Anti-Trump conservatives

I've been neglecting this story for too long. Some conservatives, and not the usual suspects, have been clearly against Trump. Eric Erickson of RedState makes an impassioned argument against Trump as a wicked person lacking morals. Another writer at RedState blasts Jerry Falwell Jr for supporting Trump. Glenn Beck is also making a moral argument against Trump.

Image: theinsurgent.com

Related Extras. Erickson tells of Trump supporters harassing him, and the deeply difficult decision not to support Trump at a time of great stress in his family. This article lists several prominent conservatives who are against Trump. However, I will never give Mark Levin credit for his stand because I've never known him to do something for the right reason. He's one of the biggest liars I ever seen, including doctoring evidence.

Unrelated Extras. Unbelievable theory that the Trump video was a fake. Why Trump's charges of voter fraud are unbelievable. A prediction that the GOP will continue on a white nationalist course. Former conservative Andrew Sullivan argues that Trump is a fascist.

50 Shades of Trump

All orange!!!!

OK, that cliche is taken care of. On to the real topic.

Everyone is trying to sort out who Trump really is and what to do about him. I've read scads of interesting thoughts, and my browser tabs overfloweth. I must cram them all into one post, so here goes.

Theory 1. From Reason, a libertarian site, comes a rant about Trump being a demogogue and racist. Lots of good, pithy phrases here, such as "politics built on entirely on grievance," with no plan for governance.

Theory 2. From a left-leaning heavyweight thinker, a clear assessment of the biggest danger than Trump--his vindictiveness when he has the US Department of Justice under his control. Can Trump do this in the US of A where we have due process? Yes. He can make life miserable for the honest federal prosecutors, they quit, and he replaces them with his flunkies, who then sue or prosecute Trump's targets du jour. It's a nightmare. (If you're in a hurry when you read it, skip down to where he starts talking about the Department of Justice.)

Theory 3. Trump must lose and Trumpism must be defeated. This is from RedState. According to this author, Trump is a thoroughly awful person who lies, has no core principles, and is "capricious and dangerous." It's imperative to defeat him, but it has be done by someone who deserves the presidency and can lead the mistaken followers of Trump to a better path and a worthy path. Who can do that? Hahahaha, that's where the surprise is.

Theory 4. Also from RedState. The Supreme Court isn't enough of a reason to vote for Trump. Don't do it!!!!! Trump will cut deals with the Dems and true conservatism will be defeated again. No, conservatives must prevent Trump's nomination.

Theory 5. From Jonathan Chait, a riveting excoriation of Trump's lies and turn-abouts. Trump is so scary because he exempts himself from the norms of society when it comes to truth, his own past statements, and his vendettas against others.

Theory 6. This is not so much a theory as an interesting piece from HotAir. I visited the site to get their take on Trump. It wasn't particularly friendly. In this post, they fault Trump for his ego and compare it to Obama's ego.

Theory 7. Trump is a long-shot, but with this handy checklist, you can tell in advance if Trump will win. Written with a funny edge.

Theory 8. From the Daily Caller, Trump is "the cleansing forest fire... the great calamity we need" to clean the charlatans out of the conservative movement, including Trump himself. Still, the big question is; "Conservatives can decry the 'fascism' and 'demagoguery' of Trump all they want, but they need to understand why someone like that can run off with their party." Too bad the article doesn't even begin to answer that question.

Theory 9. I couldn't find much support for Trump in the mainstream conservative sites, so I ended up at this no-name site. Here, the theory is that Trump pushes back in just the way that the silent majority has prayed for. He's blunt, he tells it like it is, there are no boring policy papers that never pan out anyway, and he's a winner.

Theory 10. This one is very different. It looks at the polls of Trump versus Sanders, and notes that a poorly-known Democrat does pretty well against Trump. That doesn't bode well for Trump if he hopes to get Dems to cross over and vote for him. They don't seem overly disposed to do that.

Theory 11: Trump is less scary than another four years of Dems and their PC, agenda-controlling, intolerant white-male bashing.

