Monthly Archives: January 2012

What’s up between Jim DeMint and Ron Paul?

A normally very knowledgeable Republican told me recently that Warren Tompkins’ decision to back Mitt Romney was a signal to the base that Jim DeMint, despite his public neutrality, was really for Romney.

Why, I asked, didn’t DeMint just come out for Romney the way he did four years ago? The answer: It was OK four years ago to support the author of Romneycare. But not now, when the GOP is defining itself in terms of its staunch belief that Obamacare — which was based on Romneycare — is the end of the world as we know it.

Interesting thesis.

But if it’s true, how come DeMint keeps saying all these nice things about Ron Paul? Check out the video above, or this from earlier this month:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and would benefit from integrating some of his libertarian ideas into their platform.

“One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”…

DeMint said he does not agree with the Texas congressman on everything but that the rest of the GOP presidential field should capture some of what Paul’s been talking about for years because the Republican Party “needs” the libertarian movement.

“You don’t have to agree with everything he’s saying, but if the other candidates miss some of the wisdom about what he’s saying about monetary policy … that will be to our detriment,” DeMint said…

So what’s up with that?

Huck and Newt speak locally, think globally

Gingrich arrives, with that Newtish look in his eye.

Newt Gingrich had the limelight to himself today at a gathering at the Columbia Hilton devoted to foreign policy.

Well, almost to himself — the featured speaker was actually Mike Huckabee, whom former ambassador to Canada David Wilkins introduced as “an alum of our primary.” But Newt was given a slot to speak as well.  The occasion was a U.S. Global Leadership Coalition luncheon, and the crowd was a mix of academic and business types — it was co-sponsored by USC, the Columbia World Affairs Council, and the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce. The Columbia Chamber’s Ike McLeese had some smart words to say at the outset about how “foolish” isolationism is in today’s world, and Huckabee later used the same word. I guess that’s why Ron Paul wasn’t there.

Between Huck and Newt, I preferred the comments by Huckabee, but then I’ve always sort of liked Huck. Basically, he was channeling John Donne. He didn’t actually say the words, “No man is an island,” or that if a bell tolls anywhere in the world, it tolls for us, but it amounted to the same thing.

He said that Americans — particularly those who consider themselves Christian — can’t sit by and let people in other parts of the world starve or be oppressed. And not just on moral grounds. Basically, he suggested that the world is so intertwined — and this is where the Donne stuff comes in — that our own interests and fates cannot be extricated from those of people in other parts of the world. At the very least, he said, a country we help feed tonight just might be one that we need to fly some planes over, in defense of our strategic interests, on a later date.

Huckabee graciously announced at the beginning of his remarks that whenever Gingrich showed up, he’d shut up and cede the floor. As it happened, he finished before Newt swept in.

Newt had some good stuff to say, too. He’s a smart guy — just ask him; he’ll tell you. But he was also…  more bombastic, more jingoistic, as is his wont. Which can get off-putting.

Like when he condescendingly complained about the better, higher societies — you know, Northern European ones — being dragged down by the obviously inferior ones. He didn’t think it right for America to be “trying to prop up the Germans so that they can prop up the Greeks.” Who, you know, are so worthless… “This is the country the Germans want to learn to be Germanic?” Why, he asked, should the Greeks want to be German. Their choice, as he explained it, is to sit on a beach drinking ouzo, or be miserable applying themselves like the Germans.

Then there was this: “No American president should bow ever again to a Saudi king.” He was making a good point — that we need to achieve energy independence. But there was just that unsettling tinge of complaining about having to be accommodating to the wogs.

I agree with him when he says he doesn’t want his grandchildren living in a world dominated by China, an oppressive regime. I agree that the world is, indeed, better off with the dominant country being the world’s biggest liberal democracy. But I could do without the attitude, such as when he said he would hire the most aggressive trial lawyer he could find to be trade representative to China, and he’d want that rep to get up every morning thinking about how he could maximize the other side’s discomfiture.

