Brent Budowsky is extremely optimistic about Paul’s chances in Virginia:

If this does not change, the Virginia vote will be a pure play of Romney versus Paul, and also a contest purely of Romney versus the conservative movement, which I would expect to unify behind Paul for the Virginia vote.

I would be very pleased with this outcome, but why would Budowsky expect this? This is the sort of prediction one makes because it is so far-fetched and unlikely that no one would expect it. Because the other candidates failed to qualify for the ballot, it’s quite plausible that Paul will receive a much higher share of the Virginia vote than he has in other large primary states in the past. He might surprise a lot of people with a 25 or 30% result in a two-way race, but let’s remember that Paul received 4% of the vote in Virginia in 2008. He tripled his 2008 support in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but for him to get the percentage I’m talking about he would need to increase support at least sixfold. It’s possible that some of the voters who supported McCain and Huckabee last time will switch to Paul, and there could be more independents turning out, and there will be some anti-Romney protest voting going on.

Granting all that, to expect the conservative movement to “unify behind Paul” is to ignore that large parts of the conservative movement have been aligned with Romney all along and a great many movement conservatives dislike Paul more than they dislike Romney. Movement conservatives enabled and facilitated Romney’s reinvention of himself as a conservative, and he has contorted himself to fit the mold that the movement requires. Romney represents what the conservative movement is. Paul represents what it could be. Most conservative voters in Virginia are likely going to choose the former.

No Comments »

The editors at Democracy Arsenal object to the GOP hawks’ rhetoric on Cuba:

If Gingrich believes we can look 90 miles south “to have a Cuban Spring” he has failed all duties of being a historian or a scholar.

Not to worry. He failed in those duties long ago. Gingrich’s framing of his “Cuban spring” remarks last night was also a bit unusual. He started off by saying this:

I find it fascinating that Obama is intrigued with Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, but doesn’t quite notice Cuba.

Yes, that’s fascinating, isn’t it? When there are mass protests calling for the end of communist party rule and Castro dictatorship, I suspect that any administration would become similarly “intrigued” by Cuba. The odd thing about this attack line is that it had been the standard Republican democratist charge that Obama didn’t care about political change in Arab countries until the change was already happening. This has been overexaggerated, but it contained the kernel of truth that Obama wasn’t going to push democracy promotion as much (or as counter-productively and stupidly) as Bush did. Now that this attack is no longer quite so relevant, Gingrich says that Obama is “intrigued” by upheaval in Arab countries, but he is supposedly oblivious to Cuba. One might ask what there is in Cuba for Obama to notice that he has overlooked.

Turning to the policy question, I agree that the embargo isn’t doing Cubans any favors. The pro-embargo supporters’ pretense that they are “on the side” of ordinary Cubans is just as maddening as the claim that supporters of Iran sanctions want to help the Iranian people. As for the Burma comparison, there is something to the argument that time-limited sanctions can create incentives for internal reform, but imagine how much better off, wealthier, and more effective the Burmese middle class and political opposition would have been if Western governments hadn’t been trying to sanction the junta into submission for the last twenty years. Current Burmese moves towards reform are encouraging, but even in the absence of these moves it would make sense to lift sanctions on Burma that have worked to strangle their economy.

There is nothing for the U.S. to lose by dropping the antiquated Cuba embargo. On the other hand, ending the embargo offers a chance to create a significant economic relationship with Cubans that will redound to the benefit of the population. Whether that leads to political change or not, it seems undeniable that this is a better policy for the U.S. and for the people of Cuba.

2 Comments »

McCain repeats an old complaint about Obama and Iran (via Scoblete):

“History will judge this president incredibly harshly, with disdain and scorn for his failure to come to the moral assistance of the 1.5 million Iranians that were demonstrating in the streets of Tehran,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep today. Those demonstrators, McCain said, were “crying out … literally crying out … ‘Obama, Obama, are you with us?’ … If we had given them some moral support, it might have made some difference.”

