TEA PARTY LEADER 'WARNS' IT WON'T CAMPAIGN FOR ROMNEY

The leader of a national tea party group today "warned" that should Republican party presidential candidate Mitt Romney win the nomination they will not actively campaign for him.

Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation organization, while conceding most Tea Partiers will likely vote for Romney, stated yesterday that "we will not be out there with signs for him or in his campaign," continuing that "Romney has a huge problem with the conservative base of the GOP.  He had better do something about that ASAP or he won’t have to worry about that moving to the middle nonsense,” (for full article click here).

Such blunt talk by a leader of a movement partly credited with giving Republicans control over the U.S. House in 2010's historic mid-term elections should give pause to the GOP who desperately need a united party to come together after a bruising primary season if they want to have any hope of defeating Democratic candidate and incumbent President Barack Obama in the General Election Nov. 6.

Such statements as Phillips' also give full view to the deep divisions that have plagued the party in recent years and which this year boiled over in a particularly vitriolic and extended primary season in which at least nine Republicans vied for the nomination and candidates openly attacked one another's level of conservatism, (or lack thereof), in extensive and televised prime-time debates.

And while that number is now officially down to two, (Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney), most observers, and even Gingrich himself recently, have all but conceded the likelihood of Romney being the inevitable GOP nominee.

The Tea Party Nation leader also cited informal surveys on the Tea Party Nation website indicating that as many as 25% of those who identify with the tea party movement plan on not voting for Mitt Romney if he is, in fact, the Republican nominee.

For such voters, the option of merely "staying home" on election day is more palatable than holding their nose and voting for a candidate whose conservative credentials and commitment to such things as a balanced budget and spending cuts that will eliminate the federal deficit are, at least to them, questionable.

The salient question however is, in doing so, do they tip the scales in Obama's favor and actually end up helping a President who they uniformly despise and who has promoted policies which they find equally, if not more, objectionable?

While such matters are not the focus of our article here, it is certainly appropriate to ask whether the right wing of the GOP, members of which this party has frequently sparred with here and on social media such as Twitter, is unintentionally shooting itself in the foot with such tactics?

More of interest to us and our educational mission here at the ACLP, we thought it appropriate to ask in the aftermath of such statements whether those like Phillips, purists for whom the word compromise seems dirty and seem to eschew the ordinary maxim of politics being the art of incremental change, want "the whole cake and eat it too" regardless of the consequences to our broader body politic.

Over the next week we will examine this idea, not just in relation to the Tea Party but also Ron Paul Supporters, Occupy Wall Street, and other groups which have been active this year and oft-threatened to "take their ball and go home," with the goal our answering this question:  Do such threats of political "civil disobedience" evidence a new "purism" that signals the advent of a permanent era in American politics with long-term repercussions which threatens to further unravel our social fabric and prove counterproductive to the very groups that propose such political responses or is it just another side of expected partisanship in an election year that will ultimately prove temporal and benign?

Or, put another way, could such dissatisfaction with the status quo cause a "once in a generation" political "realingment" and foretell a rising of new and heretofore unknown political parties to give full voice to the political beliefs and values of a large swath of the American electorate? Intriguing questions and ones we will endeavor to contemplate, and hopefully answer, in days to come.  jp

3 days (and Three Cheers?) for Obamacare! Why the Supreme Court's upholding the individual mandate is better for the Conservative movement (politically speaking).

The thesis I am about to propose, that upholding the individual mandate may actually, in the long run, be better for the conservative cause, may well be considered heresy by many in the movement. However, the observations I am about to make are little more than common sense and cannot be doubted of their validity. But first, a disclaimer.

Anyone who reads this blog or follows me on Twitter knows that I do not follow any particularly "party" or conservative line, and that I sometimes enjoy playing, in the words of a college professor with whom I enjoyed many a discussion/debate, the "provocateur," or, what some would call nowdays, "devils advocate." Such an approach is well suited to my intellectually maverick ways, as I have always "followed my own drum" so to speak on such matters, (and have never been afraid to differ from others in sharing my own perspective!)

