Mount Virtus

Update: It’s good to see Michael at Best Destiny and Phil at Clear Commentary thinking along similar lines.

With all the news of economic slowdown nearing fevered pitch, some Americans will like the sound of a few hundred extra bucks in their pockets. Hey, it sounds good to me, too. Except it’s not a tax break in the sense of getting to keep more of your own hard-earned money. It’s plain old wealth redistribution, as explained by George Mason economist Russell Roberts in this piece (HT Rossputin):

The money has to come from somewhere. If you raise taxes to fund the plan, the people who are taxed are poorer and they’ll spend less. If you borrow money to fund the plan, the people who buy the government bonds have less money to spend and that offsets the stimulus. It’s like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end. Funny thing—the water in the shallow end doesn’t get any deeper.

And even the people who get the money often save more of it than they spend.

That’s why stimulus schemes based on giving people money have a poor track record of energizing the economy. Usually, the only thing that gets stimulated is a politician’s approval rating.

We’ve got a lot of politicians making pie-in-the-sky promises, and even a few plausible-sounding ones, like doling out a few hundred bucks of revenue to everyone will kickstart the economy.

It would be short-term relief, yes.

But certainly not good long-term economic policy (which, of course, has very little to do with getting elected).

“The man finally comes around,” writes Red State’s Erick Erickson for Human Events, as he travels with the Thompson campaign in South Carolina:

Though barely mentioned in the national media, Senator Fred Thompson has been on a barn storming tour crisscrossing South Carolina for more than a week. In a unique approach, he is not just going to major media markets, but to rural areas of South Carolina. On my first day on the trail with Senator Thompson, he drew a crowd of 180 people to a small Mennonite restaurant in Abbeville, South Carolina — population 26,000 with a median income of $15,370. He capped off the day at the Orangeburg-Calhoun County Technical College in Orangeburg, South Carolina with over 200 people braving a rare snow shower to hear him. The day before I joined him on the campaign trail, Senator Thompson’s campaign saw large capacity auditoriums overflowing with people standing outside the buildings waiting to get in.

The crowds are enthusiastic and relieved. Finally, the Fred Thompson they hoped for is on the campaign trail. “Saying the Reagan Coalition is dead is like saying the Constitution is dead,” Thompson began one speech, taking on Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. “The Reagan Coalition was never about the man. It was and is about the principles and values we apply to issues.” He continued, “The issues may change, but the principles do not.” The crowd roared its enthusiasm.

As always, read the whole thing. I have a feeling some in the MSM may be surprised by tomorrow’s results from the South Carolina primary.

David Limbaugh eloquently tells conservatives why now is the time to give Fred Thompson a second look and fearlessly answer the call of his campaign:

Fred does not run from his record — more to the point, he doesn’t need to. He shoots straight without the constant self-serving reminders that he does, as in telling us he’s driving the “Straight Talk Express.”

More importantly, Fred is right on the issues, and there’s little doubt his positions are firm. Research his stances; read his position papers. You’ll find he’s very strong in all areas important to mainstream conservatives, including national defense, taxes, spending, life, immigration, federalism, appointing originalist judges, health care and education.

I’m not drooling over Fred or saying his record is flawless, but I am saying he’s the real deal, and it’s a bit disappointing that more haven’t taken a closer look.

I think this is due partly to his laid-back personality and partly to his timing. He peaked about the time he was contemplating entering the race but not acting on it. By the time he jumped in, it was anticlimactic, and he still hasn’t recovered from that reversal.

There has also been a negative momentum hovering over his already-stalled campaign, acting as a psychological barrier to his catching fire among conservative voters.

There is simply too much herd mentality among us about electability. We tell ourselves a candidate is not inspiring, then pretty soon we’re convinced he’s unelectable, and, voila, he almost becomes so. Yet, at that very moment, he’s proving to us that he is quite presidential, quite electable and quite motivated for the job — if we can only shed our predispositions against his “electability.” Since electability is often a matter of collective perception, it can turn on a dime, as with the reversal of the respective fortunes of screaming Howard Dean and somniferous John Kerry in 2004.

This primary season, relatively speaking, has just begun. But Fred is now up against the wall. How can we expect him to have done much better than he has to date with everyone prattling on about the overwhelming odds against him? The “experts” continue to be wrong at almost every turn, so why can’t they be wrong about Fred, too? It’s time to quit empowering them by following their dictatorial doom-prophecies. It’s encouraging that John Zogby’s latest South Carolina poll shows that while levels of support for McCain and Huckabee “have remained static,” Fred is starting to move up.

Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has — he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it’s time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves.

Fred has answered the conservatives’ call. Shouldn’t we answer his?

(HT: Blogs for Fred Thompson)

Now is the time: The do-or-die South Carolina primary is Saturday. If you are so inclined and able, please find a way to show your support on Fred’s official campaign website.

At the American Spectator, Quin Hilyer makes the best case I’ve seen for South Carolinians to support Fred Thompson in Saturday’s primary:

If I were a South Carolina Republican voter on Saturday, then for parochial, tactical, and philosophical reasons, I would vote for Fred Thompson.

This doesn’t mean that I would not have voted for Mitt Romney in Michigan on Tuesday, if I were a Michigander, or that I would not vote for Rudy Giuliani in Florida later this month. Voting in each state, especially in a drawn-out nomination battle, involves particularly local considerations as well as national ones.

But for South Carolinians who are mainstream conservatives, those local considerations seem to cry out for a boost for Fred Thompson.

Read the whole thing. (HT: Jonathan Adler at The Corner)

Over at the new Face the State is a story about the ascension of State Rep. Mike Merrifield back to the chair of the House Education Committee, after last year’s controversy and resignation:

Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, quietly resumed his post at the helm of the House Education Committee on Monday more than nine months after his resignation over a well-publicized email that condemned school choice supporters to a “special place in hell.”

Of course, if you’ve been reading Denise at Colorado Charters or Mr. Bob at The Daily Blogster, you would already be aware of this un-parent-friendly political event in our fair state.

More from Face the State:

Political consultant Katy Atkinson, a consultant to moderate and conservative political causes, said top Democrats may have perceived that they had little reason to replace Merrifield with a legislator more open to supporting charters and other parent-friendly education options. “The Democratic leadership is not that concerned in particular about their standing in the school choice community,” she said. “They’re more concerned about all the money they get from the [Colorado Education Association].”

Colorado’s Democrat candidates received nearly $280,000 in direct teachers union contributions in 2006, compared to just over $20,000 for Republicans. According to Colorado League of Charter Schools Executive Director Jim Griffin, Democrats did little to soften their reputation as the anti-school choice party after Merrifield stepped down from his post last Spring. Merrifield was replaced by another union-funded legislator, Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, who temporarily assumed the chair. “I never viewed having one or the other in charge as a particularly big deal,” he said.

Well put. Party trumps person.

Why as a conservative don’t I support the presidential candidacy of Mike Huckabee? Another great example is highlighted this morning by Jim Geraghty at NRO’s Campaign Spot:

The Thompson campaign has video of one of those pro-Huckabee push polls.

More than a few South Carolina readers have reported the same calls, as well as Campaign Spot Senior South Carolina Correspondent.

I’m neither impressed by the Huckabee campaign, nor from Common Sense Issues, the group behind the calls.

Sure, the Huckabee campaign says they don’t support this, and they’re calling on it to stop. But let’s see some anger. Let’s have Huckabee call up Davis, the guy who’s doing this and say, “stop it, you’re hurting my campaign.” Come on out and denounce Davis as a mudslinging slime merchant who’s manufacturing cynicism on a grand scale. (They’re saying they’ll make a million calls in South Carolina!) The governor’s a good wordsmith, I’m sure he can put it even better than that. Let’s see some fire and brimstone. Tepid words to the Associated Press aren’t going to deter Davis.

If Huckabee supporters want to make Thompson’s lobbying in two or three meetings 17 years ago the reason Republicans shouldn’t vote for him in the primary, they should come on out and say it. Don’t do this in the dark of night, hoping to reach primary voters who aren’t familiar with the issue. If this really was such an objectionable, disqualifying bit of Thompson’s background, we would be hearing it from the candidate himself.

In short, it’s cheap political slime.
Read the rest of this entry »

Mitt Romney recorded an impressive win in the Michigan primary tonight. Hats off to him. Now here’s hoping that Fred Thompson surges back to take South Carolina and Rudy makes a comeback with a Florida victory. It will drive all the pundits mad, simply mad - especially those in the MSM beginning to mourn McCain’s demise. Can you imagine it? The phrase “Republican frontrunner” will set off unending fireworks on all the cable news programs.

