In an article titled “ Rick Santorum for President ,” conservative authoress Michelle Malkin throws her support behind the former Pennsylvania senator. Malkin argues that Santorum would be the best choice for the GOP and she does this by citing his political record. However , lest she be written off as a shameless Santorum shill, she also makes sure to point out that like the other Republican candidates, he has some shortcomings. Malkin begins by highlighting Santorum’s conservative credentials: his opposition to TARP, the fact that he didn’t “cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008,” that he is not among the GOP nominees (i.e. Romney and Gingrich) who supported the bailouts and he didn’t have to “obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did.” Furthermore, Santorum “strongly opposed the auto bailout,” the Freddie and Fannie bailout, “porkulus” bills, and he “ clearly and forcefully ” opposed individual health care mandates. He also voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted “Yes” to drilling in ANWR, and, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, he never “dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren , Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi ,” as Malkin puts it. “Santorum is strong on border security , national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement,” Malkin writes, “Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed .” Another feather in his cap: unlike Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and the former Speaker of the House, Santorum hasn’t attacked Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital with, in the words of Malkin, “ contemptible Occupier rhetoric .” However, as mentioned in the above, Santorum also has some shortcomings. “As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects,” Malkin writes. Santorum “lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives” and he was a ” go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era,” according to Malkin. “He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey,” Malkin continues. “I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul,” she writes. So, why isn’t she writing an article titled “Ron Paul for President”? Because, according to Malkin, the Texas congressman is a “far-out, Alex Jones-panderer” on foreign policy, defense, and national security. Malkin writes: If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul. What about Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012. Should we even ask what she thinks of Newt Gingrich? Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere. Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race . Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent. Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer. It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.” For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine. Therefore, given that two of the four remaining GOP candidates are, in her eyes, part of “the machine,” and that she finds Paul’s stances on foreign policy and national security inadequate, this leaves her with one option: the former senator from Pennsylvania. “Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them,” Malkin writes.
See the rest here:
Michelle Malkin: ‘Santorum for President’
Rick Santorum opposed TARP. He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills. Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters. He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren , Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi . He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.” Santorum is strong on border security , national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement. Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed . He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics. He rose above the fray by sticking to issues. Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it. Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey. I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul. And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is. If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul. Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012. Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere. Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race . Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent. Remember October 2009? From reader Barnaby, who sent back his crossed-out Republican solicitation forms with a “NO RINOS” sticky note for Newt Gingrich: Remember the rebuke in Dubuque? May 11, 2011: Guy: Speaker Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable. Gingrich: I didn’t do anything to Paul Ryan! Guy: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the house. Gingrich: No, I… Guy: You’re an embarrassment to our party. Gingrich: I’m sorry you feel that way. Guy: Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself. Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer. It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.” For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine. And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them. *** Side note: Unlike many bloggers and pundits weighing in on GOP 2012, I have zero connections to any of the final four GOP candidates’ campaigns. I have neither received a single penny from, nor donated a single penny, to any of their campaigns. I have not served as any kind of consultant or adviser to any of the campaigns. I have not written any speeches or talking points or briefing papers for any of their campaigns. I have not organized any blogger calls or social media efforts for any of their campaigns. I have not spoken to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich since interviewing them for Hot Air at CPAC in 2006, and as far as I can recall, I have not communicated directly with either Santorum or Paul. My first and only contact with Santorum’s campaign came last week when a spokesman called to assure me that Santorum was not withdrawing from the Florida primary or the race in general and was in it for the long haul. So much for my “establishment” credentials, eh? *** Santorum is headed to Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada. “The Rick Santorum for President Campaign will expand nationally this week with campaign stops in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada in the coming days,” a spokesman MAtt Beynon said in a statement. Santorum is slated to make several stops in battleground states over the next few days, but did not appear to be heading back to Florida, where Republicans go to the polls on Tuesday. Santorum is expected be in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday when the Florida results are known. After winning Iowa — the first state to chose which Republican they want to face Obama in November — Santorum’s campaign has struggled to catch fire. In Florida — a winner-takes-all race — the former senator has not appeared much and is barely avoiding a vote share in single digits according to polls, putting him in third place behing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Nevada will vote just four days after Florida, while Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all vote on February 7th. Santorum had put campaigning in Florida on hold Sunday, as his daughter, Bella, was hospitalized just days before a key primary vote. Two days before Florida’s winner-takes-all primary, Santorum spent the day in Pennsylvania, where his three year-old was admitted to a Philadelphia children’s hospital. *** A reader writes: I read your “For Santorum” article on your website. You wrote the argument against Newt clearly and completely. While Romney’s been on both sides of issues, Newt has been on both sides at the same time. I think Newt would be almost as combative and adversarial to a Republican congress than a Democratic one… *** Question of the day: Who is the “machine?” Secondary question of the day: If you were a simple machine, what kind of machine would you be — inclined plane, wheel & axle, lever, pulley, wedge, or screw?
