Capital Crime: Mitt Romney's Foes Denounce Creative Destruction

The Wall Street Journal had a Big Story purporting to analyze Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital. Not surprisingly, some of Bain's investments failed, while others did exceedingly well. 

Mitt Romney's political foes are stepping up attacks based on his time running investment firm Bain Capital, tagging him with making a fortune from the rougher side of American capitalism—even as Mr. Romney says his Bain tenure shows he knows how to build businesses. 

Amid anecdotal evidence on both sides, the full record has largely escaped a close look, because so many transactions are involved. The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward. 

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.
Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors—yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains. 

Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court.

The WSJ did not find any widows and orphans whom Mitt had thrown out into the snow. They also did not make much of an effort to double-check Mitt's claim that he had created 100,000 net jobs over the course of his career. Still, this is a valuable, comprehensive look at an aspect of Mitt's career that will not escape scrutiny should he face Obama in the general election. In anticipation of this, Romney's GOP rivals have raised the Bain issue (you could say they're "Raising Bain"), each in their own ham-fisted way

It was unclear how much damage had been done by a mess of his own making in which Romney declared "I like being able to fire people," in addressing his desire for greater competition between health insurance companies. 

His opponents, Republican and Democratic alike, quickly seized on the comment as evidence of an out-of-touch politician and coupled it with attacks over his record at Bain Capital, a firm that bought companies and restructured them. 

"Governor Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs," Huntsman said.
In a remarkable turnaround in a party known for being friendly to business, Republicans seeking to slow Romney down sounded more like populists as they bashed Romney's work as a venture capitalist. 

Gingrich, brooding over negative attacks from Romney and his backers that knocked him out of the front-runner position, has launched the toughest onslaught on Romney. 

"Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider," says a video produced by a pro-Gingrich group.

Criticizing Romney for "firing" people is all the rage, and it's certainly true that Democrats will demagogue the issue, but it is truly disheartening to see Republican politcians, especially ones fighting for the mantle of "conservative," to attack Romney for firing some folks. Sorry, boys, that's how the system works. I thought it was Democrats who wanted to create "permanent" employment, which experience has taught only leads to permanent stagnation. 


That's not to say Romney's business background should be treated as a net plus. In fact, wealthy business people like him are often mediocre (at best) at politics, both in getting elected, and at serving in office should they actually win. The ability to amass millions of dollars simply does not translate into the ability to amass millions of votes. We learned that anew in California when we ran, not one, but two moderate CEO's from the cutting edge tech industry against moss-backed liberals. In retrospect, neither Meg Whitman, nor Carly Fiorina had a chance, although Fiorina proved to be a feisty scrapper. They might have checked the correct ideological boxes, and presented comprehensive plans to reform the state, but when the first political challenge came - like, say, Gloria Allred showing up at a press conference with a rogue illegal immigrant maid - they were flummoxed, fatally so.


Romney's a little different. He came from a political family and saw governance and campaigning from the ground up. He even had a front row seat for one of the great political implosions of all time. And, Romney did win one election and served a term as governor of Massachusetts. He's not a neophyte and it shows. The guy is extraordinarily well prepared. He's also been very good at defending the theory and practice of capitalism. His comments like "corporations are people" and "I like being able to fire people" may sound like they're drawn from an Oliver Stone script, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. He's right! In fact, Romney's been at his best challenging the political shibboleths of the modern era, which used to be the sole provenance of the left, but apparently have been adopted by some on the right as well. 


But, there are times when Romney's lack of political knowledge really shows. A perfect example came during the now infamous exchange over banning contraceptives. Romney handled the question very well, in fact, saying it was a silly hypothetical because no states were presently planning to ban contraceptives. But, he has no idea how close he came to falling into a trap, and that only George Stephanopolus's inept questioning saved him. You see, George (or whomever it was who drafted the question) was trying to get Mitt to agree that, no, a state does not have a constitutional right to ban contraceptives. If they had gotten that, they could have moved on and said, "but doesn't that mean you accept the idea that there is a constitutional right to privacy?" (which was the basis for the Griswold decision overturning a Connecticut law banning the sale of contraceptives). And, then it's just a short walk to asking on what grounds could you possibly disagree with the right to privacy protecting abortion? Believe me, I was on the edge of my seat during that exchange, waiting for Mitt to fall into the trap, but he managed to avoid it. I shudder to think what would have happened to Rick Perry. 


Rick Santorum, by contrast, gave an excellent response to the "condom question;" Santorum addressing the legal and constitutional issues head on. (and Newt Gingrich gave a similarly excellent response to the gay marriage question, another where Romney had looked uncomfortable and flummoxed). Romney can buy and sell Santorum and Gingrich twenty times over, but these two (shudder) professional politicians have been marinating in these issues, and others, for a long time. They not only know the subtleties involved, they also know the code words and the concepts in a way you cannot learn simply by reading a briefing book. 


That's a much bigger danger for Mitt Romney than his record at Bain Capital. 

GOP Debate Comments

The Free Will Wife and I are watching the live stream of the GOP debate, and I wanted to quickly comment on the incredibly lame line of questioning, directed mostly at Mitt Romney, about whether a state could ban contraception. Give me a break! The Supreme Court's Griswald decision (which was the first application of the new found "right to privacy" to a state's efforts to legislate morality) came back in 1965! Not surprisingly, Mitt was flummoxed at first for two reasons:


1. he didn't remember the Griswald decision


2. it was an absurd question because there are no states in the year 2012 that are considering a ban on contraceptives.