Image: ratemyjob.com

Extras. I need a place to store this link. So here is Theory X: Trump is a conman and Trump University was one of his biggest cons. Still being litigated. Trump (as always) says the judge is unfair and also Mexican. The Trump "University" hard-sell playbook here.

The Tea Party gears up to strike out, yet again

The Tea Party really, REALLY wants to crucify Obama, but they'll settle for impeachment. Boehner is trying to buy them off with a pansy-waist lawsuit, but some of them aren't taking it. Erick Erickson is howling for Congress to man up on impeachment. So is Sarah Palin.

• Not so fast, according to John Boehner and Bob Goodlatte, chair of the committee which would have to handle impeachment. 
• Not so fast, Erick Erickson changes his tune. 

Oddly, one day after Palin's rallying cry for impeachment, Erickson decided that impeachment won't work. He's sticking with his assessment that a lawsuit is a stunt, so that leaves the power of the purse--the shutdown and default strategy that didn't work last time.

Palin called for impeachment on July 8, and by July 9, she had that sinking ship pretty much to herself. On July 13, William Kristol declared that "No responsible Republican has called  for impeachment." I could say Palin had been hung out to dry, except that she's a gutless, witless, second-string toady who doesn't even realize how lame and stupid she is. She hangs herself out to dry just by opening her mouth and letting stale conservative talking points crawl out. Then, she doubles-down on her own stupidity, as in this insipid column on all the non-specific wrongs Obama has committed.

Today there's a poll showing that 35% of the country want Obama impeached. I'm betting on a far different number within six months, if there's any poll at all. The impeachment mania has peaked, and now it's going downhill. Should someone like Ted Cruz push for impeachment, they will get slapped in the face with a dead fish. They won't get ushered into the driver's seat, as happened last year.

I wonder how long before the majority of Tea Partyers realize this. How long before Palin realizes? What will they do when they do realize it? That might be interesting to observe. Usually, however, bad ideas end with a whimper, not a bang. That's probably what will happen here.

To be completely honest, I didn't realize how dead impeachment was when I started this post. But I figured it out, and much faster than Palin will.

Boehner's nuts ... or Palin's marbles?

Image: oops, lost the reference

Extras. Impeachment was so last February. A humorous summary of Palin's complaint.

Update 7/16/14. More Republicans say impeachment is unworkable. I guess Sarah missed the memo.

Update 1/2/16. Not much on the impeachment front in all of 2015. Some deluded people in a red state. A comical twist with the delusion here. Waves of mixed messages here.

Smallest nuclear blast ever

Finally the Democratic Senate got fed up with the GOP blocking just about every damn nominee. They voted to end the Senate rule that allows filibustering of judicial nominees, with an exception that still allows the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.

Earlier this year, the GOP backed down in the face of the Dems going nuclear. Why not this time? Here's the best answer I've seen:

"It could make the difference for a Republican, in that they no longer have to tag team to break cloture on nominees they want to let through, so there won't be as many ads to run about how 'so and so says they're a conservative, but they voted with Obama 327 times!'" -- Plain blog commenter

This identifies the real reason for the change in the GOP position. It was getting harder for the GOP to stop their own filibusters even when they reached unthinking, foot-stomping stubbornness. So now they've allowed the Dems to render that problem moot. (Update. Bernstein make the same argument here, but it comes from a professional and highly educated political observer.)

No other writer came up with this analysis. The MSM was treating it as no big deal. At the Daily Kos, it was mostly cheers for the defeat of those obstructionist Republicans. HotAir was loud, negative, and scattered. Some pointed out the hypocrisy of the Dems, a few looked forward to using the same power when the GOP reclaims the Senate, a few quoted Limbaugh's laughable analysis that the rules would last only for the Dems' advantage, and then revert. George Will laments the end of a "deliberative" Senate and the beginning of a coarse, 'majority dictates' Senate that is not bound by rules, but by expediency. 