And with Newt, it’s not what he says (for me; I’m sure that for some of my liberal correspondents, it is what he says), but the way he says it. The president needs to be cooler than that.

Mike Huckabee addresses the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition gathering.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that

Yesterday was so busy that I didn’t get around to this. Since then, I hear it was a subject of discussion on Morning Joe, having already appeared on Politico and other places.

You may have already seen it by now:

12.27pm: Our reporter Matt Williams has been on the phone to one of the senior editors at The State newspaper, which as we learned earlier, endorsed Jon Huntsman only yesterday. She was sanguine about his decision.

Cindi Scoppe, associate editor of The State, said Huntsman’s decision has left the newspaper feeling like a spurned lover.

Scoppe, who penned the endorsement piece on the former Utah governor that was published a day before he dropped out, said: “It is rather like having gone through a courtship for some period of time and finally making love with a man, for him to suddenly turn around and say, ‘you know what, I think I’m gay’.”

She said Mitt Romeny enjoyed South Carolina’s largest newspaper’s “implied endorsement”, now that Huntsman had dropped out. “We intended to make clear that Romney was our second choice. But whether we write a formal endorsement or not – we haven’t figured it out yet.”…

What’s really funny about this — painfully so — is that Cindi is not the sort of person to talk about her feelings. She’s all about thought. She’ll rattle off a logical explanation at the drop of a hat, and be perfectly comfortable doing so. But ask her about her feelings, and she’ll look at you with disgust, for bringing up a subject unworthy of discussion.

I guess the reporter from The Guardian caught her at a weak moment. So she gave him both barrels as to how it felt.

You know how Michael Corleone let Kay ask him, just this once, about his business? Well, just this once, Cindi let somebody ask about her feelings. I doubt that she’ll do that again, now that so many have been entertained by it.

Personally, I thought it was a good answer. The situation was SO absurd (Joe Lieberman at least waited until he got crushed in the SC primary before dropping out, three whole days after the endorsement) that you have to wonder: Huntsman has had staff here for months. You pay people all that time, you go to all those chicken dinners, and you don’t even stick it out until the primary?

Scuttlebutt has it that there was a deal. But what sort of deal? What would Romney, or whoever, have offered Huntsman that would be worth such a precipitous exit? And why would it have been worth offering ANYthing to such an adversary? Huntsman was barely registering in the polls, getting less support than Stephen Colbert.

It was all very odd. And Cindi captured well how odd, how disconcerting, it was.

I didn’t know they had a sense of humor

Maybe we can work something out with the Iranians after all:

Iran says it will send the U.S. government a toy model of the CIA drone the Islamic Republic captured last month. The announcement, made via state media, comes in response to the White House’s request for the return of the unmanned aircraft.

The U.S. drone, a RQ-170 Sentinel dubbed “the Beast of Kandahar,” is one of the most technologically advanced surveillance crafts in the world. The toy model, the Associated Press reports, will be 1/80 the size and retail for the equivalent of $4 in Iranian toy stores.

There’s still no conclusive explanation for how the drone got into Iranian hands in the first place. As the Slatest has previously noted, the U.S. and Iran have offered conflicting versions of pretty much every detail of the story. Iran claims to have noticed the drone in their airspace and then hacked it down electronically. The U.S. says it malfunctioned, but they’re not exactly sure how.

Where there is a sense of humor, there’s a chance for common sense — right? I thought it was quintessentially American, something we had a patent on, when Gen. McAuliffe answered a German demand for surrender by saying “Nuts.”

But this is like a page from our own book. So maybe we’re not so different…

3 SC state senators endorse Ron Paul, who talks about how great Nullification would be for SC

Ron Paul in the State House lobby today with Sens. Verdin, Bryant, Bright and Davis.

Which is not usually the kind of event I turn out for, but it was my first chance to see Ron Paul in person. This time around, anyway (and maybe ever; I’m not sure).

To end the suspense — he looks just the way he does on TV, like the cranky crazy uncle who sits in the corner and only occasionally says cryptic things.

