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.

Obama vs. Ryan, ctd.

Joe Klein on GOP reactions to Obama's budget (via the Dish):

And so it's painful when reality intrudes. Here is the reality: the Republicans have spent the past 30 years creating deficits and the Democrats have spent the past 30 years closing them. The unimportance of deficits became an article of faith during the second Bush Administration: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," Dick Cheney famously said. It has been rather hilarious for those of us with even a minimal grasp of recent history to watch these folks pull fierce 180-degree turns on the issue--and it is even more hilarious to watch them accuse Obama of hyper-partisanship after the dump-truck full of garbage they visited upon his head these past few years.
Indeed, the sheer hatred that Republicans have for Obama has led them to overreach, to latch onto Paul Ryan's well-outside-the-mainstream budget plan. They now face a presidential election where they are completely tied to the idea of destroying the most popular government program out there--Medicare. They are now tied to the incredibly cruel and witless notion that they're going to ask 90-year-olds to make free market choices, with vouchers constantly diminishing in value, in an extremely complicated health market. And most important, as the President said, they are now tied to a slick attempt to make middle class people pay more for Medicare while demanding lower taxes for the wealthy.

Republicans are their own worst enemies.  They are also the worst enemies of the middle class.  As poorly informed as this electorate is, and as bad off as this economy is, Republicans would have a good shot at winning back the White House if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot all the time.  I don't understand why Republicans hate passenger rail, when they are always riding the economic policy crazy train.  It is good to see mainstream journalists call them out on it.

Pawlenty's Fiscal Stewardship

From the LA Times:

"Tim Pawlenty's philosophy of fiscal management can be summarized as 'kick the can down the road,'" said former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson, a Republican, referring to what he calls Pawlenty's pattern of "engaging in heavy borrowings and shifting costs to local governments, including school districts, while not confronting the state's serious challenges."

Carlson, who endorsed Pawlenty when he first ran for governor in 2002 and backed Barack Obama for president in 2008, represents an older and now much-maligned brand of moderate Republicanism once dominant in Minnesota. He and like-minded critics take issue not only with Pawlenty's abilities as an economic steward, but also with the core of his governing philosophy: that his approach of limiting taxes and spending would stimulate economic growth.

Even some of the ascendant conservative Republicans — those who worked closely with Pawlenty and share his philosophy — offer criticism or muted praise. They are frustrated with Pawlenty for different reasons, citing his support for the tax increase on cigarettes.

"'Health impact fee' was a euphemism. It was a tax," said Jason Lewis, a conservative Minneapolis-based talk radio host, who says he has a "love/hate" relationship with the former governor. He lauded Pawlenty's political skills but lamented what he said were moderate positions Pawlenty had taken through the years.

This is the heart of the dilemma we now face.  Republicans refuse to raise any taxes, even though taxes have been frequently cut at the federal and state levels for almost 30 years, while Democrats decry all spending cuts.  There has to be a middle ground.  The Bush Tax Cuts should not have been extended completely for the next two years, and should all go away in 2012.  The federal government is going to have to work with doctors, hospitals and other interested parties to rein in health care costs.  Instead, we have Republicans proposing dramatic cuts to all spending while recommending that there be no tax increases, and sometimes proposing even more ridiculous tax cuts, while Democrats can only find budget cuts in the bloated Defense Department.  This insanity will not end well.

A Double Dip Recession?

Robert Reich says yes (via Economist's View):

What about the 192,000 jobs added in February? (We’ll know more Friday about how many jobs were added in March.) It’s peanuts compared to what’s needed. Remember, 125,000 new jobs are necessary just to keep up with a growing number of Americans eligible for employment. And the nation has lost so many jobs over the last three years that even at a rate of 200,000 a month we wouldn’t get back to 6 percent unemployment until 2016.
But isn’t the economy growing again – by an estimated 2.5 to 2.9 percent this year? Yes, but that’s even less than peanuts. The deeper the economic hole, the faster the growth needed to get back on track. By this point in the so-called recovery we’d expect growth of 4 to 6 percent.
Consider that back in 1934, when it was emerging from the deepest hole of the Great Depression, the economy grew 7.7 percent. The next year it grew over 8 percent. In 1936 it grew a whopping 14.1 percent.
Add two other ominous signs: Real hourly wages continue to fall, and housing prices continue to drop.