RedState had a different take--it wants the end of all cooperation in the Senate in retaliation. The Senate won't pass anything inconvenient like an immigration bill, a farm bill, a continuing resolution--zip. Except that no true conservative trusts the squishy Senate RINOs, certainly not at RedState or HotAir

Thank God for that clear-eyed commenter who understood why the change happened now. In the long run, perhaps George Will will be proven right--we might deeply regret this change. But I don't know a way around it because the Senate has already slid so far down the slope. 

Image: tripadvisor.com.au

GOP stands up to the Tea Party Part 2

So many thoughts. Not so many complete sentences.

GOP standing up to Tea Party. Orrin Hatch blasts Heritage. Corporate backers stick with Boehner, toy with the idea of backing establishment Republicans against Tea Partyers.

Tea Party not backing down. RedState doesn't want a house divided; it wants a house purged.

Tea Party is still behind its belief that Obamacare can be stopped/defunded/gutted. They pretend that this was the plan all along, to fight tooth and nail, close down government, do everything they can. But that's a story that only started over the summer.

In this article, RedState blames the GOP for not following through on defund promises, but all the early articles it refers to talk about broad fiscal goals, not Obamacare. I checked the RedState archives: Ben Carson, black neurologist hero of the Tea Party, had lots of complaints about Obama, not just Obamacare. In a February article, the focus was on governors refusing to set up exchanges. Search for "defund," "repeal," and "delay" in articles from that time and you'll see that it wasn't part of the vocabulary then.

Rush Limbaugh, another big voice (and big ego) for the Tea Party, isn't backing down either. He wants Ted Cruz and Mike Lee times 5 or 10 or 45 in the Senate. Per the Washington Times, the Tea Party is "poised for a major victory in the larger Obamacare War." Details absent, though.

Image: usnews.com

Extras. History of the shutdown per Politico. How the House voted on the measure to end the shutdown and raise the debt limit. How the Senate voted. Currently the Senate has about 10 senators with similar strategies to Ted Cruz/Mike Lee. After the 2014 election, who knows.

So many great images to choose from. Google image search: GOP stands up to tea party cartoon.

Another RedState article where they look at evidence but still somehow manage to draw the wrong conclusion--that is, the conclusion they want to draw.

Will the GOP finally stand up to the Tea Party?

I don't know. This was a big debacle for the GOP because they followed the Tea Party's preferred strategy. However, it's going to be hard to prove the Tea Party was wrong to the Tea Party adherents. They've set up a test that works like this:

• We will win if we try hard enough. 
• If we didn't win, it shows we didn't try hard enough.

That's not an argument you can disprove without getting theoretical and talking about the necessity of falsifiable hypotheses, and the theory of proof, and ... DO YOU THINK THE TEA PARTY CARES ABOUT THAT INTELLECTUAL STUFF? NO, THEY JUST GOT THEIR NEW TALKING POINTS FROM HERITAGE. (Ok, not Heritage, but one of those other Tea Partyish groups.)

So the Tea Party will never concede that its strategy was wrong or that its policy goals are wrong. But now, as I write this post, the GOP establishment is in the very process of folding. The Senate will vote on the Reid-McConnell short term compromise to raise the debt ceiling and end the government shutdown.

What will the relationship between the GOP and the Tea Party be after this vote? Tea Party and very conservative pressure groups like RedState, Club for Growth, Heritage, and FreedomWorks have warned Republicans not to support the CR/debt ceiling increase. The Tea Party isn't relenting.

That leaves the decision of how to respond to the GOP establishment. The votes may tell us something. If many GOP senators and representatives support the bill, they will show that they're rebuking the TP strategy. Furthermore, if these Republicans actively engage in the negotiations scheduled for the next two months, that is completely counter the TP game plan. That is what I'd like to see--the mainstream GOP following a different strategy from the Tea Party, a strategy that is pragmatic and based on what can be accomplished and what the majority of the electorate supports.

As I wrote above, I don't know if the GOP is going to stand up to the Tea Party, but I certainly hope they do. It will be good for the country... and fun to watch!

Image: whatsupyasieve.wordpress.com

Day2 roundup: GOP plan, maybe. Tea Party plan, no.