Not to insult him. You can look like that and be a great guy; that’s just the way he looks. Lord knows how I’d get described if I were running for president. I’m often shocked at photos of myself.

Anyway, the news was that three SC state senators were joining their colleague Tom Davis in endorsing Dr. Paul. They were:

Danny Verdin from Greenville and Laurens counties, chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. He said he’d “never heard a message that… resonated in my heart more.”

Lee Bright of Spartanburg. I seem to recall him supporting Michele Bachmann earlier. “Dr. Ron Paul is conservative in all areas,” he said, unlike all those other candidates who are only “conservative” here and there, in spots. “… and he says what he believes.”

Kevin Bryant of Anderson, whom you may know as one of the first lawmakers to take up blogging. He quoted Goldwater: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” and went on to say “We’re going to have to do some extreme things to turn around America.”

For his part, Dr. Paul expressed his gratitude. In response to a question, standing in the presence of a likeness of John C. Calhoun, he said that nullification is still a viable idea, at least academically. And he almost wistfully longed for it to be a fact. While he doubted it would be often used (he don’t know us very well, do he?), he thought it would be great for South Carolina to be able to exercise that power. This helps explain why Sen. Bright is backing him.

I want to go back and listen to my recording and get that verbatim for you, but I’ll have to do it later. Gotta go see Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee (yes, Huck!), and possibly others, at another event. The subject is foreign policy.

Seeking auxiliary reporters, photographers

I can't do it all, people!

The picture and brief report from Michael Rodgers in the last post reminded me…

Over the next five days, there is going to be far more interesting stuff going on in this community than I can get to. And some of the stuff I get to, I won’t have time to write about.

It occurs to me that some of y’all just might be attending some events I miss. If so, how about sharing with the rest of us here. Send your observations, and your digital photos, to me at brad@bradwarthen.com.

I can’t pay you, but I can publish you. And working together, we can provide a broader and more complete picture of what’s happening than I can provide alone, however hard I try to be everywhere.

How about it? Your contributions will be appreciated.

Some bipartisan spirit at King Day at the Dome

Michael Rodgers shares the above photo, and this report:

At the S. C. NAACP’s King Day at the Dome, Attorney General Eric Holder reminded everyone that the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 2006 and that that reauthorization was signed into law by President George W. Bush.  Here’s a picture I took of Mr. Holder (attached).
Here’s a link to Mr. Bush’s statements when signing the bill.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060727.html

I’m glad to have this contribution, as I didn’t make it to the dome today — unlike four years ago, when I and thousands of others froze listening to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Good thing for Obama that he had borrowed our bathroom at The State to don some longjohns. He had been there for his endorsement interview with us.

It’s good to hear that Gen. Holder gave that credit to the previous administration. It’s always good when we emphasize the values that unite us, and take a break from dwelling on our divisions.

Which reminds me…

The only MLK event I made it to today was the annual Columbia Urban League breakfast at Brookland Baptist in West Columbia. All sorts of folks were there. I was writing down names…

Mac Bennett, Samuel Tenenbaum (both at my table), Paul Fant, Kevin Marsh, Jasper Salmond, John Lumpkin, Heyward Bannister, Ike and Sue McLeese, Seth Rose, Hemphill Pride, Bob Coble, Bill Nettles (main speaker), Ronnie Brailsford, Pam Lackey, Bill Clyburn, Tony Keck, Donita Todd, Harris Pastides, Vincent Sheheen, Sonny White, Dave Aiken, Milton Kimpson Jr., I.S. Leevy Johnson, Henry Heitz, Mark Keel…

… but then I got tired and quit. There were just too many people I knew.

The most remarkable thing that happened, to my mind, at the breakfast was this: Ever since the historic King Day at the Dome in 2000, which drew 60,000 people demanding that the Confederate Flag come off the dome, there had been a certain tension between civil rights organizers in the community.

