Handicapping The Tea Party Debate

Perry is the front runner and, when I apply my own standard for judging a debate, I conclude that he will remain the front runner. Perry met his test once again which was simply to avoid major gaffes and to continue to appear presidential. Immediately after last week's debate we posited the same test and concluded he had passed that test and needed to do nothing more to maintain or expand his lead. The polls subsequently confirmed this analysis.

I do not doubt that he negotiated that same simple test last night. Therefore, we must continue to bet that the nomination remains Governor Perry's to lose.

Let us have a try at handicapping the debaters and judging their conservative chops. This requires that we ask ourselves, who is the most conservative candidate and is he or she electable? Let us consider the individuals on the extremes first:

Huntsman gets bad marks on both conservatism and electability. His likability is equally deficient and his remarks concerning treason last night were a nationwide embarrassment. We dismiss him out of hand and the sooner he is out of the race the better.

Ron Paul becomes more centrist with each election cycle and with each new outrage by the Obama administration. It is not Ron Paul, of course, who has moved but the perception of him in the conservative world. History is vindicating the candidate. For example, Ron Paul is now the man who can claim that he has led all the way on the Federal Reserve Bank and it is clear from audience reaction last night that the tea party at least is now fully in his camp on that issue. We need to have no fears about Ron Paul concerning another new issue that is preoccupying conservatives: crony capitalism. As a committed libertarian, Paul favors a system which makes it much more difficult for crony capitalism to flourish. Paul stirs the heart of every real conservative when he invokes a true faithfulness to the Constitution. Unfortunately, that fidelity to the written document leads him astray on electability because the giant entitlement programs which have become the 3rd rail of American politics disqualify him and any other candidate who would break their rice bowls.

Ron Paul's great liability to conservatives, of course, is his posture on defense and international affairs. As with other issues, the world is moving rapidly toward Ron Paul's long-standing positions. The tea party is beginning to agree with Ron Paul that our excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan can no longer be sustained. But the bulk of the conservative movement is not yet with them in saying that our extensive reach around the world with over 900 bases in 130 countries has generated the animus which inspired the attack of 9/11. It is this blame America aspect to Paul's internationalism that offends so many of us conservatives. He does not cure his problem by citing the admonitions of the founding fathers to avoid entangling foreign alliances. Most of the country is in no mood one day after the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to blame America.

Therefore, Ron Paul, is disqualified on philosophical grounds as well as on electability. But I am not one to challenge his right to be on the stage, at least at this early phase of the nomination process and so long as he can boast reasonably respectable polling numbers. I think Ron Paul adds intellectual, philosophical and constitutional scrutiny to conservatism which is healthy up until the time that we begin to run directly against the Democrat. Ron Paul's decades long Jeremiah against our fiscal profligacy and his prediction of the calamity that is now nearly upon us alone justify his presence on the debate stage.

As Barak Obama's favorability numbers deteriorate so have Mitt Romney's polling numbers. This is because electability is becoming a less cogent consideration in selecting our nominee. Governor Perry's entry into the race has uncovered a grave weakness in the depth of Romney's support. As the fear of losing the election recedes, the dream of a Reagan restoration grows. Philosophically, Romney is disqualified to conservatives because of his flip-flops on a deal breaking issues such as abortion and his excursion into socialism with his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. We conservatives would have to be desperately in fear of losing the election by defection of independents in order to turn to Mitt Romney.

By way of full disclosure, I have always thought of Gingrich as our ace in the hole, the candidate who, like a great relief pitcher, can be called into the game and reliably shut out the side. Without belaboring the obvious, Gingrich's negatives are his personal baggage and his loopy excursions into bipartisanship on some issues, especially environmental issues, which viscerally antagonize most conservatives. I have said that the country will turn to Gingrich only if it finds itself in the condition that Britain found itself in 1939 when Hitler was backing Britain into a corner and they had only most reluctantly turned to Churchill whom the establishment feared as someone who not only thought out of the box but actually acted outside the box. In time of peace Churchill was simply too loose a cannon to tolerate in the government but when the very existence of the realm was at stake he became the indispensable man. I do not intend to elevate Gingrich to this exalted status, but I do intend to say that America is at an inflection point and our salvation from existential threats including Islamic fascism, leftist fascism, and looming bankruptcy, all are combining in a perfect storm to wreck our constitutional republic. No one can match Gingrich in his Churchillian capacity to understand all facets of this coalescing threat and to respond imaginatively when a pedestrian response will avail us only a catastrophic defeat. His forensic powers are equally unmatched.

I am a lot less concerned about Gingrich's deflections from conservative orthodoxy than I am about his electability. I want to keep him in the bullpen in case we need him in the bottom of the 9th.