See the article here:
For Santorum
What jumps out of the South Carolina exit polls . . . Gingrich won women over Romney, 36 percent to 30 percent. Seven percent of exit-poll respondents identified themselves as “somewhat liberal,” 2 percent identified as “very liberal.” Among those who identified as “somewhat liberal,” 30 percent voted for Gingrich, 30 percent voted for Romney. (Never underestimate that some South Carolinians may simply want to mess with the exit pollsters.) Gingrich won among voters who identified themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians, 42 percent to 22 percent. Ron Paul won 14 percent of veterans. His supporters often emphasize how many veterans and enlisted men and women donate to his campaign; others have wondered if his stances on foreign policy and national security would come across as isolationist or dovish. Paul appears to do roughly as well as he does among veterans as among non-veterans. A striking 87 percent said the debates were a factor in their vote; 64 percent said they were “important” to their vote. Three-quarters of respondents said they made up their minds in the last month. Seventeen percent said they decided today. Sixty-five percent approve of how Nikki Haley is handling her job as governor. Thirty-nine percent said they could support Romney enthusiastically as the GOP nominee, 47 percent said they could support with him with reservations, and 12 percent said they would not support him. Sixty-five percent view Romney’s “background as an investor” positively; 28 percent view it negatively. Ninety-seven percent are worried about the economy, 79 percent describe themselves as “very worried.”
Read the original:
Exit Polls: Gingrich Narrowly Winning Women Over Romney
Another fine essay from Barry Rubin, at Pajamas Media , ” Are You Left-Wing or Right-Wing? Hopefully, I’m Honest-and-Accurate Wing “: I ran into an older, retired Israeli colleague who is a fine scholar in his field. We hadn’t met for 25 years and agreed to have coffee in a nearby Tel Aviv cafe. In the ensuing conversation I learned some key things about why current
ContributorNetwork – The Obama administration has had two major foreign policy events to deal with since mid-December. First there was Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which much of the world’s crude oil supply travels. Then North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il died and his youngest son was named his successor.
Read the original:
How Will Obama Handle Nuclear Chess with Iran, North Korea?
(ContributorNetwork)
The other day, MSNBC had an article on Team Obama’s “let’s talk” approach to foreign policy, and declared that it wasn’t going to well when it comes to Iran (and most countries). Yesterday, it got worse (NY Times) A senior Iranian official on Tuesday delivered a sharp threat in response to economic sanctions being readied by
Original post:
Hey, How’s Obama’s “Let’s Talk” Approach With Iran Going?
From Ian Livingston and Michael O’Hanlon, at Foreign Policy , ” The Damage Done “: With a wave of over a dozen bombings ripping through Baghdad just a week after U.S. troops officially pulled out, new questions are being raised about the country’s ability to stand on its own without U.S. security assistance. Before looking ahead to whether Iraq can withstand a potential new wave of sectarian violence, it’s crucial to take measure of where the country currently stands and the effect of eight years of war on its people and institutions. Shortly after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, researchers at the Brookings Institution began the Iraq Index to keep tabs on how the war progressed. As students of counterinsurgency know, it is difficult to find the right metrics to evaluate how a war effort of this type is going. It is also challenging to obtain reliable data even if relevant metrics have been identified. The most important metrics can also change with time; additionally, some can be leading indicators of change, while others tend to lag broader improvements. In the war’s early days, the general sense of disorder and chaos and the disempowerment of many former Baathists and former soldiers were probably the most important metrics. They augured poorly for the future — while official U.S. data focused more on restoration of infrastructure and other generally positive indicators that though important may not have been quite as crucial as they seemed at the time. Then U.S. attention turned to building up Iraqi security forces, but, alas, progress in their training, numbers, and equipment could not trump the growing sectarian fissures that were widening within the government, Army, police, and country writ large. Metrics of violence were recognized as the most important indicators by 2006 and 2007, when the country was being ripped apart. The success of the surge was fairly easy to see, as these numbers plummeted in late 2007 and 2008. Since then, however, tracking Iraq’s changes has become harder as progress has slowed and politics have become at least as important as security and quality-of-life indicators. With U.S. military engagement in Iraq having come to an end, here are 10 key metrics that reveal both the damage wrought by the war and the state of the country that U.S. forces are leaving behind… Continue reading at the link .
Excerpt from:
The 10 Big Takeaways from America’s Adventure in Iraq
I’ve commented pretty heavily on all of this already, but there’s more news out today on the Ron Paul racism controversies. National Journal reports that the Paul campaign is going ballistic over Eric Dondero’s hit piece out today, ” Ex-Aide: Ron Paul Foreign Policy is ‘Sheer Lunacy’: Eric Dondero says Paul is an anti-Israel 9/11 truther .” Dondero’s report is at Right Wing News, ” Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism .” I saw it earlier at Althouse’s, where she lasers in on the intensity of Dondero’s descriptive language, ” Ron Paul is not an anti-Semite, but he is ‘most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general’ .” She also calls out Dondero for astonishingly bad writing, and commenter Deb provides this