Some Urban League supporters (I was on the CUL board at the time, which is why I was privy to all this) at the time had felt like that was their event, that they had pulled it together, but that the NAACP had sort of hijacked it, and claimed undue credit. So over the years, there has been a slight sense of rivalry, with the Urban League having the breakfast (which is always attended by a lot of business and p0litical leaders) and the NAACP having the limelight at the State House rally — although many people attended both.

The tension was behind the scenes, but painfully palpable.

I think that’s behind us now. Today, I was touched by something Urban League President J. T. McLawhorn went out of his way to do at the breakfast: Twice, he urged those assembled to attend the NAACP event — and essentially calling it that, giving his clear support to the other organization and its observance. Maybe he has done this in previous years and I missed it, but this really grabbed my attention this morning.

I thought that was a fine thing to do. I appreciated it. I think Dr. King would have, too.

Historic national milestone: Americans more disgusted with Congress than ever

This just in:

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that a record 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, with almost two-thirds saying they “disapprove strongly.” Just 13 percent of Americans approve of how things are going after the 112th Congress’s first year of action, solidifying an unprecedented level of public disgust that has both sides worried about their positions less than 10 months before voters decide their fates.

It has been nearly four years since even 30 percent expressed approval of Congress, according to the Post-ABC survey, and support hasn’t recovered from the historic low it reached last fall.

In the face of the public dismay, House Republicans and Senate Democrats are fashioning less far-reaching agendas for the year ahead, in part to avoid the bitter political showdowns of 2011 and also to best position themselves for the fall elections…

So basically they’ve decided, “The country is right where we want it. No need to do anything else. Let’s sit back and let the voters reward us by re-electing us.”

Some of y’all were urging me to run for office earlier today, although perhaps ironically. Is this the moment for the UnParty to make its move, at long last? That “unprecedented level of public disgust” sounds like a call to arms for somebody, anyway.

OK, THIS is the Harpootlian I know

We didn’t have to wait long for a release that addressed MLK day more in the style of the Dick Harpootlian we all know:

Fellow Democrats,

On the day that the country and the state of South Carolina celebrate the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Republican Governor Nikki Haley chose to break bread with Texas evangelist, David Burton, who has fought to take all reference to Dr. King out of the Texas public schools text books.

He not only disrespects Dr. King, but he uses Jesus Christ to justify every far right position that he can dream up.

Poor judgment and disrespect, two character traits we have come to expect from Republican Nikki Haley, and she has met our expectations once again.

Call her office at 803-734-2100, and tell her that her actions are disrespectful.

If you want to learn more about the man who Nikki Haley believes was worthy of celebrating her Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day with, watch below

I have to say that I watched that video and didn’t get out of it what Dick said was there. It was too incoherent. See what you think. But at least the world has resumed its normal shape.

I have no landline! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, you suckers!

In the past 24 hours I have heard heartfelt complaints from three people — my Dad, ADCO’s Lanier Jones and frequent commenter Steve Davis — about being overrun by robocalls and pollsters. Here’s what Steven said:

If Mitt Romney doesn’t control his robocallers soon he’s going to lose my vote. Two calls yesterday and three calls today.

To which I can only say: “Hah! You suckers! I got rid of my landline months ago, and haven’t been pestered by a one of these since!”

I mean… I feel for y’all; I really do…

Whole lotta rethinkin’ goin’ on…

Wesley Donehue sends me this release today:

SC Senator and Key Supporter of Rick Perry Urges Withdraw

January 16, 2011 – Berkeley, SC – Today, conservative Tea Party favorite, SC Senator Larry Grooms withdrew his support for Governor Rick Perry and urged the Governor to withdraw his candidacy for President of the United States.

“I was there when Governor Perry made his announcement in Charleston and had tremendously high hopes for a Perry Presidency.  I still believe he would be a great national leader, but campaigns are tough and early mistakes and missed opportunities have taken their toll.  Now is the time to get out and pass the baton to another leader that can take the message to the next level.”

“With only days to go before the South Carolina Primary, it is apparent that Governor Perry cannot win and has no viable strategy in moving forward.  Remaining in the race at this point only serves to steer votes away from viable candidates.”