So should the word “momentum,” which professional and amateur prognosticators appear to have put too much stock into this far. Huckabee’s Iowa win got him what? Back-to-back third-place finishes. And McCain went from one week as the New Hampshire darling to badly beaten in Michigan the next. So who will be the first to mistakenly suggest that Romney’s impressive victory tonight will sweep him forward in the Palmetto State on Saturday?

Maybe, just maybe, we’ll see an old-fashioned brokered GOP convention this summer in St. Paul - like this one. I can dream, can’t I?

Today is the Michigan Republican Presidential primary: Here’s hoping that my home state can do its part to derail the McCain Train before it carries the whole Republican Party and conservative movement off the cliff.

Meanwhile, Fred is on fire in South Carolina: See here and here for a sample of the details.

On the other hand, Paul Mirengoff at Powerline opines that a McCain Michigan victory catapulting him to frontrunner status coupled with Fred’s rising status as the leading conservative challenger in South Carolina might do wonders for Fred’s campaign. Perhaps, but I’m not willing to take the chance with McCain. Today, I cheer for Romney.

Thanks, Mr. Snaggle-Tooth, for your lengthy treatise in response to my prior arguments. In it you write:

Ole Ben links a Liberty article by libertarian attorney Timothy Sandefur, ‘n I mus’ say it’s jus’ ‘bout as good as the pro-Unionist argumint kin git. Quite Jaffian it wuz, with the acrid odor of Claremont about it. But that article got picked to pieces in-iss un’, written by anothah libertarian attorney, Stephan Kinsella. (See this here response by Kinsella too.)

Well, in the interest of time, here’s an even better version of Sandefur’s argument (link leads to abstract, from which you can download a PDF). It’s a very well-documented and well-argued essay, and there isn’t much I can add to it in this forum. Some of its salient points: 1) The “compact theory” of the Constitution is weak and doesn’t hold up to careful scrutiny; 2) Unilateral secession is unconstitutional; 3) The South’s actions were not justifiable as a revolution; 4) The Confederate States were primarily motivated by a desire to protect slave property; and 5) Libertarians ascribing all the ills of national government consolidation at the feet of Lincoln and the Civil War have overreached and committed the post hoc fallacy.
Read the rest of this entry »

Weird political story: Paranoid Ron Paul supporters harass a New Hampshire town official over a simple mistake that initially cost their candidate 31 votes but was quickly corrected.

Two words for the Ronulans (in the vernacular): Chill out.

Though, as Paul’s campaign continues to sink like a piece of lead, I’m sure many will find a conspiracy in that, too. All part of an American political tradition, a leading historian once argued.

(Before you begin, please remember to take this through the filter of a writer who has been described as “one of the most virulent anti-public education individuals” in Colorado.)

Yesterday I wrote about the Colorado caucus (25 days to go). Today I found the most comprehensive guide of them all - created by the Colorado Education Association. Everything you need to know about the caucus is in there.

And more. Including the following suggested resolutions for CEA members to make at their caucuses: Read the rest of this entry »

The Denver Business Journal interviewed one of the two national labor experts who spoke at an event this morning sponsored by the Colorado chapter of the Federalist Society. From the article headlined “Labor experts make case against Ritter’s union order”:

The governor and Democrats in the House and Senate argue the order is non-binding and won’t have a direct bearing on budgets or businesses. Many in the business community also say they’re hard pressed to see how the order effects them.

But Stan Greer, senior programming director for the National Institute of Labor Relations, based in Springfield, Va., made the case that Ritter’s executive order isn’t in the state’s best economic interests — particularly if state workers are forced to pay union dues.

Greer spoke in front of some prominent local Republicans, including Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, Senate Minority Leader John McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, and other legislators, at Denver’s University Club Friday morning.

Based on what he’s seen in other states, Greer said, the executive order increases the chances that most state workers will belong to a union — especially because Ritter’s order didn’t explicitly bar forced union fees.

“The governor is bending over backwards to say forced unionization is not what he’s imposing,” Greer said. “But if the governor was against union dues and agency fees, he would have explicitly put that in the order. … He wants to leave the door open, but it’s not convenient for him to talk about it at this time.”