Rick Santorum is the kind of candidate about whom no conservative has anything bad to say but the problem is that few have anything else to say either. He simply does not stir the heart strings and until he does, despite his certified conservative instincts, he must be discounted on electability. I am not unmindful of his endorsement of Senator Specter and his participation in the prescription drug bill, nevertheless, I judge him to be the most instinctive and reliable conservative in the field. These missteps should tell us something about how we should judge the biographies of all our conservative hopefuls respecting their fidelity to conservative principles. The name, Rick Perry, comes to mind.

I judge Cain to be a solid conservative, a man of quick wit, a facile tongue, a high degree of likability, and possessed of a singular ability to boil down an issue until the essence is revealed, all delivered with the fluency to express the root of the matter in a compelling soundbite. His race works as much as a positive as a negative. If it is fair to downgrade Governor Perry's chances because his accent reminds us of George Bush, is it not equally fair to downgrade Herman Cain's chances because his skin color reminds us of Barack Obama? On the other hand, there is much to be said for conservatives advancing the candidacy of an African-American who has not forgotten that he is also an American. Herman Cain's fidelity to conservative principles is largely unchallenged but his main impediment to the nomination is his lack of a political biography. He tries to turn this lemon into lemonade with quips about how Washington does not work so it does not matter if he does not know how Washington works, but at the end of the day his electability seriously suffers from this yawning gap in his resume.

In a general election against Obama, Cain would be electable enough providing Obama's negatives remain as heavily weighted against him as they are. Cain will rise or sink on upcoming poll numbers and I think most conservatives are content to passively observe that development. My fear is that general election races tend to tighten towards the end before they break and Cain could boot the whole election away through inexperience.

She is a true conservative who has been jilted by the Tea Party for a new lover and she tended to act last night like a woman scorned. Let us put the stage show aside and consider her conservatism and electability. Her problem is not whether she is a committed conservative, the left-wing rap against her is that she is so conservative that she is a nut. Clearly she is conservative by virtually any standard. She has demonstrated in the debates that she is not a nut and that she is fully capable of holding her own on stage. She can be tough. The problem is that she has demonstrated that quality to us but not necessarily to independents who usually decide elections. As electability became relatively less important, Bachmann should have continued to rise in the polls but the entry of Rick Perry simply blew her support away. She was trying in this debate to warn her fickle base to come home to her because Perry's conservatism is untrustworthy. Bachmann must succeed in this or fail in the race for the nomination. If I had to bet, I would bet that she will fail but she certainly succeeds in raising the question of Perry's conservative bona fides. One has to admire her grit.

So far there appear to be four charges laid against Perry's conservatism: 1) The Trans-Texas Corridor; 2) his flirtation with crony capitalism which merges into; 3) the Gardasil inoculation fiasco; 4) his immigration policies. Let us consider them in overlapping order:

The Trans-Texas Corridor and crony capitalism can be seen either as an addiction to big government and big business or as efforts to fulfill the job description of a modern American governor scrambling to bring business and jobs into his state. The flagrant corruption of the Obama administration in favoring his cronies on Wall Street or healthcare companies in exchange for support of Obamacare, have sensitized conservatives and independents to the danger of this practice which has been made all the more acute by our parlous fiscal situation. The speech by Sarah Palin recently in Iowa and the distortion of it by left- wing writers, echoed in The New York Times, have further focused attention onto this issue. Michele Bachmann sought to extend the allegation to cover the Gardasil matter, claiming that it was in effect a play for pay exchange when Perry received campaign contributions from Merck who presumably were favored by his executive order requiring 12-year-old schoolgirls to be inoculated with Merck's drug.

The corridor complaints generally revolve around alleged favoritism in the execution of the project. Certainly, conservatives cannot object to the building of roads and they must understand that the building of roads necessarily implies the taking of property and, so long as that taking is with just compensation fairly arrived at, condemnation proceedings for this obviously legitimate public purpose should be supported. If the details bespeak corruption, they have for the most part not become a matter of public knowledge on the national level although it is quite conceivable that with the billions of dollars involved in such a project, the temptation for crony capitalism is great.

I find the Gardasil scandal to be somewhat overblown. The parents were given an opt out after all. Yes, conservatives would prefer that the parents have the option of opting in rather than the responsibility to opt out, but the option existed nonetheless. I have read somewhere that it was necessary to require the parents to opt out rather than to opt in in order to secure federal financing. Here again, purists may complain that a conservative is milking the federal government but heaven forfend a chief executive of any state at election time who turns away free federal money. Sarah Palin broke the mold in this respect yet there is a post which says that she accepted federal funds for this purpose although there was no mandate in Alaska. P>

Procedurally, there is something to complain about because it was done by executive order. Here again the outrages of the Obama administration have focused attention on the abuse of executive orders and it puts this exercise by Perry in an unfortunate light. Perry himself has admitted that he should have gone to the legislature and not attempted to provide these inoculations by executive order.