“The history of our primary teaches us that when conservatives split, big government wins. Now is the time for us to reevaluate our choices and coalesce around a single candidate.” Grooms points to the fact that Mike Huckabee may have been the Republican nominee four years ago if his candidate, Fred Thompson had withdrawn prior the SC Primary vote.  “Thompson’s candidacy split off enough conservatives to ensure a McCain victory.  I do not want to see history repeat itself.”

Senator Larry Grooms is recognized as a social and economic conservative and has received numerous leadership awards from groups such the Palmetto Family Research Council, SC Taxpayers Association and the SC Club for Growth.  A champion of educational choice, fiscal and tax reform measures, Grooms is the author of the new SC Immigration Reform Law.

###

And of course, my question is, so who’s he backing? Because the implication is that he wants people to rally ’round Romney. Apparently, that’s not the case, and he’s going to tell us whom he IS endorsing tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Meanwhile, Nancy Mace, who is Sen. Tom Davis’ consultant, tells me that three Upstate senators will announce, at the State House at 10 a.m., that they are endorsing Ron Paul.

All of this follows up on the decision by Huntsman to drop out, and the endorsement of Rick Santorum by a coalition of evangelical leaders over the weekend.

A lot of currents and countercurrents. And note that in all this last-minute decision-making and mind-changing, the only person I’ve heard converting to the Romney cause is Jon Huntsman. Maybe Romney should have been more grateful for that.

Who are you, and what have you done with our Dick Harpootlian?

The Dick Harpootlian we thought we knew.

This probably won’t strike anyone else as ironic, but it’s just weird for me to read something from Dick when he’s in a reverential mode:

Fellow Democrats,

Yesterday was the birthday of a renowned American visionary. He changed the way people look at humanity, and we will never forget his courageous fight for civil rights.

Today we thank Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for teaching us that everyone is equal, and nonviolent methods develop the most admirable outcomes.

He was one of the greatest orators in American history and we will never forget what he did for our country.

Please take this day to offer service to your community; giving back to your neighbor just as Dr. King intended.  By doing this, we are allowing his legacy to continue to flourish today and for many years to come.

– Dick Harpootlian, SCDP Chairman

Just doesn’t sound like Dick. He’s widely believed to have only two gears: wiseacre and ticked off. Yet here’s a third…

Insult to injury: Huntsman quits; Romney disses him

(My spellcheck thinks I’m misspelling “disses.” Looks right to me…)

Jon Huntsman had been through enough humiliation, what with trailing behind Stephen Colbert in the polls, not getting any bounce from New Hampshire, being called nasty names (like “moderate”!), and then having to face facts and surrender…

But he kept his chin up and quite like a man, giving the nod to Romney and urging all the GOP candidates to pull together like a team and quit trying to eviscerate each other.

And what did he get for it? Dissed, that’s what:

Romney downplays Huntsman support

By Cameron Joseph and Daniel Strauss – 01/16/12 12:12 PM ET

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been notably slow to promote Jon Huntsman’s endorsement, a sign it doesn’t see it as much of an asset in a Republican primary.

Romney did not join Huntsman to receive his endorsement this morning, and his campaign took hours to mention Huntsman at all on Monday, first promoting an endorsement from Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) and sending out an alert about a South Carolina campaign stop.

Romney’s eventual email on Huntsman was terse and, and a tweet barely mentioned the endorsement. “I salute Jon Huntsman and his wife Mary Kaye,” Romney said. “Jon ran a spirited campaign based on unity not division, and love of country.  I appreciate his friendship and support.”

That stands in contrast to Romney’s embrace of Tim Pawlenty’s endorsement. After the former Minnesota governor endorsed Romney in September, Romney named him a national co-chairman of his campaign…

Maybe Huntsman should have just urged the nation to unite around Obama. He might have gotten more respect that way.

Which candidate is more likely to go “boom!” in SC?

Maybe I’ve got my metaphors confused.