Further, while our philosophy here at the ACLP is unabashedly conservative in its overall philosophical outlook, (which often lends itself to be more supportive of ideas emanating from Republican rather than Democratic quarters nowdays), we are technically "non" partisan, which means that we do not, (and cannot!) automatically support any particular party or political candidates, but rather must be guided by certain principles and core beliefs, (which are outlined in the info box about us to the right of every blog post).

In that sense, then, rather than being politically driven, and in line with a more coherent and long-term historical approach to the ACLP's goals and conservatism in general, I feel bound to call em like em like I see em in analyzing current legal and political events from more of a historical and philosophical viewpoint (which, of course, always supports the Mission of the ACLP in favor of individual freedom and limited republican government as we see it).

Indeed, as a consequence and emphasis on ideas, rather than focusing on the transient nature of politics any particular party or personalities, we believe good ideas can arise from all quarters of the body politic, and from diverse persons, whatever their personal politics or label. This sets us apart from the ideologues of both right and left with whom I often spar on Twitter in the cause for truth and conservative principles. So please, if you are one of the "bots" or hyperpartisans with whom I am sometimes forced to argue with in the cause who insists on "purist" litmus tests or can only hurl insults against those with whom they disagree, spare me, (and you, as I will surely point out your inanity).

However, if you have a intelligible point of disagreement or clarification and can express yourself with other than four letter words or meaningless labels meant to demonize instead of debate, then by all means, we welcome, indeed, urge you to constructively join in the national discourse for the purpose of addressing the pressing issues facing our very sick republic in these critical times. (Indeed, that's what the "comment" boxes are for). But leave off the personal and ad-hominem attacks, profanities and racial slurs, (or face the consequences, which in the least includes being banned from publication on our site). Now on to the topic at hand!

The scope and goals of the Conservative Movement in 2012 (and beyond).

The reasons we think that upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's "individual mandate" is actually better for the goals (and long term vitality) of the Conservative movement, are, as alluded to above, primarily political.

By political we do not mean as involving (and being best effected by) the "political" or elected branches of American government, as one might ordinarily expect, (rather than the permanent class of the robe-wearing cult). This is a topic in itself, which would take far too long to address here.

Indeed, the list of reasons for a healthy distrust and unreliance on the judiciary as the preferred (or only!) branch of government capable of resolving constitutional questions are long and extend back at least as far as our republic's founding, as this author has previously and extensively written upon and others more recently have pointed out, see HERE).

So at the risk of disappointing some of our readers this aspect of the question is not the primary focus of today's editorial. Rather, we are here more interested in an analysis of the political ramifications vis a vis the 2012 Presidential Election, (and less saliently, the Republican primary).

On that score we see the primary goals of the Conservative movement at this point in time, as 1) selecting a viable Republican Candidate who can defeat President Obama in the Fall, a process well under way but which has been a long, and in many ways, damaging process, 2) the revitalization of the American economy, (including fiscal matters such as ending deficit spending and balancing the federal budget), and, 3) restoring the prestige and protection of American interests around the world, (which of course includes a long overdue overhaul and reinvigoration of American defense capabilities at home and around the world).

Although there is some obvious overlap with each other and undoubtedly a multitude of “sub issues” that can reliably be considered matters of importance to "conservatives," at the moment I am limiting myself to these three broad areas a) in the interest of time, and, b) because these broad three issues are unlikely to be controversial to at least the vast majority of those who self identify as "conservative" regardless of party affiliation, (with the exception of those in the Ron Paul crowd, who I have addressed elsewhere).

Dealing with the first of these, it is now quite plain that President Obama is far more likely to be helped, not hurt, by the Supreme Court striking down the Individual Mandate. Don't misunderstand me, as we have clearly expressed in our "So what's the matter with Obamacare?" post, we definitely are opposed to this monstrosity of a law, and moreover, do believe it to be an unconstitutional encroachment upon the rights of the States under the 10th Amendment, (the primary issue at stake in the Supreme Court case in our opinion). That is not the issue here. What we are talking about here is pure politics, i.e., what is more likely to result in a change in the Presidency in 2012? Clearly, the upholding of Obamacare is more likely to do so for several reasons.

Striking down the individual mandate helps re-elect Obama as it motivates his base and demotivates conservatives who are otherwise not overly excited about Romney.  

