube to hear a Southern drawl and folksy sayings.

Mr. Obvious Headline of the Day

Josh Green's post on Donald Trump has the headline, "In Financial Circles, It's Pretty Well Known that Trump is a Deadbeat." 

No kidding.  Even amongst Western Ohio farmers that is pretty well known. I can't believe that he could run for President when the country is facing bankruptcy, unless we want somebody in there who knows about the process.  That dude has bombed more deals than we've bombed wedding receptions in Afghanistan.  Jeez.  From the story:

Last night, NBC News did a damning expose of Trump's record, which is replete with bankruptcies, lawsuits, and aggrieved former investors. But that only scratched the surface. Trump's hilarious, bombastic dismissal of Mitt Romney's business career, coupled with his heightened political profile and rampant egotism, suddenly seems to be rubbing Wall Street folks the wrong way. Financiers who chuckled about Trump, have become peeved and willing to share their thoughts on his business acumen.

Earlier this evening, I had the opportunity to get the unvarnished thoughts of a former Deutsche Bank employee familiar with Trump from this $640-million deal gone awry on the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago. Trump was sued to collect on a $40-million personal guarantee that was part of the deal. Suffice it to say, the banker held a dim view of the Donald. "[The Chicago deal] was pretty minor given all the other things going on at the time. Real estate developers do default from time to time," he said. "But this guy has been doing it for 20 years, failing. Remember the Trump Shuttle? That's why he'll never run. His finances just won't hold up to scrutiny. It's pretty well known in financial circles that this guy is a deadbeat."

Why would anybody take this guy seriously?  My guess is that he's just a glorified con man, but the GOP always seems to fall for a flim-flam man.

Is the Iowa Republican Party Really That Kooky?

Daniel Larison takes on Johnathon Bernstein's contention that Michele Bachmann can't win the Iowa Caucus:

After all, it wasn’t particularly because Huckabee was a multi-term state executive that Huckaee was able to ride a wave of evangelical caucus-goers to victory in 2008. Huckabee won because he could appeal directly to evangelical voters as someone who shared their beliefs and experiences and spoke their language. His lack of campaign organization was less important in Iowa, because he was able to mobilize informal networks of evangelical church-goers. As Sean Scallon’s TAC profiile of Bachmann explained, she comes from a similar religious background, she has a long record of social conservative activism, she has family roots in Iowa, and she spent part of her childhood in Waterloo.
When Huckabee started, he wasn’t all that well known outside of Arkansas. By comparison, Bachmann is probably among the best-known Republican members of Congress nationwide, and she already has a following and a significant fund-raising network in place. Her appearances in Iowa have been quite well-received among activists, and she is using many of the same themes that Huckabee used to build up his following in Iowa. This isn’t proof of Iowan “craziness,” but of Bachmann’s ability to appeal to the sorts of conservative activists she needs to win over if she is going to compete seriously and possibly win in Iowa.

Folks, she's a moron.  Don't waste your vote.  We need somebody with a brain in charge, don't you remember President George W. Bush. He was Albert Einstein compared to Michele Bachmann.