On a previous post, I likened Newt Gingrich to a hand grenade with the pin pulled. But I couldn’t remember what you call that clip thing down the side of the grenade that you have to hold in place manually after pulling the pin if you want to hold it without getting blown up. So I Googled “hand grenade parts,” and got this page, which told me it was called the “safety lever.” Fine.

But after I posted my metaphor, I noticed that there was a political ad on the hand grenade page — and it wasn’t for Gingrich. Yeah, it appears to be a Google ad, and therefore is showing up because I, a South Carolinian, went to the page, but still….

Wait a sec! Whom will I vote for now?

You know, I was so busy last night writing about the Huntsman departure from the race that only now has this thought occurred to me: For whom will I vote on Saturday, now that he’s out of it?

That’s a toughie. Let’s look at my options, in alphabetical order:

  • Newt Gingrich — He’s a knowledgeable guy. As one uncommitted Republican (the same one who called Romney a “Plastic Banana Rock ‘n’ Roller”) said to me the other night, Newt Gingrich is like the professor and the others are like the students in debates. But knowledge and wisdom are not the same things. And a vote for Newt Gingrich is like a vote for a live grenade with the cotter pin pulled out. You’re only going to be able to hold the safety lever in place for just so long…
  • Ron Paul — No way in the world. As I often say, despite being an UnPartisan I can frequently find points of agreement with both Democrats and Republicans. But Ron Paul comes about as close as anyone can to being the polar opposite of what I believe in. Some times you can with justice call me liberal or conservative (even though I don’t like it), but no one who knows me would call me a libertarian.
  • Rick Perry — Nope. He just doesn’t bring anything to the table that I’m looking for. If all you can offer me is that you’re a Christian and you served in the military, as fine as those things are, you aren’t telling me why you should be POTUS.
  • Mitt Romney — We know about all his failings, mostly arising from his fundamental opportunism. In his favor I’ll say that I don’t think he’d lead the country down a wrong path. But that’s because I don’t think he’d lead it down any path at all. He would just manage what we have.
  • Rick Santorum — I like this guy more than I thought I would (I just thought of him as that culture warrior who got crushed by Bob Casey), and of course as a Catholic I share a lot of fundamental values — more so than with the evangelical Perry. But as much as he touts his foreign policy experience as a former senator, I find it hard to see what about his resume demonstrates a readiness to be POTUS.
I’ve got to pick somebody, because this is my one chance as a South Carolinian to have my vote count (since the November vote here is always a foregone conclusion).
However I do vote come Saturday, I doubt that I will share the decision with y’all — because I won’t feel good about it, and won’t feel like defending it…

Yo, Lee: David Yepsen says “Hey”

Above you see David Yepsen and me, looking relieved and happy that we’re done with our panel presentation at the Senate Presidents’ Forum in Key West over the weekend, and that it went well. Funny how those kinds of things — just talking — can take a lot out of you.

It was an honor to meet David, the legend of Iowa political journalism. And of course when we met, he asked after another legend of political journalism, a man whom everyone knows — and, more remarkably, everyone likes and respects — my longtime friend and colleague Lee Bandy.

I’m lucky to have worked with both Lee and the Tennessee legend, John Parish. And while it was brief, I was honored to share the panel with David Yepsen, who is now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute (he left The Des Moines Register about the same time I left The State), Saturday. And to get to know a couple of political pros I had not met before, who also served on the panel: First, John Marttila, longtime friend and ally of Joe Biden ever since he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. John continues to be a senior political adviser to the vice president. From the Republican side, we had Mike DuHaime, who ran Chris Christie’s successful run for governor of New Jersey in 2009.

We had a great discussion, both during the panel and at meals and events before and after.

What did I say during the presentation? Well, not anything I haven’t shared here. I essentially scrapped my prepared remarks, as mentioned previously — which is probably a good thing, because things flow better when I’m winging it. But preparing — not only the writing, but all the conversations I had with top Republicans in SC, right up to a couple of minutes before the program — did help me get my thoughts in order. Hey, if I hadn’t made all those panicked calls Friday night and Saturday morning after seeing those poll numbers, I wouldn’t have known to call Romney a “Plastic Banana Rock ‘n’ Roller,” which still cracks me up — the idea of Romney as ANY kind of rock ‘n’ roller, actually.