So two days into the government shutdown, where are we? The GOP still seems to be scrambling around for a plan, but perhaps there are glimmers of one. Robert Costa, reporter for National Review, seems to have the best inside information. I've been reading his tweets since about 10pm on 9/30/13, and it's interesting. He seemed to learn very quickly what the House leadership's next move would be, like the ridiculous call for a conference committee to work out a deal in, oh, 1 hour.

So this morning, Costa tweets that Paul Ryan is going to try for a combo dealing covering both funding and debt limit, that will be "fiscal." What does that mean? My guess is that negotiations will focus on budget issues, particularly spending cuts to lower the deficit. Delaying or defunding Obamacare won't be the focus.

But wait. Early this afternoon, Costa tweets that the leadership will follow the Cruz strategy of funding everything piecemeal--probably everything except Obamacare and the EPA.

Nope, that didn't last. Mid-afternoon, Costa is tweeting again about Ryan being the lead bargainer on a grand deal. Again, there's nothing about Obamacare in this.

Does the conservative press know about this? I checked HotAir. They're referring to Costa and Politico, and speculating that maybe Ryan can pressure the Dems on Obamacare, or maybe he'll go for a more "traditional" fiscal deal. Meaning--like the sequester, which didn't touch Obamacare.

At Breitbart, a no-name columnist wants to keep the Cruz plan, but it's not a forward-looking column about what could or will happen in the next few weeks--so no plan there. TownHall, NewsMax, nothing on the Tea Party plan. Only at RedState, Erickson wants go back to defunding Obamacare and threatening any non-compliant Republicans with oblivion. It will work!!!!!!

What are the Dems doing? Waiting for the Republicans to sew themselves together into a semblance of a political force and make their next proposal, which hopefully will make more sense and last longer than the three four throw-away GOP proposals of Shutdown Eve.

Image: huffingtonpost.com

Extra. Belatedly in honor of Ted Cruz:

Image:  hyenacart.com

Roundup: Still no Tea Party Plan

So the House surprised watchers by sending a hopeless funding bill to certain dismemberment in the Senate. The Senate even has a timetable for the dismemberment (Cruz yaks on Tuesday through Wednesday noon, cloture vote Wednesday, strip out Obamacare defunding Friday or Saturday, pass it, send it back to House for possible rinse and repeat). The Senate, anticipating the reaction from the House, might make it a short term funding bill only through November or December.

What is the Tea Party plan now? I went looking for it, inspired by Bernstein's very detailed guess about what would be happening in the House concerning the continuing resolution and debt ceiling votes (worth reading).

So this is what I found.

HotAir is telling its TP audience that Boehner's response will be a bill to delay Obamacare. HotAir warns that there will be a shutdown, but that will just light a fire under the lazy Senate.

Several voices are telling Tea Partiers that it's hopeless. Since they lost the election, Obamacare is going ahead and it can't be defunded. When John McCain tells them, the TP is defiant. Erick Erickson at RedState is defiant. He seems to think Cruz has a plan, but forgets to say what it is. At Breitbart, a columnist with that reality message is labeled a progressive, and the message is derided. Elsewhere at Breitbart, it's hooray for Cruz.

There are no signs that the Tea Party has a plan and even realizes the need for a plan. There's no discussion that "we do this, then they'll do that, then we'll counter with this." Nothing like that at all. These people are absurd in their lack of awareness that other people exist and have power. How did they get to be so oblivious? Jennifer Rubin, who is usually worthless, explains that they wrongly extrapolate their media share.

So are there any indications of what the Tea Party will do next? No. However, the ball will soon be back at the House, so the House leadership is trying to figure out its next move. They haven't ironed it out yet, as time ticks away to October 1. Politico reports the next House bill might delay the implementation of Obamacare. That would be another hopeless volley, and shutdown would follow. Perhaps the Washington Post report is more accurate--that the House might do something with a debt-limit increase and lots of sweeteners for GOP causes. It's not reported what the plan for funding is.

So it's all as clear as mud right now, 4.5 days away from the end of statutory funding. Thank you, Tea Party.