The fact is this was a question intended to make Republicans look like grim-visaged Cotton Mathers, and nothing more. The focus on contraception (?!) at this late date is just ridiculous. Mitt handled this about as well as you could expect, saying first that he preferred to defer to "our constitutionalist" before finally saying "I think things are working just fine" to appreciative laughter from the crowd (which vigorously booed Stephenopolous's continued harping on the condom question).


Ron Paul, by the way, turned the "right to privacy" question into a 4th Amendment diatribe about the Patriot Act. If all you have is a hammer...


QUICK HITS:


Rick Santorum is standing in the middle dais next to the front runner. What a difference a week makes. He sounds great, too. Maybe not presidential, but he is absolutely ready for his close-up.


John Huntsman sounds a lot like Mitt Romney. He also got a lot of applause when he basically made the Obama argument in favor of pulling troops out of Afghanistan by 2013. National security hawks who have been b*tching about Pentagon cuts do not have the sort of automatic support from Republicans that they used to have.


Huntsman also said that he worked in the "most complex" embassy in the world (meaning China's). What's complex about it? Are there secret tunnels? Hidden passageways? A guest house?


In defending himself from the "racist newsletter" question, Ron Paul mentioned his efforts to end the war on drugs and the war of terror, which he claimed have disproportionately fallen on minorities. That is pure left-wing cant.


Still give the guy his due: he's out there, at age 80+ kicking a** and putting his ideas out as vigorously as a 20-year old.


Rick Perry is doing great, even though he's stuck off on the edge of the stage where they used to put Michele Bachmann. But, am I imagining things, or did he just say he wanted to re-invade Iraq?


You can probably get pretty drunk playing the Newt Gingrich drinking game. That's where you take a drink every time he begins a response by saying "we need to fundamentally re-think how we (implement this or that policy)."


Gingrich and Huntsman are really taking it to Romney. Gingrich is using the "too timid" argument, while Huntsman is contrasting his stewardship of Utah against Romney's in Massachusetts.


It's 7:30 PST, and Rick Santorum just gave a rousing 60-second statement on the economy and the opportunity society.


Romney and Huntsman really got into a fight over China policy. Huntsman got the best of it, making the free trade argument against Romney's trade-war mongering. But, Romney "won" with his harsh (in a nice way) reminder that Huntsman just spent 2 years implementing Obama Administration policy in Beijing.


For the "personal moment" phase of the questioning, the query was what would you be doing tonight if you weren't running for president? 


Perry said he would be at a shooting range. 


Newt said he would be watching the "college basketball championship," 


Santorum and Romney said they would be watching the college football championship


Ron Paul said be would be spending time with his family, but if they went to sleep, he would read an economics textbook.


Huntsman said he would be on the phone with his sons in the Navy, who give him faith in the coming generation (cue grateful applause). 

Shocking The World: The Iowa Caucus Results

Back in September, I predicted that Rick Santorum (or Herman Cain) would "shock the world" in Iowa and emerge as this cycle's Mike Huckabee. Still, now that we're here I have to pronounce myself shocked:

Rick Santorum, whose determined Republican presidential campaign offered strong fiscal convictions and conservative social values, was rewarded with a dead-heat finish for first place with Mitt Romney in Tuesday night’s Iowa Caucuses. 

The former U.S. senator, who wore a blue suit and a red striped tie, beamed with enthusiasm as he was joined by his wife, Karen, and six of their seven children as he spoke at the Stoney Creek Inn in Johnston. 

“Game on,” Santorum said to cheers from the feisty crowd of about 500 supporters. He thanked his wife and he publicly thanked God, and he expressed his appreciation to Iowans.
“Thank you so much Iowa. By standing up and not compromising. By standing up and being bold and leading; leading with that burden and responsibility that you have to be first; you have taken the first step of taking back this country,” Santorum said. 

The crowd chanted “We pick Rick. We pick Rick” and waved blue and red Santorum signs as Santorum described the upcoming November election as a choice for Americans between freedom and a government that wants to decide for people what’s best for them. 

Santorum overcame long odds to achieve his strong showing. Just a month ago, his campaign appeared stalled with single-digits in Iowa polls.

To be honest, I also thought Santorum would slightly under-perform tonight, given how quickly his surge arose. But, give the guy credit: he is probably the one candidate, besides the doomed Michele Bachmann, who sought to run a traditional Republican campaign by appealing to all three legs of the conservative stool. Santorum may be famous as a social con, but he spent most of his time talking national security, debt, and fiscal restraint. Plus, he did literally hundreds of town halls and other events. You ever get the feeling that Rick Perry (now heading back to Texas to "reassess" his campaign) or Mitt Romney have been doing that? Yeah, me neither. 


For much of this year, Santorum's campaign was little more than his wife and kids knocking on doors. Stacy McCain reports that, contrary to most media reports, Santorum does have an organization outside of Iowa, including a ground game in South Carolina. That's good to hear because he's going to have to ramp up pretty quick to meet what's coming. Because Santorum isn't just going to have to deal with Mitt Romney. He's also going to have to deal with the deranged leftists who think "Santorum" is just another way of saying "Palin without a uterus." 


Whether he intended to or not, Rick Santorum is going to spend the next week as the center of the American political universe. Hope he's better equipped to deal with it than Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich were able to. 