Finally, I do not think the Perry sold out for $5000 or $6000 in campaign contributions which in total accumulated to about $30 million. If there was improper influence it was on a good ole boy level, Texas style. We have to ask ourselves what standard are we to apply in judging these matters? Sarah Palin set a very high bar in her battles against the Republican Party and its cronyism with the oil companies in Alaska. We need evidence of wrongdoing before we condemn a governor for vigorously promoting his state to increase jobs and its economy. My feeling is that the distinctions are getting very, very nice meaning that there are procedural zigzags and medical crosscurrents about the efficacy and risks associated with the inoculation to the degree that the equities becomes at best blurred for the electorate. There is no absolute clear indictment of Perry on this issue to the extent that it is a knockout punch.

There is the 4th and final matter to judge, Perry's policies concerning immigration and illegal immigrants. I have only one make or break issue and that is abortion. But I must say that wrongheadedness on immigration comes very close to a deal breaker for me. I have posted after last week's debate the existential danger to conservatism, to the Republican Party, and ultimately to the Republic itself in these waves of indigestible immigrants who do not share our language, culture, or our commitment to the rule of law and Constitution much less to capitalism and free markets. They are simply ignorant of the traditions which make our constitutional republic unique in the world. My belief is that the Democrat party consciously seeks to swamp the country with illegal immigrants to jigger the voting demographics and simply carry every election before them. In the process many in the Democratic Party would not be disappointed if in breaking down our borders they also broke down our sovereignty leading to the submergence of America into some kind of a new socialist world order. A new world order of crony socialism.

The immigration issue is not merely a matter of obeying the law, it is a matter of the existential survival of the Republic.

I will be very reluctant at the end of the day to support Perry if he cannot make fixed commitments to the enforcement of our borders (he has already done this despite his reluctance to build a fence), a reversal of his policy, at least on the federal level, to furnish federal tuition benefits to illegal aliens, and a clear commitment to enforce employment laws against employers who illegally hire aliens. I want a commitment to attack sanctuary cities the way the Obama administration has attacked Arizona. I will not be alone if he fails to do so. I think Perry has running room with respect to these issues by drawing a distinction between federal amnesty efforts and his state's accommodation to aliens in his midst as Texas' governor. He could say, for example, that Texas must cope with the situation created by the federal government and he as a governor sought to do so but as president he would seek on a nationwide basis to seal the border and enforce employment laws, thus eliminating the need for a wholesale amnesty bill. We would then be confronted with the need to judge whether we believe him.

Not incidentally, Perry's policy position in refusing to build the fence damages his credibility on the whole subject. A fence is not designed to be perfectly non-porous, it is a force multiplier because it requires the illegals to bunch together and to deploy cumbersome logistics, like ladders and trenches, which can then be detected with technology. Just as trenches in warfare are a force multiplier, as they were in World War I, and not an end in itself, like the Maginot line came to mean to the French in World War II, a fence creates a great tactical advantage for the border patrol if used correctly. I cannot believe that the cost to build and maintain a fence will be less than the cost to deploy men and machines year after year. Men and machines will no doubt be required but they will be fewer and more effective.

I think it is important for us to distinguish between that which rankles us as conservatives and that which affects the general electorate. A good example of an issue which favors Perry with the Republican Party but might cause him some danger in the general election is Social Security. I think he is enhancing his stature among conservatives with his "Ponzi scheme" indictment of Social Security. If Romney's poll numbers flag after this debate, I believe it will be a result of the immigration issue and not the Social Security issue. It would be interesting to see issue specific polling to get a definitive answer.

Meanwhile, the campaign season is young and much can happen between now and the Iowa Caucus including a whole series of debates. New issues will no doubt emerge and old ones will diminish in importance. If one had to bet now, I would double down my bet that the nomination remains Governor Perry's to lose but, if he does lose, it will likely come from an exogenous issue which blindsides Perry and not from the consequences of a debate. These last observations are more than the recital of mere banalities they are realities which ought to give all of us pause and an occasion for a humility check. We might find that our favorite Paladin has feet of clay and we might end up rallying behind a candidate whom we now dismiss with a sneer. In other words, let us not burn any bridges this early in the winnowing out process and let us refrain from this very unattractive tendency to reflexively malign any candidate other than our favorite heartthrob-whether declared or not.