Image: citizenchris.typepad.com

Same day update: A preview of the proposal from the House shows one aspect of the Tea Party plan. They plan to make the fight as bloody as possible in non-contact politics. See the likely new demands. The Tea Party will be stabbing and nicking anyone who isn't a complete supporter. And they've invited their ravening friends to watch.

Update 9/27/13. Still no plan. House GOP to meet Saturday.

The temptation to blow up government

The talk (or blather) from the Tea Party crowd is that the Republicans in the House and Senate should shut down the budget process unless they get much more of what they want. For the purposes of this post, I'll ignore that they don't have a realistic budget proposal, much less a compromise proposal, so no real proposal at all. They still want that magic something, and some are agitating for a "Let's show 'em" stance. They are tired of the GOP folding, and they want to push hard enough to see whether the Dems will fold next time.

What will this strategy bring? Here are my predictions for the likely outcomes:

1. The GOP doesn't hold together in its talking points, and enough of the GOP members of Congress fold and pass a status quo budget. The hardcore are again disappointed in their desire to make a stand.
2. The GOP holds together well enough that negotiations fall apart, and a government shutdown ensues. After a few days (less than a week), the civilian clamor is too great, and the GOP folds, passing a status quo budget. The Tea Party faction finally gets proof that it doesn't have the power it imagines it has.
3. The Dems fold and give the GOP substantial concessions. The Tea Party view is confirmed.

I was just kidding on #3. That's not going to happen. It's going to be #1 or #2.

Sometimes I think that most people with their eyes open already know this, including most people in government. That's why they aren't working on reform plans for Social Security, Medicare, or the tax code. It would just be wasted effort.

However, there is the noisy rump of the Republican Party that still thinks they can have their way despite the outcome of the most recent election. Now, what I can't explain is why they cling to that belief. I can speculate, though. They live in very conservative areas where their views aren't questioned, and therefore they wrongly feel that they are in the majority. The news media they listen to (talk radio, Fox News) reinforces this view of superior numbers by neglecting to point out evidence of the larger political world. But there's no stopping reality, their delusions not withstanding.

I wonder how many years the delusion can endure? On this question, I'm not making a prediction, but I welcome the predictions of others.

Image: theweek.com

Extras. The hero worship of Ted Cruz. RedState's Erickson tells the GOP to be tough, just like they [weren't] on tax increases.

Short: Guns and mental health

Finally, someone else is talking about tighter restrictions on gun purchases for those with mental health problems. Senators Toomey and Manchin, both strong proponents for gun rights, have a very center-right proposal that tries to improve the situation without infringing on gun ownership rights. How to do that?Strengthen the parts of the law that forbid sales to the wrong people.

That sounds eminently logical to me. In my opinion, this is likely to be more effective than more guns in schools and hoping someone carrying will be on site to stop a shooter. It definitely should be more palatable than an assault weapons ban.

But I'm wrong, it's not palatable. RedState is immediately against it. My God, they're empowering doctors to take away your gun rights. What if some pinko doctor decides you shouldn't have a gun. Even worse, what if lots of pinko doctors got to together and put hordes of red-blooded Americans on the list simply because they think anyone who wants a gun is unbalanced.

I agree that there is potential for abuse. Therefore doctors should be answerable when they refer a person for the restriction. But I thought we wanted to try to prevent disturbed people from buying guns. Do we still want to do this? Well, this is what it would look like.

Maybe, on second thought, Erick Erickson is fine with Jared Loughner and James Holmes buying guns. I'm still not.

Image: 199trust.com

What not to say, conservatives

The conservatives are trying to have a constructive discussion about how to improve their campaign message. They've mostly decided that their ideals are correct (a premature conclusion), but they sorely need to tweak the message.

To the world outside the conservative bubble, this looks suspiciously like denial, or yet another plan not to change anything. (Some are hoping it's a sign that the GOP has entered the first phase of death.  Let's see, the phases are "denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance," right? Somehow I think breathing will stop before 'bargaining' begins.)