Predictions: GOP 2012 Edition

I wasn't going to do one of those 2012 predictions, but I just can't resist. Herewith are the official Free Will predictions for the Republican presidential nomination race: 


1. Newt Gingrich will fail to reach 10% in the Iowa caucuses. He will also fail to reach 10% in South Carolina or Florida. Like Howard Dean in 2004, he will continue competing, but will not be a factor. 


2. Michele Bachmann will fail to crack 5% in Iowa, and will drop out of the race. Which will be too damn bad. 


3. John Huntsman will fail to crack 10% in New Hampshire and will drop out of the race. 


4. Rick Satorum will slightly under-perform in Iowa (I'd say 15%). His message and persona will fail to spark any interest in South Carolina, and he will drop out of the race. 


5. Rick Perry will slightly over-perform in Iowa, and then do very well in South Carolina. He will try to make a serious play for the Tea Party/Sarah Palin/Ron Paul vote, and even succeed at that for a while. But, when it comes time to slam Mitt Romney as Mr. Wall Street, he will be unable to do so without coming across as anti-business, not to mention inarticulate. (cue sound of Tim Pawlenty kicking himself in the a**). 


6. Ron Paul will get over 20% of the vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and several other states (but no big ones like Florida or Ohio). He will be the subject of withering media scrutiny previously reserved for the likes of Sarah Palin and Pat Buchanan, which hurt him, but not kill him outright. He will be joining Rick Perry and Mitt Romney on the debate stage for months. While much will be made of his "crazy uncle" ravings and his racist newsletters, no one in the professional media and political classes will wonder why his message is so potent as to attract significant support despite his manifest deficiencies. Look for Paul to have a major speaking slot at the convention as the price for keeping away from a third party run. Look also for that speech to be a 21st century version of 1992's "we are in a cultural war" barn burner. 


7. Barring death, incapacity, or a thermonuclear-grade gaffe so embarrassing as to make him literally vanish into a hole in the ground, Mitt Romney will be the nominee. But, he's going to have to break a sweat to earn the nomination. Romney will rise to the occasion and take on Obama on his own turf, but it will be a close run thing. Conservative voters will turn out to vote for him in November, but will put most of their energy (and $$) into House and Senate candidates who promise to be "independent voices" in Washington, meaning they will run - in part - to act as a counter-weight to the Republican nominee. 

Rise & Fall, Rise & Fall: The GOP Primary

Hugh Hewitt, and others, are starting to declare that the Gingrich surge has already peaked and is losing air thanks to a brusque comment Newt made RE: Mitt Romney's previous life as an investment banker:

MSM is always behind when it comes to recognizing significant stories on the center-right.  Even now most of them are unaware that Newt's campaign is in grave danger of  bleeding out, though if they listened to talk radio or watched FNC's Special Report they would have been in the know for two days.

When on Monday Newt Gingrich attacked Mitt Romney's time at Bain, I posted the video first posted by Time's Mark Halperin (nearly alone among the MSMers in sensing it was important) and devoted my entire show to the significance of the one-minute self-immolation.  As my radio show began, so did Brett Baier's television show and during my breaks I listened in as I usually do to see what that superbly produced program is covering, and found that the shock at Gingrich's remarks had instantly struck two of conservatism's most influential television presences. I thus wove into my show the audio of the critiques that occurred simultaneously from Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume.  All three of us and many in the audience had reacted the same way to Newt's outburst:  That wasn't a "gaffe," a 57-state $10,000 bet on naming three agencies; that was a defining moment. 

Gingrich supporters called the show to protest that it wasn't a big deal.  Even yesterday pro-Newt callers gamely tried to explain the Laws of Newtonian Rhetoric and why under them the former Speaker didn't mean what he had said.  Gingrich himself released a letter promising to stay positive and exiled an Iowa staffer who had played a Mormon card in Iowa. 

That pledge to stay high road won't save Newt's surge because the shock wasn't at taking a swing at Romney.  That's to be expected.  It is because of the substance of the attack, the adoption of class warfare rhetoric at exactly a moment when the conservative movement is sick-to-death of the OWS and the president's serial assaults on the private sector.

Could be. Many of us have been sitting around waiting for the "new Newt" to self-destruct. In the time-compressed world of 24-7 news, this one's right on time. However, Romney fans eagerly looking for the tell tale signs of Newt-mageddon might want to check their wishes at the door, as the next in line in Iowa is not Mitt, but ... Ron Paul

Ron Paul, the once-forgotten presidential candidate, is picking up steam in Iowa and now appears poised to overtake frontrunner Newt Gingrich, according to a new survey released today from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling. 

The poll finds support for Gingrich has slipped to 22%, with Ron Paul just behind with 21%. Mitt Romney trails in third place with 16%. 

That's a five-point drop in favorability for Gingrich, who has raced to the top of the Republican presidential field over the past month. PPP found Gingrich's favorability numbers have fallen 19 points over the past week.

A funny moment in the Drake University debate was when the candidates were asked what they had learned from one another. I thought everyone, especially Rick Perry, went out of their way to be verrrry nice to Congressman Paul. No doubt, that's to keep him on the reservation and off the third party trail. But, the man also has some serious king-maker potential. 


I think we can all agree that, on foreign policy, Paul is worse than a Democrat. But on economics and domestic policy? I don't think I'm alone in thinking we should have spent more time in 2008 listening to "crazy uncle Ron" who spent an inordinate amount of time warning us about the Fed, the housing bubble, and the impending financial crisis, something that Mr. Wall Street - that's Mitt Romney to you - seemed absolutely clueless about. And how much of a deal breaker is Paul's ramblings about the war machine? His most prominent critic this time around has been Rick Santorum who has languished as much as Paul has risen. 


