Blame Mourdock

As the US Senate race in Indiana was coming down to the wire with Republican Richard Mourdock and Democrat Joe Donnelly polling withing a point or two of each other, Mourdock generally trailing, Republicans were gearing up to blame Libertarian Andy Horning for 'stealing votes', due to his polling 7%, well over the margin of victory.

My standard post would be to point out that A) nobody owns the votes but the voters, so the 'stolen vote' line is so much BS, B) Republicans claim to believe in competition, so hey buddy, how about out-competing for the votes? C) there are people who will vote for Horning because Donnelly is too conservative a Democrat for them, especially on issues like civil liberties and foreign policy; the conventional wisdom that there are only right-libertarians is flat-out wrong.

No need for the standard post, despite the righteousness of it. No, as the country has already learned, Richard Mourdock and the Republicans need only blame Richard Mourdock. Even Fox News couldn't hide from it:

Top Republicans were slow to embrace tea party-backed Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock after he ousted a longtime GOP senator from office. Though he eventually won their support -- and money -- Mourdock could see both fade after telling a live television audience that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape, "that's something God intended." 

Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most expensive and closely watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate Tuesday night whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.

Mourdock became the second GOP Senate candidate to find himself on the defensive over comments about rape and pregnancy. Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said in August that women's bodies have ways of preventing pregnancy in cases of what he called "legitimate rape." Since his comment, Akin has repeatedly apologized but has refused to leave his race despite calls to do so by leaders of his own party, from GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on down. 

Mourdock is toast. Pro-Democrat PACs hopped on his words within a couple of hours, tying Mourdock to Mitt Romney.



Republicans had a chance to reclaim the Senate, but threw it away with their absurd statements on abortion. Can't blame that on anyone but themselves.

I expect the Lugar Republicans to be running for the hills. Abdul Hakim Shabazz had previously, accurately, laid out a 4-case scenario for Lugar Republicans. I would reduce it now to three options: 1. Vote for Donnelly; 2. vote for Horning; 3. don't vote in this race; because #4- hold your nose and vote for Mourdock- is probably not going to happen very much now.

Thoughts On Paul Ryan

The first thing that occurred to me with Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan was how surprised I was that it wasn't Marco Rubio. Yes, I know that Rubio had said that he didn't want the nomination, but at the end of the day, Florida matters a great deal in the electoral scheme of things, and he might have helped bring that state to the Republicans.

That occurring to me first tells you how little impressed I was by the choice.

If this was supposed to appeal to the libertarians or fiscal conservatives that are uninspired by Romney, it fails. The thing the GOP seems to not understand about libertarians and fiscal conservatives is that we do tend to look into the record of candidates. If Romney was counting on this part of the would-be coalition getting excited about the ticket because of The Ryan Budget, well, gosh, sorry, missed it by a mile or two.

First off, if Romney wanted this bloc of voters excited, they might have tabbed Ron Paul. Or Rand Paul. Or Jeff Flake, or Justin Amash. Heck, Walter Williams even. Secondly, the Ryan Budget would have eliminated the deficit by 2040.

2040!

That isn't serious. That's a joke, when we all know that no Congress has the discipline necessary to follow any plan for more than two years, let alone 28 years. For real budget hawks, that was nothing to get excited about.

Thus, the Ryan nomination is also nothing to get excited about. Cato tried to be helpful, but couldn't help but point out Ryan's horrible votes on a number of issues, because it's so obvious.

Par for the course with Team Romney. I can't see anything but a repeat of McCain's results, because while there seems to be plenty of anti-Obama animus, I don't see a whole lot of pro-Romney excitement. The Republicans need the libertarians, the Tea Party, the fiscal conservatives, etc., in order to win. They are doing nothing to get them interested.

This is especially the case when you have Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson proposing to submit a balanced budget in 2013.