I’ve written a lot about Gov. Ritter’s executive order. But until I heard Greer and his colleague Raymond LaJeunesse bring up this point, I had pretty much conceded that the order wouldn’t be a big issue when it came to worker freedom. Sure, some state employees will have to accept union representation regardless of whether or not they believe it benefits them.

But what about setting up “agency shops” in Colorado state government - where everyone has to pay tribute to the “exclusive representative” union to keep their job? Gov. Ritter could have explicitly prohibited non-member “agency fees” in his executive order. But he didn’t.

As Greer and LaJeunesse pointed out, Ritter could have followed the example of President John F. Kennedy, who in 1962 signed Executive Order 10988, enabling monopoly collective bargaining among federal government employees. Included in the order: “Employees of the Federal Government shall have, and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right, freely and without feel of penalty or reprisal, to form, join and assist any employee organization or to refrain from any such activity. [Emphasis added]”

Ritter’s order has nothing to say about state government workers’ rights along these lines. Why not? The governor has told us that his order doesn’t provide for agency fees, and that he retains final authority over the process. But when Big Labor negotiates “fair share” agency fees into a union “partnership agreement” as a trade-off for a smaller pay raise, who will be there to counter the union’s political pressure?

Hint, hint … Someone needs to follow up on the Denver Business Journal story and ask Gov. Ritter whether he intends to amend his order by adding individual worker protections.

Cross posted at Ritter Watch

The consensus of serious analysts on the right side of the blogosphere is that Fred Dalton Thompson won tonight’s South Carolina debate, aired on Fox News. Here we go (in no particular order):

1. Jim Geraghty, National Review Campaign Spot: “Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to “the Natural” to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background.” Jared has to appreciate the reference.

2. Erick at RedState: “Fred Thompson owned this debate. He owned it. He dominated.”

3. John Hawkins, at Right Wing News: “1) Fred Thompson (Big Winner): He was energized, funny, gave good answers and just tore Mike Huckabee up. This may have been Fred’s best debate yet.”

4. Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard blog: “Clear winner? Fred Thompson. He was commanding, funny, articulate. His rat-a-tat-tat answer deconstructing Mike Huckabee’s record was incredibly effective - a good actor can certainly memorize his lines. But Fred was good off the cuff, too. He does, at times, seem uninterested, especially when others are talking. He won the debate, but those cutaway shots don’t help him. Still, Thompson has to have made strides among conservatives who are not yet sold on John McCain. He could have done more to engage McCain directly - he did so once, but it was almost passive. Fredemption?” (Bill Kristol also called Thompson’s performance “most improved” and labeled tonight’s debate the best of the campaign season thus far.)

5. Over at National Review’s The Corner: Rich Lowry, K-Lo, and Mark Levin unanimously score tonight’s debate a Fred victory.

6. And take this through the Hugh Hewitt filter: “Fred had a great night, Mitt a good one and Rudy did fine as well.”

This is just what Fred needed heading into the do-or-die South Carolina primary next week: a grand slam performance, one that took a big shine off Mike Huckabee and set him apart as the clear choice as the strong consistent conservative candidate. With the wacky chaos of this whole primary process, just about anything could happen. And after tonight’s debate, a Fred comeback seems a much more plausible scenario than it would have just a day ago.

Much more on Blogs for Fred Thompson. And if you are so inclined, perhaps you will consider opening your wallet a bit for Fred. You’ve been waiting, you’ve been hesitant: but now is the time.

Update, 2:41 PM: Information on Douglas County Republican caucuses is included in the comment section. Thanks, Steve! … Denver County, too, compliments of el presidente.

The Denver Post has a full-length story this morning on the building interest & excitement surrounding Colorado’s caucus process this year. As the story notes, it overwhelmingly has to do with a highly competitive primary in a presidential election year:

Republican Mort Marks, 83, plans to hold a caucus at his house. He said he has received calls from a lot of people he hasn’t heard from before, and he has noticed larger turnout at recent Republican events.

“There is a hell of a lot more interest than I’ve seen in many, many years,” said Marks, who hasn’t decided which GOP candidate he will support. “There is a feeling that people are looking for leadership, but people are also split on the candidates.”

GOP and Democratic Party officials say they are expecting much higher participation at the caucuses than they have had in years. State GOP head Dick Wadhams said the intensity of the race was certain to bring out new attendees.