All of this remains academic, of course. This time, four years ago, John McCain was running in third in Iowa as Mike Huckabee prepared to shock the world ("Nobody believed in us!") at the caucuses. The ultimate result - Obama in the White House, McCain back in the Senate, Huckabee on a TV show - could hardly have been extrapolated from the date available in December 2007. We've still got a long way to go. 

Debating Points: The Last Republican Debate

Last Saturday, I did something I had not yet done this year: I watched a Republican presidential debate all the way through. Did it help that this one had "only" six participants? Yeah, a little bit (sorry, Herman Cain), but more important was the rise of Newt Gingrich and the rapid approach of the Iowa caucuses, which have really raised the intensity meter.


There's plenty of critical commentary about each of the candidates (Mitt Romney's desperate! Ron Paul's crazy! So's Michele Bachmann!), but I had the opposite reaction. With a couple exceptions, I thought everyone did well, at times exceptionally so. 


Newt Gingrich was the focus, not only of attacks from Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, but also from the moderators, who seemed to structure the questions, and even the order in which candidates responded, to provide maximum discomfort to Newt. When George Stephenopolis raised the (ahem) "infidelity" issue, you just knew that Gingrich would be the last one to respond. He was largely on top of his game, mostly so on the alleged "Palestinians-are-an-invented-people" gaffe, an opportunity which let him make a Reaganesque pitch while simultaneously letting Mitt Romney look like a detente-ing Gerald Ford. 


We hear often that Gingrich is great...except for all that baggage, both marital, historical, and reputational. Well, after the last 20 years in which American voters have essentially demanded tax cuts and expanded government spending, I'd say the voting public has some baggage of its own that it needs to get over. 


Mitt, of course, had his now-infamous "bet" with Rick Perry, which came across as more awkward than arrogant. (and, whatever the merits were, Mitt did shut Perry up for the moment). But, he had some great moments, too. When he made his pitch in support of Romneycare, he pointed out that they did what they promised to do: extend health insurance to the 8% of MA residents who lacked coverage, something Obamacare failed to do. In that moment, you could imagine an effective critique of Obamacare in the general election, even from the guy who, in Michele Bachmann's words, was the first and only governor to impose socialized medicine in one of the laboratories of democracy. 


Speaking of Bachmann, I really wonder what non-conservatives think of her. We all know what liberals, the media, and the entertainment world think of her: they think she's crazy, and are rushing around wildly trying to make that her image. But Bachmann presents herself very well, looking stylish and composed, even as she fights furiously for the life of her campaign. She had a lot of striking phrases in her debate moments, especially "Newt Romney," which sounded like a mistake at first, but one that she decided to roll with to humorous effect. At this point, I think she's established herself as the most persistent and coherent critic of the president. If she sometimes seems to head into the rhetorical tall weeds, she manages to come back. I think people gave up on her candidacy too quickly. 


The other "true conservative" - that would be Rick Santorum - also impressed. He also did a good job coming across as human, which he's very good at (he's a genuinely nice, good-humored man), but the haters on the Left have focused their deranged ire on him for years. Many have wondered why he is running. The better question is why have so many supposedly "better" candidates not run. I'm sure they have their reasons, but at some point you have to step into the arena.


Of course, Rick Perry has been the cautionary tale about stepping into the arena before having your sandals tied and your shield polished. His has been an epic flame-out because, God love him, he comes across as slow-witted, and Republicans want - just once - to enter an election with a candidate who won't come across as a fumble tongue. Perry's still chipping away, though, looking relaxed and confident while trying to puncture Romney's patrician cool. There's was one heart-stopping moment when he held up two fingers and said - regarding the recently downed drone in Iran - Pres. Obama had three choices. D'oh! Still Perry's bluntness has its benefits. He closed the "Palestinian" question off by simply saying that the problems in the Middle East aren't due to Newt Gingrich, but to the incompetence of the current president, which earned grateful applause from the crowd, and an appreciative tip o' the head from Newt. 


And, no debate since 2008 has been complete without Ron Paul, but even he came off well, even telling a joke (my wife worked my way through medical school! Ba-dum-bum!) He also had the line of the night in response to Diane Sawyer querulous plaint that, surely, the government has some role in helping people take care of their health (i.e. prevent obesity, etc.) Ron was having none of it: If you need the government to tell you how to live you are in big trouble. So true, but so hard for many Republicans, especially the precious moderates, to understand. 


This was a debate that touched on hot button issues, but - unlike years past when questions about gay marriage and abortion were the flavor - the issues were hot because they are so desperately resonant. We are a country with spiralling debt, a health care system being abused by the government, an immigration policy on auto-pilot for the past 10 years, etc. Maybe liberals were hoping one of the six would say something verifiably crazy, but what I saw were six serious people with serious answers to vexing questions. The only thing you could say were "wrong" about their answers were that they did not embrace the liberal pieties and prescriptions that have been this country's default setting for too long. 


Maybe this isn't the Republican A-team, but they are the ones who are taking the trouble to run for president, and they acquitted themselves well. 

Dying With Your Boots On

We've all heard about Rick Perry's latest debate fiasco. This time, he couldn't name all three of the cabinet departments that he would cut as part of a "conservative" reform of the federal government.