However, according to RedState, some tweaks to the message are still out-of-bounds. RedState derides a young conservative for deriding Rush Limbaugh, while ignoring the constructive ideas in the 10-page article. According to RedState "Thou shalt not publicly castigate Limbaugh." I can be certain this applies to Limbaugh and not every Republican because another headline on the same day was "I am very disappointed with Governor Rick Scott."

Another post on the same topic meanders around to giving Karl Rove the benefit of the doubt concerning his mission to nominate better (less verbally vulnerable) candidates. RedState must have rethought their initial attack on this project, which they labeled as anti-grassroots. So Karl Rove has qualified permission to speak.

The most reasonable post they had on messaging was from February 2012. It is specific in its critique of the 53% meme:

What we’re essentially saying is that the income taxation model is unfair to 5.3 out of 10 of us and so we are going to stand toe to toe against the 4.7 other people and totally say that to them.  And we don’t care if it alienates them because screw them, they aren’t paying taxes anyway and on top of that, we can win even if it’s only with 53% of the vote, so who needs ‘em? 

What should the attitude and the message be? This much more appealing one:

We’re just one society, and it’s all overtaxed and you could afford to do more if you kept more of the money that’s being taken from you.

So what is the lesson for conservatives who want to learn how to deliver the message better? It's hard to suss out. Part of the message seems to be that Limbaugh can say anything stupid or obnoxious, and you must put up with in reverent silence. For all others, check with RedState to find out how far you can go.

 Image: zazzle.com

Countdown to sequester

Despite the [hollow] protests on each political side, the sequester is very likely to occur. That's because the sequester isn't going to be that painful, and there's no better deal on the horizon that can pass the House and Senate.

The GOP may complain about the deep cuts to defense, but they're on the record for wanting even deeper spending cuts. If all those cuts came out of entitlement programs, the GOP would actually be in more trouble. A lot of seniors would be furious over cuts in Social Security and Medicare that became noticeable, maybe even painful. Having a balanced sequester, for all the GOP bluster, is a boon to the GOP.

The Dems also complain, but about the broader effect of the cuts. It's bad for defense, they say (but most liberals are happy to give defense a good trim), but look at what it will do to food inspectors and air traffic controllers and first responders! Excuse me, but I think almost all first responders are paid for at the state and local level, so a 2.3%, 4%, 7% or whatever reduction at the federal level is minimal. But we do like all those spiffy uniforms at our press events.

Dems are pressing for more tax increases, but the GOP isn't going to give them that. So the Dem proposal is dead on arrival. The GOP wants to cut everything but defense, but that's dead on arrival for non-blue-dog Dems.

One thing to remember is that this sequester was the best deal available, in that each side got what it really wanted back when it was negotiated in August 2011. The GOP got no tax increases. That is still the top priority for them, so that leaves little room for them to strike a new deal. The Dems caved on no new revenue (and just had to be patient for the Bush tax cuts to expire), but they got to direct where the cuts occurred. To Dems, it's still the best mix of cuts. They have no incentive to let the GOP change that mix.

By the way, the sequester doesn't even cut spending. It just slows the increase in spending. Per the CBO, the spending for 2012 was $3.538 trillion. For 2013, it's projected to be $3.553 trillion with the effect of the sequester. So if we're cutting the budget in some places, it must be growing like weeds somewhere else. Maybe that indicates we have a big job to do on that "somewhere else." That's sure to be fun with this Congress.

Image: themoderatevoice.com

Extras.

A nascent thought - the one-day-a-week furlough for civilian defense workers will keep those workers off the unemployment rolls. That's a good move now, but will it establish a 4-day work week for federal workers?

A funny twist on the serenity prayer: "...politicians are finding the strength to accept the things they cannot change, and change the things they cannot accept. That means accepting the sequester but changing who gets blamed for it." --Atlantic Wire writer Elspeth Reeve

GOP disarray over the sequester:

• Boehner - It's all Obama's faaaauuullltttt!
• Reaction to Boehner - what a whiner and idiot.
• Plain blog - those incoherent GOP arguments.
• RedState - yes, the cuts are unbalanced, but let's cut anyway. Plus, Obama's on the run!