Anyway, I’m back from Key West. And it’s going to be a busy week…

Mike DuHaime (or the back of his head, anyway), David Yepsen and John Marttila, during the panel discussion.

In an interesting parallel, Tom Davis backs Ron Paul

Tom Davis signs on with Ron Paul.

Earlier this evening, Sen. Tom Davis put out this release:

SENATOR TOM DAVIS ENSORSES RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT“It’s easy to campaign on lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations – it’s another thing entirely to stand up for these limited government principles when the entire Washington establishment is aligned against you. Yet for more than three decades Ron Paul has cast thousands of lonely votes in our nation’s capital based on the constitutional principles that this country was founded on – and that the Republican Party has promised to protect. Yet while generations of politicians – including far too many Republicans – were losing their way or caving to the status quo, Ron Paul was standing as a Tea Party of one against a towering wave of red ink.”
“2012 marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government is going to spend well over $1 trillion in money it doesn’t have. Each and every American taxpayer is now on the hook for $135,000 worth of federal debt – and last year’s debt deal adds another $7 trillion in deficit spending over the coming decade. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly 1,000 days.”

“I’m endorsing Ron Paul because enough is enough. Despite this wave of unprecedented government spending, our unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for the last 34 months and 146.4 million Americans – one out of every two people in this country – are now classified as poor or low-income.”

“Government activism and government intervention clearly hasn’t fixed our economy – which is why the Republican Party needs a nominee who isn’t wedded to that failed approach. We won’t chart a path to fiscal solvency or victory in November by running toward the failed ideas of the left – we will achieve those victories by returning to the principles that the Republican Party once stood for.”

“That is why I am proud to endorse Ron Paul for president.”

“Ron Paul’s record matches his rhetoric, his fiscal plan matches the fiscal challenges that our nation is facing and his movement represents the taxpayers whose interests have been ignored in the political process for far too long.”

“I’m also endorsing him because unlike what the pundits have led you to believe, he is the candidate who gives the Republican Party the best chance to beat Barack Obama in November.”

“We have a choice: We can keep electing candidates who talk about change only during political campaigns as a way to get elected, or we can finally elect a candidate who will walk the walk and make that change a reality – restoring our bottom line, our individual liberties and our national pride in the process.”

To learn more about Senator Tom Davis visit www.senatortomdavis.com

My first thought was “Wow.” I’ve always liked Tom and have a lot of respect for him, and even though he worked for Mark Sanford all those years and was so close to him, I never regarded him as being nearly as much of a radical libertarian as the former governor. But with this move, he has exceeded his friend in that regard.

But you know what? In his own way, he has done much the same thing that The State did in endorsing Jon Huntsman. Yes, in one regard he did the polar opposite — Ron Paul is the last of the GOP candidates that The State, or I, would endorse. As Cindi Scoppe wrote:

Like any libertarian, Ron Paul embraces the worst positions of the far right and the far left: no social safety net, unregulated markets, an isolationist foreign policy and no moral standards. He is the candidate for those who refuse to accept that they are part of a society and can’t see how much their vision of a crippled government would hurt all of us, themselves included.

But in another sense, the two endorsements were alike.

Surely Tom knows that Ron Paul will never be the Republican nominee for president just as well as The State knew that this was not to be for Huntsman this year. But he went with the candidate he thought it should be, rather than the candidate that it would be. So good for him.

Oh, and lucky Tom. As hopeless as his candidate’s cause is, at least he won’t embarrass Tom by suddenly pulling out. Ron Paul’s candidacy is forever.

All in the family now.

Huntsman, the best man for the job, drops out

I was accustomed over the years to being interviewed by national media on the Sunday morning when a presidential endorsement came out in the paper. Today was no different, as a reporter with NBC called to ask me about The State and and its endorsement, prior to interviewing Jon Huntsman today.