Perry started out by saying he was going to list 3 agencies that should be abolished. He said "Education, Commerce" — but then spent a very long time trying to think of the third one. Another candidate suggested: "EPA." Perry jokingly said, "Yeah, the EPA." The moderator asked Perry if he seriously meant the EPA, and he said no. Finally, he admitted he just couldn't think of the rest of his message. Perry ended his segment by actually saying out loud: "Oops!"

I don't think we've grasped just how bad a mistake this was. The third department was, of course, Energy. What has been the cabinet department that is at the top of every Republican politico's list of "cabinet departments I would close?" Energy! But, Rick Perry - supposedly the guy who was going to be the conservative standard bearer - couldn't remember that. 


We've learned two things about Rick Perry the last two months. First, whatever virtues he might have, quick-wittedness is not one of them. The guy just can't think on his feet in the same way that Romney, Cain,  Gingrich, and even Bachmann can. 


Second, and worse than that, he's just not as conservative as advertised. 

Does Mitt Romney Have a Mormon Problem?

Mitt Romney famously has trouble convincing the GOP base that he is a reliable candidate for president. Mostly this arises from the undeniable fact that he is a NE Republican and former governor of Massachusetts (for heaven's sake!) who repeatedly embraces left-wing causes such as health care reform, cap & trade, and China bashing a little too quickly and comfortably. It is a legitimate question whether the man who helped pass a larval version of Obamacare in MA is really the person to lead the repeal of the Democrats' hard won health care reform bill. It's no wonder that, while Mitt has been maintaining about 20-25% support in polls, he has not been able to convince the 75-80% of GOP primary voters who have been actively seeking out the "Not Romney" candidate.

But, a subtext of the Romney campaign, both now and in 2008, is the quietly persistent argument that he is close to unelectable because he is (whisper, whisper) a Mormon. Supposedly, for evangelical Christians, this is almost a deal breaker on its own. While I am no born-again Bible thumper - at best I am an Episcopalian who doesn't go to church - I do know enough to say that I just don't feel it. If being a Mormon is a disqualifier, then being a Jew or a Muslim is probably a disqualifier, too, and I'm not going to go along with that. 

All of that is to lead up to Southern Baptist leader Robert Jeffress, who introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit in DC the other day, and then promptly gave an interview in which he declared that Mormonism is a non-Christian cult; that Christian voters had a duty to vote for a competent Christian over a competent non-Christian; and (my favorite) that Mitt Romney will not be saved. 

Reverend, and I say this with all due respect, do you know just how many American presidents have been elected to office whose behavior was such that they are not going to be saved? Being hell-bound is certainly not a disqualifier for higher office in the United States, I'm afraid. 

More important, can you tell me what it is about Mormonism that makes Mitt Romney unfit to be president? I am not talking about theology here. I get it that "real" Christians don't view Mormons as being "one of us." But, Mitt Romney is not running for Pope. He is not running to head the Southern Baptist Convention. He is running for president. His religious duties, should he beat Obama, will be to have his picture taken going to church, and to say "God bless America" at the end of his speeches. That's about it. 

I've known quite a few Mormons in my day. They were all hard working, solid citizens with an impressive work ethic, and boundless good cheer. For whatever reason, these attributes, especially the last one, have been the source of a lot of mockery from the tolerant left. More important, Mormons have long been citizens of the United States, and so badly wanted Utah to become a state that they were willing to give up some of their more noxious practices in order to obtain statehood. I'm not saying this makes them above criticism, but it does entitle them to a certain amount of decency and respect. The fact that a man in Jeffress's position can't extend that to the Mormons is, frankly, disturbing. 

Jeffress has also declared Catholicism to be a cult, as well. If someone said this to me on the bus, I would get up and find another seat. But, it's all good if you are a Southern Baptist "leader," I guess. 

Not only that, this sudden demand that we elect only Christians is a definite escalation in the sort of standards evangelicals demand from their presidential candidates. In the past, GOP candidates have had to adopt the pro-life, pro-family views of social conservatives. And that's fine. But, now - at least under the Jeffress standard - GOP candidates must also adopt the religious doctrine of evangelicals. Really? To be president? GOP candidates have a hard enough time mastering the nuances of Roe v Wade. Are they really going to have master religious dogma so that they are better able to determine which Christian sect is a cult and which one is for real? 

The conservative coalition is often described as a three-legged stool with fiscal cons on one leg, security hawks on the second, and social cons providing the third. There's a lot of overlap among the three. Indeed, I don't think you can be conservative without believing the basic political tenets of each leg. Where you land depends on your sense of what the nation's priorities should be. Jeffress is coming perilously close to the approach of leftist coalition members, who basically demand obeisance to their discrete set of beliefs/demands in exchange for their ability to deliver votes and money. Whether he meant to or not, Jeffress showed more than a little Reverand Al in his sotto voce demand that Republicans support a non-Mormon for president, or else. 

This is a dangerous business. Bill Bennett, for one, denounced Jeffress from the podium at the Values Voters Summit. I agree wholeheartedly with Bennett's message, but when you find yourself publicly denouncing your political allies, that's never a good position to be in. Reports from the scene say that there were audible gasps and murmurs from the crowd, along with applause. There's a bad taste in a lot of mouths on both sides as a result of this. 

Needless to say, this is yet another unforced error by Rick Perry who, no doubt, desperately wants to talk about the economy and jobs jobs jobs; but who keeps having to put out these self-starting brush fires. 