Up Next: Look for a post soon on the next crisis point - the next Continuing Resolution, which we need by April 1 March 27.

 Image: cagle.com

Short: The Chuck Hagel Theater Company

So the Senate didn't get to vote on the Chuck Hagel nomination for Defense secretary because of a filibuster by Republicans. But there's going to be a second vote later in February, and some additional GOP senators have indicated that they would no longer support a filibuster then. More boring Washington political theater--yawn.

If only I could filibuster the senators to prevent them from turning these nomination votes into stupid partisan exercises. To be clear, I think nominations hearings are a good idea and should be a time for searching questions. But the votes should be "yes" unless the nominee is unfit in some way.

Many conservatives seem to know how this will play out, and realize it's not worth the fight. Some, like Erick Erickson of RedState, are still hoping to defeat the nomination. Others foolishly believe that they have won some sort of victory in the recent vote--they are in for a nasty surprise called reality. But I bet these fools have been tumbled by reality before.

 Still waiting for the evidence...

Image: theatlantic.com

Seeking new conservative voices

With the failure of the conservative message in the 2012 election, I wondered who was going to rise in the GOP/conservative circles. Of course I'm not the only person wondering. It's a topic all over the conservative blogosphere.

Ted Cruz

I already covered what was written at HotAir, but I thought one prominent voice was missing from their list: Ted Cruz, the Tea Party favorite who's the new senator from Texas.Ted Cruz is a staunch conservative, but also a smart one who sidesteps the gotcha questions. This is his statement on Akin and Mourdock's statements on pregnancies resulting from rape:

"I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals. I would note that it seems the media is never asking Democrats what their view is, of say partial-birth abortion …"

Cruz isn't likely to be caught on tape denying abortions to rape victims, though that is his stance. He also hones his message to the bare essentials, and thereby avoids those inconvenient, painful details, such as how many government employees would be added to the unemployment roles, or how voucherizing Medicare will affect the care provided. Though he wants to be a major voice, I'm not sure he'll succeed without grappling with at least a few of those messy details.

Erick Erickson

A stronger voice is Erick Erickson, the editor of redstate.com. He's just moved from being a commentator on CNN to Fox News. He should have a big megaphone there, but he's got quite an independent streak that Roger Ailes may not tolerate. And the simplest way to deal with independent speech is not to give it airtime.

Whatever happens on Fox, Erickson still has redstate.com as a platform frequently listed among the top ten conservative blogs. I checked it out at length for the first time, and I was pleasantly surprised at the clarity of the writing and the enforcement of civil conduct in the comments. Redstate had several interesting posts about how the GOP should deal with the reality shifts from the 2012 election. It was both strategic (new goals) and tactical, and much more intelligent than the equivalent on HotAir.

So I'll be reading much more Redstate, reading less from screaming reactionaries on HotAir, and still checking National Review to see whether they'll continue to ignore the war (or skirmishes) between the base and the GOP establishment in its Rovian avatar. I'll also read Keith Hennessey, a suggestion from commenter Truth > Spin, for an economics-based conservative view.

Image: politicalirony.com

Update 2/15/13. Oh dear, Ted Cruz seems to be a jerk (term I prefer to the more usual epithet 'asshole'). Even RedState commenters think so.

Short: Getting to small government

This piece from RedState was the most convincing argument for shrinking government that I've read. It eschews the name-calling, which helps make it readable. It doesn't dwell on resentment and ancient wrongs, but still manages to provide context for how government got as big as it is.

Though I don't share the view that government should be as small as this column advocates, I felt like I was walking in their shoes for the first time. It was a level-headed, compelling read.

The main point is that government growth is on auto-pilot due to the entitlements. To prevent entitlement spending from crowding the rest of the economy, it has to be reformed aggressively. That's a simple, coherent argument with a lot of merit. It neglects an important corollary: the possibly distressing effects for those who are dependent on those entitlements.Nevertheless, an interesting read that I recommend.

Photo credit: www.gettingfreedom.net