Update: In case anyone thought Cato was too soft on the rah-rah for Ryan, Roger Pilon fills the breach with a near-endorsement in a post entitled "Is The American Electorate That Dumb?":

Ryan put it simply: The country’s going broke. You’d never know that from listening to the Democratic response to the pick. For that side, it’s all about what the Romney-Ryan team will take away from seniors, women, students, and the middle class — as if all of that ”stuff” were free from government. They’re counting on seniors being too senile, women being too emotional, young people being too uneducated, and the middle-class being too focused on their mortgages to understand the situation we’re in, where we borrow 40 percent of what we spend and add trillions to the national debt every year. The Ryan budget won’t push Granny over the cliff. The Obama team’s head-in-the-sand will.

And it isn’t as if the Obama team doesn’t know exactly what they’re doing. In Obama’s latest ad, run last night during the Olympics closing ceremonies, he himself states plainly that the nation faces two fundamentally different visions of where we’re going. But he talks only about government benefits, not about costs — the “Life of Julia” nonsense. It’s a cynical view of the American public — a view that this election, more than any in recent memory, will put to the test.

To which I say, "Is Cato That Dumb?" Two fundamentally different versions? Seriously? Maybe the Koch Brothers won after all.

What really is the difference between a plan to solve the deficit never versus in 28 years... which is the political real-world equivalent of never?

What really is the difference in Team Obama's foreign policy and Romney's? Or positions on civil liberties?

Has Cato fallen into the trap of 'gotta get rid of Obama because he's awful, replace with any warm body'? How can Cato so willfully ignore Gary Johnson? Johnson is so near to everything Cato promotes. Romney so far from it, and Ryan really little better. So, pretend Johnson doesn't exist?

Very frustrating, to say the least.

Hat Tip to Patriot Paul, for the link to the Pilon Cato article.

Another Super Bore?

(Kalamazoo, MI)- OK, so I was completely wrong about the Super Bowl. It was a great game- a close game where another good guy, Eli Manning, stepped up with his team and took the big prize.

Is it too much to hope for to see a parallel in tonight's Super Tuesday results? I'm still pulling for Ron Paul, the only Republican or Democrat even remotely interested in broadly getting government out of our lives, but it seems like he's the New york Giants going in against heavily favored front-runners like John McCain and Mitt Romney even.

I'll have the TV on in the same way as I did for the Super Bowl- as background while I work. Hopefully, in the same way, I will gradually be intrigued, then excited, then delighted.

A guy can hope that America wants freedom, right?

Another One Gone

Frankly, I thought it would be Rudy Giuliani out of the running on the Republican next, but alas, Fred Thompson called it quits today. From CNN's report:

Thompson played to the voters as a staunch conservative and a son of the South. While he did draw some evangelical voters from one-time Baptist preacher and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, it wasn't enough to pull him into contention for the nomination.

He finished with 16 percent of the vote. Sen. John McCain won Saturday's contest with 33 percent, followed by Huckabee with 30 percent.

"He's really been good lately, but it's too late," CNN analyst Bill Bennett said of Thompson after South Carolina returns started to come in. "If you're a Southern conservative and you can't make it in South Carolina, it's over."

Also, if you aren't running on anything distinct, like say a consistent set of ideas, and you aren't near the top, it's over. So far, Romney and McCain are getting away with a lack of the former.

So, now that the Republican field is down to five, what are the odds that the last place candidate (Giuliani) continues to get as much press as the front-runners? And the odds that the 4th place candidate continues to be consciously ignored? About the same.

Old Poll Results

I had a long running poll: Who would you vote against. Here are the final results:

Who would you vote against?

Selection ........Votes
Hillary Clinton 53% 121
John McCain 7% 16
Mitt Romney 9% 21
Ron Paul 4% 9
Dennis Kucinich 3% 6
All of 'em - I'll vote Libertarian 25% 57

230 votes total

Clinton and McCain have long been on top of my 'vote against' list. I'm happier to have a possible 'vote for' candidate, in Ron Paul. I remain highly doubtful Paul can win the Republican nomination, so after that event, I will probably be searching for a new 'vote for' candidate.