The Mormons have tax-exempt status from the IRS. They have a clearly articulated doctrine. They have impressive temples. They do charitable works that should humble the rest of us. And so on. At least by the loose standards of the secular world Mitt Romney is seeking to preside over as president, that's enough to make you a religion, not a cult. I honestly don't think it needs to be that simpler. 

Perry Moment: The Governor Defends His Debating Skills

Following his awful, candidacy-destroying debate performances, which have depressed and appalled his supporters, Rick Perry says, don't judge on the failure of my smooth patter

After another rocky debate performance, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a candidate for the White House, said in a Friday speech that Republicans should not necessarily back "the smoothest debater" for president.

"As conservatives we know that values and vision matter. It’s not who is the slickest candidate or the smoothest debater that we need to elect. We need to elect the candidate with the best record and the best vision for this country," he said at a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida. "The current occupant of the White House can sure talk a good game, but he doesn’t deliver."

Legal Insurrection has the pithiest response. We don't want glib, but we do want minimal competence.

We don’t need the smoothest debater, but we do need someone with the minimum required debating smoothness.

Like it or not, in September and October 2012 there are going to be debates which will be watched by an enormous percentage of the electorate, and the mainstream media will be unforgiving of mistakes by the Republican nominee. A miserable performance, on par with the one Perry had Thursday night, would be a disaster.

By contrast, strong debate performances against Obama, holding Obama accountable in front of tens of millions of people, exposing his failures for what they are, could seal the deal. The mainstream media will not perform that task for us, so our nominee needs to do it. Perry has not shown so far that he is capable of that; it’s not smoothness, its preparation and execution.

The problem isn't that Perry is bad at public debate. It's that his responses have revealed more than he realizes. His mangled attempt at leveling a "flip-flopper" tag on Romney failed because Perry couldn't remember his lines, showing an utter failure at preparation. His response to the 3 AM question was incoherent, showing he has little to offer on foreign policy, and even less knowledge.

And, his "you have no heart" if you don't support in-state tuition for illegal aliens? It wasn't just the disdain he showed for his own supporters. There are good arguments to make in support of this policy (in-state illegals have to jump through the same hoops as out-of-state Americans, better to educate than to leave kids in ignorance), but Perry didn't make them. Instead, he lashed out. This tells me he either wasn't quick enough on his feet to remember the policy arguments, or that he wasn't aware of them in the first place and supported the law because he "has a heart." Neither of these speak well of Perry. They certainly aren't the hallmarks of someone who claims to be the conservative standard bearer.

The Nine: How Are the GOP Presidential Candidates Doing?

We've had three debates since Rick Perry entered the race and "solidified" the field. Say what you will about tactics, consultants, southern strategies, and Ed Rollins, it never fails to amaze how the awesome task of running for president always comes down to the candidate themselves. In the last three weeks, we've seen some people help themselves immensely, and we've seen others do incalculable harm, often while being themselves. Let's go down the roll call.

Michelle Bachmann: Just three weeks ago, Lady Icarus was running in second, had driven Tim Pawlenty from the race, and was offering witheringly effective critiques of the president. Then Rick Perry entered the race, and Bachmann went on TV and announced that vaccines cause "mental retardation." From Tea Party Queen to Lunatic Fringe in the space of one sentence. Depressing.

Herman Cain: I keep hearing how Cain can't win, that he's nothing but a pizzaman, and that he'll never rise from the second tier. But, he keeps winning these debates, at least according to the Luntz focus groups, and the hive mind of the right-wing blogosphere. He's also been admirably above the fray, refusing to violate Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment.

Newt Gingrich: yesterday's man has been putting his intellect and debating skills on full display, but he'll never escape his past. Gingrich deserves all praise for the 1994 revolution, and his toe-to-toe battles with the Clintons, but he legislated as a Big Government Republican, thus frittering away the '94 mandate. He is fundamentally untrustworthy.

John Huntsman: the one thing Huntsman has going for him is his tax reform/economic plan, which is serious and conservative. That is undercut by his smarmy presentation and his smug certitude about global warming and evolution.

Gary Johnson: the cool kids have been agitating for Johnson to be included in these debates, and he brought...poop jokes. Cribbed from Rush Limbaugh.

Ron Paul: agreed that Paul's foreign policy is to the left of Dennis Kucinich, but on economics and the role of government in society, he is - incredibly - still a lonely voice. His answer describing what society would do for the hypothetical dying young man was very thoughtful and even moving (in describing his medical practice pre-Great Society Paul said "we never turned anyone away"). Shades of 2008 when Paul was cast as the "crazy uncle" when he started ranting about the Fed, Wall Street, and the overweening government that was driving us all to ruin.

Rick Perry: "the race is very fluid," "it's a long time before Iowa," "it's a marathon, not a sprint." But, Rick Perry's lackluster debate performances have been killing him. You can be as conservative as you want, but if conservatives can't see that you will be able to beat the glib Obama in a debate, then it's no sale. Perry's outrageous claim that "you have no heart" if you don't support in-state tuition for illegal immigrants may be his "vaccines cause mental retardation;" the line that kills his candidacy. Sorry, jerk, but I just don't see how failing to support special privileges to illegal immigrants is racist or cruel.