McCain isn’t the first to make this charge, and it isn’t any more persuasive this time than it has been before. “Coming to the moral assistance” of protesters facing a crackdown sounds a lot like issuing strongly-worded statements and not much else. As Scoblete says, this is baseless criticism.

We have no way of knowing how future historians will assess Obama’s response to the protests. It seems significant that the people most outraged about Obama’s insufficient moral support are not members of the Iranian opposition and aren’t living in Iran. If Obama failed the Iranian opposition so miserably, why aren’t many of them saying so? Could it be that vocal American support for their cause is harmful to them? Had Obama been more vocal in his response to the protests, what difference does anyone think it would have made?

When Hungarians rose up in 1956 with the expectation that they would receive U.S. support, they were understandably angry that no support was forthcoming. Their uprising was brutally crushed, and Hungarians still remember the U.S. failure to keep the promise they believe that our government made. Of course, the fault there was with the official “rollback” doctrine promoted by Dulles. Much more harm can be done by giving the impression that the U.S. will provide support when it has no meaningful support to provide. Promising more than we could deliver would not have made the protests in 2009 and 2010 any more effective, but it might have led to more people getting killed.

No Comments »

The evening begins with a good choral rendition of the National Anthem. This is a much better performance than some of the others I have heard when watching these events. Blitz introduces himself.

Santorum introduces himself and notes that his mother, 93, is attending the debate. Gingrich gives a shout-out to Jacksonville’s naval connections. Paul starts off with a nod to sound money and a foreign policy of “strength” that rejects being the policeman of the world.

The questions start with immigration. Santorum agrees with enforcement of immigration laws, and sides with Romney on the “self-deportation” question. He endorses border security, employer enforcement, and deportation, and then insists on the importance of legal immigration.

Blitz challenges Gingrich on his “Obama-level fantasy” comment. As usual, Gingrich wants a guest worker program run by credit card companies. He says that grandparents aren’t going to self-deport. Then again, that isn’t what most people mean by attrition through enforcement. Paul chips in with his now-standard line about re-directing resources from the Af-Pak border to U.S. borders.

Gingrich imagines a scenario of dragging old women from church altars as they seek sanctuary. But fortunately he’s “realistic”! He reiterates the “anti-immigrant” crack. Romney gets annoyed and invokes Rubio’s criticism. The crowd cheers. Gingrich asks Romney how he would describe harassing grandmothers. Romney is easily getting the best of this exchange. “Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers.” The crowd cheers again. Gingrich may want the crowds to keep quiet at this debate.

Romney and Gingrich don’t disagree about the importance of English. The next question comes in from Miami. The questioner must be a Santorum plant. She asks what they will do to counter the influence of China and Iran in Latin America. Ron Paul promotes free trade as the way to relate to Latin America. Paul doesn’t want to dictate what Latin American states can do or how they govern themselves. Paul endorses friendship and trade with Cuba.

Who would have guessed that Santorum disagrees? The required shout-out to Honduras follows. Santorum says that Obama sided against “the people of Honduras,” which is an oversimplification. He says that Obama sided with Chavez and Castro, which is deeply misleading. Santorum inevitably invokes the threat of Iran and Venezuela. Paul objects that “standing up” for other countries involves intervention and meddling, which is often the case.

Santorum isn’t having it. He wants economic and security relationships with the rest of Latin America. He thinks Latin America has been moving away from the U.S. because we “ignored” them, which tells me that he doesn’t understand why left-populists have done so well in the region in the last decade.

Now we’re back to the influence-peddling/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac issue. Gingrich is shocked and amazed that Romney has owned Fannie Mae stock. Gingrich can’t possibly think that this is comparable to the work he was doing. This was a pretty weak response from Gingrich, and Romney is pointing this out at length. Paul gets in his easy money answer.

Santorum denounces the pettiness of the Gingrich-Romney feud. He makes a bid to be the high-minded, issues-oriented candidate.