Good article.

I’m not in love with any candidate. I think Romney will ultimately be the nominee. GOP voters will go for the safe pick.

I’m leaning Newt right now. He’s nailing it in these debates, and he has a good record from his days as Speaker.

I’m still undecided and hoping others will jump in.

Just imagine the disaster that would unfold if Romney were the pinata. Keep these 2 debates in context, everyone. Both were designed to cripple Perry. I think he is dazed but dusting off his coat. He has never gone on the offensive yet. He’s the one to beat, and a beating he has taken. Its easy to say others looked better when they were not the ones on the whipping post.

Perhaps the ace should be Perry’s VP??? That could balance both out as well as geography and innovative ideas. It does seem you have eliminated Mitt. We shall see. Of course, if he comes back ala McCain did, we are in trouble if he is seen as the elite establishment guy. But, then he could be cobbled together with Newt too or Santorum. Oh well, there are still debates, still time to pick someone who actually beat the Dems.

As with other issues, the world is moving rapidly toward Ron Paul's long-standing positions

No. Fail analysis.

The world is not "rapidly" moving towards Paul's positions. His nutty foreign and defense policy positions are as idiotic today as they were a decade ago. The ONLY reason why Paul is even in these debates is he has a cult like following, is lying by labeling himself a Republican when he is really a libertarian, and he is rarely questioned on his "blame America first" foreign policy views. For the first time last night, Santorum called him out and ripped him to pieces. The Republican party, movement conservatives and Tea Party will never, ever be where Ron Paul is, particularly on foreign and defense policy.

Paul is absolutely repulsive, despicable, irresponsible and also needs to be challenged on the fact that he won't distance himself from the "truther" nuts that support him. Last I saw, Paul only said he was too busy with other things to spend time "getting to the truth of 9-11". Lets put it this way, any candidate echoing any sentiments about "finding the truth about 9-11" is immediately disqualified.

Take the time to read the Ron Paul Liberty forums some time and you will see that his core supporters are NOT conservatives and Tea Party people. In fact, the disgusting stuff on his forums can just as easily be found on Daily Kos and DU.

I think Romney will ultimately be the nominee.

This is the MSM effect. Theodore White noticed the same phenomenon when he wrote The Making of the President 1964 about the Rockefeller-Goldwater race for the nomination. The New York Times and other Eastern media (which is to say, most of 'em) were booming up Rockefeller as hard as they could, with almost daily stories, wall-to-wall coverage, personality-cult dribdrabs and droppings, the Full Treatment.

When asked, in spring 1964, whom they preferred for the nomination, the majority of likely convention delegates responded that they wanted Goldwater. Asked who they thought would be the eventual nominee, a substantial majority replied, Rockefeller.

And of course The New York Times couldn't have been blackmailed into opposing Lyndon Johnson anyway, but was eager to intermeddle in Republican primary politics.

I think your description of the problem, and of Perry's defalcation, fails to get its arms around the nature of the Trans-Texas Corridor scheme. (I'll spare you the "epic fail" and other Young Republican/Gen Y cachets.)

The TTC was a (IMHO cynical, PR-based) subdivision of a much-larger, transnational, commensal project of crony-capitalist predation on the economy of the United States by powerful eminence-grise plutocratic interests facilitated by quisling U.S. politicians and citizens working in private capacities, for the solitary benefit of the access-capitalist architects of the scheme.

Any criticism of Rick Perry's (and many other politicians') performance in dealing with aspects of the SPP/NASCO/TTC project needs to be judged in the light of full disclosure of the nature, aims, and (unconstitutional, extraconstitutional) modes d'emploi of the project's real protagonists in both the private and public spheres.

A good analysis of the debate. I am more favorable for Bachmann and less favorable on Perry.

Concurrence bump.

Absent a few complaints (one already registered) about e.g. Ron Paul's almost-nonexistent foreign and defense policy, I would have to say it is a good and very disciplined analysis overall.

I do like Michele, but I'm still waiting for Sarah.

I think your description of the problem, and of Perry's defalcation, fails to get its arms around the nature of the Trans-Texas Corridor scheme.

I concur. However, I believe your characterization as stated below leaves out some important aspects of the problems with the TTC:

The TTC was a (IMHO cynical, PR-based) subdivision of a much-larger, transnational, commensal project of crony-capitalist predation on the economy of the United States...

In addition, the TTC, with its requirement for massive use and abuse of the constitutionally repugnant deconstruction and degradation of the doctrine of eminent domain in Kelo vs New London, would have represented a serious assault on the concepts of both private property rights and US national sovereignty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.