Mitt Romney: I have no great eagerness to see Romney as the nominee, but I gotta say he has really stepped up his game since Perry got into the race. His presentation has been solid. His critiques of Obama have been sharp. And, John Nolte points out that he has demonstrated a real ability to neutralize the anti-GOP media. But, Romney remains fundamentally untrustworthy because he has already demonstrated that he would govern as a Big Government conservative. Romney certainly fits the ABO role well. But, a Romney win could easily mean that Obamacare will not be repealed. If he is to be the nominee, we'll need a lot more Tea Party members of Congress.

Rick Santorum: another second-tier guy who has been putting in first-tier debate performances. This is why you include some of the lower eschalon candidates in these early debates. One of them always shines, even as his campaign is little more than his wife and kids knocking on doors. If nothing else changes, I think Cain or Santorum will "shock the world" in Iowa, and emerge as this cycle's Huckabee.

Anti-Science

Michelle Bachmann has run an admirably uncompromising campaign, but her appearance on Fox News became a disaster when she said this about the supposed effect of the sort of vaccines Rick Perry tried to mandate (with an opt-out) for Texan teens:

Bachmann said last night on Greta that a woman came up to her after the debate, crying, and said that her daughter had been given the Garadsil vaccination and as a result had suffered mental retardation. Bachmann says that Perry shouldn’t just be given a mulligan on this because there are significant consequences to the decision he made to mandate Gardasil.

I'm sorry, but...are you kidding me? First of all, who walks up to a total stranger and starts unloading about their daughter's "mental retardation?" And who turns around and goes on television to announce this breathlessly to a national audience whom you are trying to persuade to support you in a long-shot bid for the White House? And why in the world is this sort of anti-vaccine hysteria - which was whipped up by the left-wing Lancet magazine - seemingly a grave concern for so many conservatives?

(I'm going to agree that Rick Perry's efforts to mandate the administering Gardasill were ill-conceived, and heavy handed, but for all the strenuous denunciations you hear about this issue, you would never know that Perry rescinded his order, and no one ever received a dose, at least not because the Republic of Texas told them to. That's right. Perry (1) made a decision, (2) received a lot of blowback that convinced him he was overreaching and (3) reversed himself. Isn't that we supposedly want our leaders to do? Isn't that what we wanted Dems to do before voting on Obamacare?)

Bachmann has developed an unfortunate reputation for credulously repeating misinformation. At this point, you have to wonder if rival campaigns are paying people to make flakey claims to Bachmann in hopes that she will, in all sincerity, repeat them over the airwaves. What an embarrassment.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin shows how to make the vaccine/crony capitalism connection without bringing up autism, "mental retardation" and other fringe-y matters. Of course, the length of Malkin's post proves the difficulty of making this argument in the rapid-fire setting of a debate or a TV appearance. That's why it was such a mistake for Bachmann to keep expanding on her point, rather than sticking with the basic (bad) facts: that Gov. Perry was trying to make the vaccination of pre-teens mandatory when the vaccine had been on the market for less than a year. It calls into question Perry's claim to be a small government superhero. These sort of mandates add up, one by one, until people spend more and more time and money complying with "feel-good" mandates rather than making intelligent choices for themselves. Stick with that and you've got a good line of attack from the Tea Party right. But move beyond that to Jenny McCarthy territory and you are literally surrendering the intellectual high ground.

Red Red Meat: Rick Perry Appeals To The Base

Apparently, there was a very unpresidential moment during Rick Perry's first full day of campaigning when he said this about the Chairman of the Federal Reserve:

Mr. Perry brought the Fed directly into the campaign debate Monday night by saying it would be "almost ... treasonous" for the central bank to play politics by expanding the money supply.

"If this guy prints more money between now and the election," Mr. Perry said in Cedar Rapids Monday night, without naming Mr. Bernanke, "I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we—we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas."

This, of course, is being spun by our objective press as a threat of physical violence, as well as a serious promise by Rick Perry to put Ben Bernanke on the dock and then hang him from the nearest yardarm. Also, the president himself has gone on one of his "civility" tangents, saying Gov. Perry should be "very careful" about what he says now that he has entered the arena.

Rick Perry also says he doesn't believe in global warming.

Well.

Is there an alternate universe where criticizing the Federal Reserve for debasing the dollar is considered a "gaffe?" As a matter of fact, there is. It's the universe know as Alpha Cen-Beltway, where even "conservatives" Peter Wehner and Karl Rove will rush to the microphones to join Democrats in calling for a right-winger to be more "civil." Rove must has forgotten his experiences with left-wing civility back during the Plame-gate investigation.

The one good thing to come out of the Donald Trump boomlet was the lesson that any candidate who comes out hard against Obama, DC, the Democratic Party, and their enablers in the RNC will instantly bolt to the top of the opinion polls. Perry is simply among the first GOP politicians to apply this lesson which is so screamingly obvious that the only people who don't get are the moderate Republicans who would rather administer the welfare state, rather than work to dismantle it.

(and, as an aside, isn't it funny how when someone says he doesn't believe in global warming, they are instantly dubbed an ignoramous, or worse? But say you believe in global warming, and you are an enlightened philosopher king. Yet global warming proponents don't do much more than opponents: they simply say something like "scientists say..." But, it's not like Green politicians are any better able to discuss the "science" than non-Greens. All of them are just reading off cue cards, too.)

This isn't meant to be some great endorsement of Perry, btw. My problem with his Ben Bernanke statement was not its substance, but the way he expressed himself. Frankly, he sounded like he was trying to "sound Texan" to show us what a rough 'n' ready fella he is. Right now, Michelle Bachmann is the best among the three front runners at bringing the rhetorical rafters down around the heads of America's elites.