Republicans in the state of Colorado are seeking to be patient with their party as we await the caucus information to move beyond “coming soon.” If you’re in Jefferson County - my neck of the woods - there is a complete list of caucus locations sorted by precinct number.

What’s your precinct number, you say? If you still have your registered voter ID card, it will be on there. But if you don’t want to go around digging to find the card, you can look up your voter registration on the Colorado Secretary of State’s website. Your last name, legal first name (for me, Benjamin rather than Ben), ZIP code, and Date of Birth (month, date, and year) will retrieve your record, including your precinct number. Cross-reference the precinct number with the list of locations, and you’re set.

If you’re a Democrat, pretty much all you need is right here. If you’re a Republican from another county, you can google your county party or contact the state GOP directly.

Remember: you have to be already registered with the Republican or Democratic party to participate in their respective caucuses on Tuesday, February 5. Democrats caucus with Democrats, and Republicans caucus with Republicans. Independents get the night off. At least for Jeffco Republicans, the event will start at 7 PM.

My guess is that I’ll see more people at my precinct than the 3 of us who showed up back in 2006. And most will just want to cast a vote for their presidential preference in the non-binding straw poll and move on. But it’s more active than not showing up at all and missing out entirely on the grassroots political process.

Thanks for those who tuned in to News Talk 1310 KFKA this morning to hear my inaugural guest host appearance on the Amy Oliver Show. For those who want more information on the guests and some of the topics discussed:

• Alan Gottlieb of the Public Education and Business Coalition edits the HeadFirst Colorado blog, which covers a range of education reform issues. Today we talked about the latest on the Bruce Randolph autonomy proposal, including union officials’ latest delaying tactic, which Alan also posted on today. There’s also a great story from yesterday on the topic at Face the State.
• I posted on the news of the rapidly growing estimates of revenue from the Governor’s property tax hike at the Colorado Taxpayers blog. Other stories cited were the Greeley Tribune’s coverage of a possible transportation tax and fee increase and the Pueblo Chieftain’s reporting that the Democrats are trying to tone down talk of further tax hikes.
• Mike Reitz, director of labor policy at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, joined me to discuss Washington state’s experiences with state employee collective bargaining in light of Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter’s recent unionization executive order, highlighted in Sunday’s Denver Post. Mike also blogs at Liberty Live.

You can also check out the Independence Institute website or new “Caldara, the cauldron” blog for more information.

Colorado state Republican Party chair and political mastermind Dick Wadhams, whom I heard speak confidently and eloquently last night about the GOP’s prospects in the upcoming presidential election, has introduced himself to the blogging world today with his first post on the Colorado GOP site - key quote:

Democratic Candidate Ritter campaigned as a moderate, almost as a conservative, telling Colorado’s business community he was their ally and friend.

Candidate Ritter was a farce. Now we know who the real Bill Ritter is.

No doubt after this post, the Lefties will see further evidence of vast conspiracy between Wadhams and the independent, grassroots Ritter Watch blog. Of course, they have the prerogative to be wrong - and to waste their time trying to prove some nefarious connection. Go for it, I say!

And to Mr. Wadhams, welcome to the Colorado blogosphere.

For my devoted fans, I make my radio host debut tomorrow morning: that’s Wednesday, January 9, from 9 AM to 11 AM, as I guest host the Amy Oliver show on News Talk 1310 KFKA in northern Colorado. You can listen online here. Topics will include education reform at Bruce Randolph School, government employee unions, and the New Hampshire presidential primary. There will no doubt be plenty to talk about, so hope you can listen in.

Of course, some of you are thinking: Yikes, they’re giving the mike to him? Has the world gone mad? Perhaps, but it should be a lot of fun. And a good way to flog the blog while I’m at it.

Face the State unveiled a new face today, and it’s certainly a big improvement. This is a must-bookmark or RSS for anyone who wants to stay on top of what’s going on in Colorado, with a conservative edge. The first new report is about a rumored political power switch by two Democrat officials that could be bad news for supporters of limited government and school choice:

Political insiders are speculating about gossip that Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, will resign her seat before the end of her term. The move would open the door for fellow Democrat and State Board of Education member Evie Hudak to take over and run as an incumbent this year, an important advantage in a Democrat primary field likely to be crowded with multiple candidates. Of equal importance to Windels, the move would also allow her to be appointed to Hudak’s Board seat.

Get ready for a fast-paced political ride in 2008!