I think he's probably closer to being right than wrong.  The federal, state and local budget cuts are going to be a big drain on potential growth, and commodity price increases will also hurt.  My fear is that Republicans won't find a sane candidate, the economy will tank, and the moron of their choice will be running things in 2013, that's when we get serious trouble.  He touches on politics to some extent:

Washington, meanwhile, doesn’t want to sound the economic alarm. The White House and most Democrats want Americans to believe the economy is on an upswing.
Republicans, for their part, worry that if they tell it like it is Americans will want government to do more rather than less. They’d rather not talk about jobs and wages, and put the focus instead on deficit reduction (or spread the lie that by reducing the deficit we’ll get more jobs and higher wages).
I’m sorry to have to deliver the bad news, but it’s better you know.

More Talk of the GOP Clown Show

Joe Klein:

This is my 10th presidential campaign, Lord help me. I have never before seen such a bunch of vile, desperate-to-please, shameless, embarrassing losers coagulated under a single party's banner. They are the most compelling argument I've seen against American exceptionalism. Even Tim Pawlenty, a decent governor, can't let a day go by without some bilious nonsense escaping his lizard brain. And, as Greg Sargent makes clear, Mitt Romney has wandered a long way from courage. There are those who say, cynically, if this is the dim-witted freak show the Republicans want to present in 2012, so be it. I disagree. One of them could get elected. You never know. Mick Huckabee, the front-runner if you can believe it, might have to negotiate a trade agreement, or a defense treaty, with the Indonesian President some day. Newt might have to discuss very delicate matters of national security with the President of Pakistan. And so I plead, as an unflinching American patriot--please Mitch Daniels, please Jeb Bush, please run. I may not agree with you on most things, but I respect you. And you seem to respect yourselves enough not to behave like public clowns.
Please, in the name of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, run.

This freak show has been building for a long time.  It is why I tried my hand and failed at politics.  I can't believe people would actually vote for these guys (and girl).

The 2012 Candidates, thus far

Dave Weigel reports from Iowa (h/t Balloon Juice), where Iowa loon congressman Steve King hosted Haley Barbour, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and John Bolton. Yes, that's right.  Tobacco lobbyist, pizza company CEO, blowhard, idiot and crazy asshole.  His write-up on Bachmann:

The breakout star of the event (Maggie Haberman saw as much from the scene) is one of only two who gives a pure political speech, with applause lines, call-and-response, and a sense of urgency and destiny. The line that's generated the most attention is "I'm in! You're in! We're in!" -- she's been saying that for a while. More interesting to me is how neatly she ties together the work of Congress, references to the Constitution, and non-shrill religious appeal. She quotes John Adams on religion, then adds her own take: "You cannot build a nation unless it is build on a rock solid foundation." She knows exactly what outrages and legislation the crowd wants to hear about. "By the way, just so you know, I introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act!" There is huge applause for this. "Iowans can be trusted to choose their own light bulbs! They're really smart people." A B+ speech.

Ah, way to mention the light bulbs.  We have to have the freedom to use light bulbs that produce way more heat than light.  Thank God we have this idiot to protect us from evil flourescent light bulbs.  If anybody hasn't noticed, our economy still sucks.  I don't think bringing back incandescent bulbs is going to fix that.  While we're at it, get those water-wasting toilets back.

Herman Cain won the straw poll at the event.  Weigel gave him an A-.

Late Night Comedians Will Have it Easy

Michele Bachmann announces the formation of an exploratory committee for a Presidential run in 2012.

At least we will find out how many people are off their rockers.