Also, Perry has trouble coming from his right flank where influential conservatives like Michelle Malkin and Erick Erickson are reminding us of the Perry Administration's creepy attempt to mandate that teen-aged Texans be vaccinated against HPV. It's a troubling story, both for the overweening hand of the state angle, and for the "crony capitalism" angle. (Merck was pushing the vaccinations because it wanted to make more $$ off its HPV patent). It's also one that Perry is trying to brush off with a "I made a mistake"-style excuse that may or may not work.

On the other hand, Michelle Bachmann is in Big Trouble because she mistakenly hailed the birth of Elvis Presley...on the date of his death. If she ever retools her campaign, she should fire the guy who drafts her 3x5 cards, as Bachmann makes these sort of goofy mistakes all the time. Maybe they're small-time errors, but they do speak to a certain inattentiveness (I was vaguely aware that Elvis died in August. I also know how to spell "potato"). Without them, SNL and the Left would have little with which to attack Bachmann, and would be forced to start dealing with her rock-solid substantive attacks on Obamism.

Perryville: The Opening Shots In the GOP Scandal War

Rick Perry entered the race for the GOP presidential nomination yesterday, and so did an astonishing amount backstage whispers and scandal mongering. Here's the most thorough, not to mention sweaty palmed piece, courtesy of "Republican delegate" and Ron Paul supporter, Robert Morrow:

The first thing you need to know about Rick Perry is that he is (or has been) a flagrant adulterer. The second thing you need to know is that Perry is a man who constantly uses religion and Christian Bible talk for his own political advancement, while living a double life.

Nor does Perry understand or appreciate free market capitalism and the importance of low taxes for all; Perry is a crony capitalist and he likes to spend and borrow lots of money. Perry does not respect parental rights (HPV mandate).Rick Perry, a 25 year career politician, is for the endless, costly undeclared wars; he is for an unaccountable Federal Reserve banking cartel making multi-trillion dollar interventions in a free market; he is for the Patriot Act and its assault on your privacy.

The same man who used a presidential prayer rally (8/6/11) for his personal ambitions and who often spouts Christian buzzwords and Bible talk to advance his political career is a flagrant adulterer, having sex with women who are the approximate age of his daughter Sydney, age 24.

I know this because I am a patron of Austin strip clubs. My friends and excellent contacts in the Austin strip club community tell me that Rick Perry, a la Bill Clinton, has an enabling entourage who gets him “young hotties” to have sex with – both here in Austin and especially when he is on the road. I learned about this before the 2010 Texas primary. I had an attractive stripper tell me about her direct dealings with Rick Perry. She said that she was attempting a Monica Lewinsky-type act upon Gov. Rick Perry (oral sex) but that in her words Perry was “too coked up” to perform sexually! When it came time for the stripper to leave, Perry gave her an outrageous amount of money, so large in fact that it probably means that Perry is taking cash bribes or illegal gifts to fund his extracurricular activities. Perry is not a rich man and I doubt he is spending that much of his own money on the women. (Actually sweetheart real estate deals have made the man unusual money.)

Another young woman, who has had direct dealings with Perry’s enabling entourage, told me that Perry is especially flagrantly adulterous when he goes on the road. She said that Perry has sex with the “young hotties” and that Perry and his entourage are literally having orgies in his hotel room. They are either calling escort services or picking up “young hotties” impressed by an arrogant, entitled governor of Texas .

Recently a local Austin reporter was telling me that they had heard about Rick Perry and the strippers in 2006, but they never could nail it down. Well, consider it confirmed. Additionally, there are many people in Austin who are convinced that the man is a homosexual or has had gay affairs in the past. I have never met a man who has had sex with Rick Perry, but I have met women who have had direct dealings with Adulterer Rick Perry and his enabling entourage. Perry has most definitely been living a double life.

That brings up another disqualifying characteristic of Perry: he is arrogant. Rick Perry knows his adultery rap sheet and liability more than anyone else. Perry is fully aware of the tremendous amount of risk this brings to the Republican party, his political career, his personal life and reputation. Yet, Rick Perry, drunk with arrogance and entitlement, presents himself as a legitimate presidential candidate when he is anything but that. Adulterer Rick Perry is sitting on a keg of slut-fueled nitroglycerine that if it ever exploded, would make Anthony Weiner look like a mere pimple popping.

My feelings about this sort of thing is this: I don't follow people around. If they have some kind of secret depraved sex life, I'm certainly not going to know about it, but someone will. This guy Morrow claims special knowledge from patronizing the same strip clubs as Perry. Honestly, if Rick Perry really was living a debauched life-style, we're going to hear from the strippers themselves, not from one of their creepy clients. Perry is preparing to run against the Chosen One. If there really are solid adultery stories, they'll show up in the NY Times, not the misfit reaches of the blogosphere. Right now, all we've got are rumors from a Paul-bot, well that's par for the course when a conservative runs for higher office.

Perry's been seeking and winning elective office in Texas for 20 years. Has there ever been a time when his career was upended by bimbo eruptions? Not that I've noticed, and there are plenty of bitter Texas liberals who would have been happy to broadcast such tales. (Ace debunked the "Rick Perry is gay" rumor on similar grounds).

If Rick Perry really is an adulterer, and he thinks he can run for president anyway, then he's really too dumb to win the nomination. I'm guessing he's not dumb.