Now Blitz asks about tax returns. Gingrich rejects it as a nonsense question. Gingrich tries to dismiss the “world of Swiss bank accounts” remark as something he would say in an interview but not at a debate. Romney then explains why some of his money has ended up in a Swiss account. Gingrich is on the verge of committing a Pawlenty-style political blunder. Gingrich whines that Romney applies a double standard.

Gingrich says he wants to shrink the government, which must be why he has consistently supported expanding the size of government for most of his career. Paul brings in repealing the 16th Amendment and getting rid of the welfare/warfare state. He pivots to a sound money appeal directed at the middle class. Paul makes a joke about age discrimination when asked about his medical record.

Our first NASA question! Romney is not interested in a permanent lunar colony. He does his best to pander to the space coast, but he can’t bring himself to make any specific pledges.

Gingrich complains about the inefficiency of NASA. He wants to create prizes for moon flights. Santorum stops halfway into his space program pander to remember that it is a massive waste of money. Paul doesn’t have any interest in going to the moon. Space technology is valuable for national defense purposes, but not “just for the fun of it.”

Gingrich’s wacky lunar statehood comment gets its own question. He invokes JFK’s pledge to put a man on the moon. His program would be 90% in the private sector. Six and seven launches a day! Gingrich is against national decline. Romney points out that private business would never go for these crackpot notions. Romney is running rings around him tonight. Romney: just say no to useless spending.

Gingrich pats himself on the back for his local issue knowledge. That doesn’t really address Romney’s complaint about his free-spending promises. Santorum hits Obama for ignoring fiscal problems in SOTU, and objects to new spending proposals.

Santorum goes after Romney for the similarities of Masscare and the ACA, and hits Gingrich for his support of the individual mandate. These are the most substantive criticisms of the night. He seems to have forgotten that he has no chance of winning the nomination.

Romney: don’t blame it all on me! There were a lot of other people in Massachusetts you can blame. Oh, and I’ll repeal the federal law. Santorum won’t let go: the health care issue is about “fundamental freedom.” Romney is reverting to his most annoying smarmy voice as he answers. Yes, Rick, there is a mandate in Massachusetts. Yes, the system in Massachusetts is failing. Of course, Santorum is effectively making the argument for a stronger mandate/higher fine. This debate exchange is being cut into a DNC ad as we speak.

Next question: which Hispanic leaders would the candidates choose for their cabinet? Santorum names Rubio. Gingrich name-drops Martinez and Ros-Lehtinen, and hints at Rubio as VP. Romney rattles off lots of names, including all of his Cuban-American endorsers. Paul wants his appointees to share his views, and he appeals to Hispanic antiwar sentiment.

Rod asks, “How in the world does Ron Paul know that Hispanics are less inclined to war than other people?” It’s not that weird of a statement. Surveys of opinion about the U.S. “minding its own business” have found that non-white minorities are far more likely to favor “minding our own business” than whites. Polling on the Iraq war would also confirm what Paul is saying. Unfortunately for Paul, most of the people he’s appealing to probably aren’t registered Republicans.

Now the Reagan round begins. Romney is doing his best to dodge the question about his lack of Reaganite qualifications. “I became more conservative, by the way, as I was governor.” That’s an understatement. Romney completely backed off from the Gingrich/Reagan attack. Gingrich is “vastly closer” to Reagan. Vastly. Romney trots out his usual lame justification for his Tsongas vote.

Santorum is dedicated to a bankrupt Cuba policy. The U.S. should “stand on the side” of the Cuban people by cutting them off from the largest market in the Western Hemisphere. Santorum: Obama is rewarding the “cancer” in Latin America! He’s completely delusional.

What would Paul say to Raul? “Why are you calling?” More seriously, he would want to know how to improve relations. The embargo hurts the population. “The Cold War is over. They’re not going to invade us.” Paul is making fun of Santorum’s hysteria in a very genial way right now.

Romney thinks Obama has “ignored” Latin America. Romney wants to keep pointless sanctions on Cuba (but no invasion!). Gingrich: why not imagine a Cuban spring?