I was happy to explain the Huntsman endorsement within the context of the ongoing consensus of the editorial board. I could well have written many of the words that appeared in the paper today. And I told her to remember the one thing I have said, more often than anything else, in explaining what an endorsement is not, and what it is: It’s about who should win, not who’s going to win. We all knew Huntsman wasn’t going to win, just as we knew Joe Lieberman wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee in 2004. But he should have been.

And Huntsman was the man who should have won the Republican nomination, as well expressed in the editorial:

We need a president who can work within our poisonous political environment to solve our nation’s problems, not simply score partisan points. Someone who understands that negotiation is essential in a representative democracy, and that there are good ideas across the political spectrum. Someone who has a well-defined set of core values but is not so rigid that he ignores new information and new conditions. Someone who has shown himself to be honest and trustworthy. And competent. Someone whose positions are well-reasoned and based on the world as it is rather than as he pretends it to be. Someone with the temperament and judgment and experience to be taken seriously as the commander in chief and leader of the free world.

We think Mr. Romney could demonstrate those characteristics. Mr. Huntsman already does. And we are proud to endorse him for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

Exactly. And Cindi’s accompanying column (Nina Brook years ago dubbed this sort of pairing “steak and steak”) went on to explain why none of the other candidates would do. All well reasoned.

And The State‘s reward for having done the right thing, and having clearly stated why, will be catcalls from detractors delighted that its chosen candidate quit only hours after the endorsement was published. (This will particularly thrill the ones who truly hate the newspaper, and maintain that its endorsement is the “kiss of death.” So seldom does anything happen to support their erroneous thesis — the newspaper’s chosen candidates win about 75 percent of the time in general elections — that I suppose we must indulge them in having their fun, eh?)

Have you seen the news? It just broke a few minutes ago:

Huntsman Says He’s Quitting G.O.P. Race

By JIM RUTENBERG, JEFF ZELENY AND MICHAEL D. SHEAR

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. informed his advisers on Sunday that he intends to drop out of the Republican presidential race, ending his candidacy a week before he had hoped to revive his campaign in the South Carolina primary.

Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the soaring expectations of his candidacy, made plans to make an announcement as early as Monday. He had been set to participate in an evening debate in Myrtle Beach.

Matt David, campaign manager to Mr. Huntsman, confirmed the decision in an interview Sunday evening. “The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” Mr. David said. “That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”

Huntsman was right to back Romney, thereby seconding The State’s point that he would be the second choice.

But the nation is worse off for not having Huntsman as an option.

Capt. Romney’s crew fights both sides at once

Note the two sides, above and below, of a mailer I received at home.

One of the good things about being a Patrick O’Brian fanatic is that it provides one with so many good metaphors.

For instance… one of the most difficult things for a man of war’s crew in the age of sail was to fight both sides of the ship at once. One way this might occur would be if a ship sailed between two enemy ships and fired with its larboard and starboard guns at the same time. This took not only a very well-trained crew, but a numerous one — remember, it took a lot of men just to keep changing sail and maneuvering the ship, plus twice the usual number of gun crews. Each gun required a crew of several men, and they weren’t much good if they hadn’t had plenty of experience firing live ammunition at targets under all sorts of conditions.

This required a wealthy commander, because the Royal Navy provided a minuscule amount of powder and shot, and the captain had to shell out his own money if he wanted his men to be able to perform well, even to survive, in a fight.

And only a captain with a numerous, well trained crew would attempt anything so taxing as dashing between two enemy ships to fight both sides at once.

Either that, or a very desperate captain.

I suppose you could interpret this mailer I got at home either way. It was sent out by Restore Our Future, Inc., which exists to promote Mitt Romney.

We know he’s a wealthy captain, with a numerous crew. But is he also desperate?

His foes are the ones who should be desperate. They know that if they don’t stop him in South Carolina, they are done for. But he also knows that, and probably just as soon have done with them all.

So he fires both broadsides at once; never mind the cost.