A pointed question about Palestine from a Palestinian-American Republican (!). “We do exist.” Romney falls back on the usual talking points. Reflexive support for Israel is his entire policy: “not an inch of difference.” I don’t think the questioner is going to vote for Romney. Gingrich throws in his embassy-to-Jerusalem pander.

A Puerto Rico question? Okay. The questioner points out that the Puerto Rican governor was snubbed during the ethnic pandering section of the debate. Santorum makes up for the omission. On the question of statehood, Santorum seems to be avoiding an answer. He says he believes in self-determination, but doesn’t favor any position.

Influence of religious beliefs on decision-making? Paul demurs, and invokes the oath of office. Romney resorts to vague Declaration of Independence theism and universalism. Is Gingrich counting himself among the “mere mortals”? Santorum repeats his Declarationist argument.

Paul makes his closing statement. He emphasizes peace and civil liberties. Romney: dramatic, fundamental, extraordinary change in Washington! Gingrich wants some of his adjectives back. Romney pretends that he is an outsider. Gingrich now associates himself with 1994 and 1980. He wants to “unleash the American people.” Are the American people dogs? He managed to sneak an Alinsky reference in at the end, just when you thought he could go through an entire debate without mentioning him. Santorum: I’m not a sell-out like those guys! His main pitch: my industrial policy is better than Obama’s industrial policy.

Romney held off Gingrich, and Gingrich was flailing most of the night. Unless something strange happens in the next few days, Romney should hold his lead in Florida. Santorum may have gained a little, but nowhere near enough to challenge for second place. Paul did a decent job tonight, but Florida is not a good state for him and he’s already looking to the caucus events in February.

1 Comment »

Jay Cost keeps the fantasy candidate dream alive:

Somebody else – somebody with the ability to make the case for reform in a sober and courageous manner – should jump into this race. And not just to keep Obama from a second term. If 2012 is a decisive election – then we need a candidate with the courage and rectitude to make the choice clear to the voters, so that once in office he has the mandate to fix this mess.

Daniels could be that candidate. While he could not win an outright majority of delegates because of the passing of too many filing deadlines, he could do what Bobby Kennedy attempted in 1968: get in late, do well in the latter contests, win some big states, and make the case that, early primaries aside, he is the true choice of the party, the one who could unify everybody around a common cause. If nobody has won a majority of delegates by June, that could very well be enough for a dark horse victory for Daniels.

Let’s hope he’s open to the idea.

Yes, nothing stirs crowds like a sober defense of entitlement reform. Cost is making what I referred to earlier this week as the wonk’s fallacy. Indeed, Cost’s remarks are a classic statement of the numerous wrong assumptions behind agitation for a fantasy Daniels candidacy: the election must offer a clear choice on a major issue, the nominee needs to be an expert and capable advocate on that issue, the fantasy candidate’s main issue is also a winning issue, and so the party must nominate him in order to win with a mandate for the candidate’s policy proposals.

Of course, this might make sense if the party’s position on the issue in question were extremely popular, and Daniels’ main issue isn’t, which Daniels enthusiasts seem intent on ignoring. Daniels enthusiasts start with the belief that entitlement reform is necessary and Daniels is the best elected Republican to make the case for it, and here they are on reasonably solid ground. Unfortunately, they then jump from that to the untenable conclusion that nominating Daniels to run a campaign focused on entitlement reform is the way to draw a sharp contrast with Obama that will also lead to victory. There never seems to be any concern that a late-entry campaign focused on an unpopular issue will flame out or result in disaffection of the voting base that feels that its choice has been hijacked. There appears to be no awareness that a general election loss for a candidate so closely identified with entitlement reform would set back the cause of reform for many more years. A general election campaign is a lousy time to educate the public about the need for entitlement reform. If one really believes that 2012 is “the most consequential election of our lifetime,” it is hardly the best time to test an experiment about the public’s willingness to support far-reaching reform of some of the most popular federal programs.

Update: Lev has more and an appropriate Soundgarden reference.

3 Comments »