Dealing with the first of the reasons in support of my thesis, it is now quite plain that President Obama is far more likely to be helped, not hurt, by the Supreme Court striking down the Individual Mandate. Don't misunderstand me, as we have clearly expressed in our "So what's the matter with Obamacare?" post, we definitely are opposed to this monstrosity of a law, and moreover, do believe it to be an unconstitutional encroachment upon the rights of the States under the 10th Amendment, (the primary issue at stake in the Supreme Court case in our opinion). That is not the issue here. What we are talking about here is pure politics, i.e., what is more likely to result in a change in the Presidency in 2012? Clearly, the upholding of Obamacare is more likely to do so for several reasons.

Number one, the President's ability to demagogue the "overreaching" of the Supreme Court in striking down this "wonderful" legislation that "has provided critical needed protections and access to health care of millions," (as the President has previously and repeatedly stated in so many words), should not be underestimated.

As the President did with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allowed unlimited "bundling" of campaign contributions by corporations, unions and fat cat party donors to create the Superpacs partly responsible for the extended Republican primary battle we see everyday played out before us-- who can forget Obama's awkward and politically- charged "in-your-face" singling out of the Supreme Court for this decision while they sat in the front row of the President's 2010 State of the Union Address?-- President Obama will relentlessly hammer the narrative that the Supreme Court has become a "tool" of the "right wing Republicans" who, if granted the White House in 2012, will remake the federal judiciary into an activist arm of the GOP in favor of "corporate interests" to the denigration of "ordinary citizens," (never mind that such a claim undermines another of POTUS's claims, that the Republicans are "do nothings" who can only criticize his valiant attempts to save the country!)

Secondly, and somewhat relatedly, is the claim the President will repeat like a mantra on the campaign trail, (already in full swing now), that the "do nothing" Republicans are out and out "obstructionists" who would rather see the country in demise than help or give the President credit for any policy solutions to help our country, (again, regardless of the fact that the evidence is specious that the bailouts, deficit spending, and policies of this administration have actually helped anything but have rather hindered the current economic "recovery," especially the uncertainty of Obamacare's regulatory morass).

Such claims, while certainly ridiculous to the educated and politically astute, are powerful appeals to the lower-middle class who will be much courted in this election cycle, and will be repeated to potentially devastating effect in much the same way as Truman did in fending off a challenge from Dewey to his re-election in the 1946 Presidential elections.

Thirdly, if the President's opponent is Rick Santorum in the general election, Obama can all the more easily paint him as an "extremist" who will solidify his accusations of an alleged "do nothing" approach to health care, which, in spite of the President's own misguided approach in Obamacare, is still a legitimate issue to many voters.

If the individual mandate and/or law is struck down, the President can also attack Romney along the same lines-- although much less effectively-- as opposing efforts to "help" the people on the issue of rising health care costs, (again, in spite of all Romney's clear efforts to lead on this issue and all the evidence which suggests tort reform and a market based approach to health insurance would be fare more effective at stemming the rise of health costs).

And while we, like many, have been tossed and turned by the waves of the constant up and down of the Republican Presidential primary and according rise and fall of many seeking the nomination, it may come as no surprise that, in the final analysis, and all things considered, and barring selection of an unknown at a brokered Republican convention in Tampa in August, that Mitt Romney is probably the most likely GOP nominee who can beat President Obama, (even as he fails to inspire confidence in a great many conservatives, as the primary contest(s) have clearly shown).

Thus, if Obamacare, or it's individual mandate is struck down by the Supreme Court, it will motivate a fierce backlash from the left that will motivate the turnout of liberal voters, who have had the luxury of silently working in the background as they continue to organize their already significant union ground-game and outpaced Republican fundraising efforts while the GOP nominees are busy tearing each other apart in the extended primary campaign.

Indeed, although money isn't everything in politics, the fact that 2012 threatens to be-- thanks to unions and the President's prolific fundraising which promises to raise over a BILLION dollars for his reelection effort-- the most expensive election cycle in history while Republicans squander resources in endless infighting among themselves rather than being able to focus their resources squarely on Obama. In the final analysis, this means that an Administration defeat at the Supreme Court is more likely, rather than less, to help the President's re-election bid, (once all the additional time to fundraise and the increased motivation of POTUS' base that a Supreme Court defeat will cause is factored in. Hmmm, could this be the reason for the dismal performance of the President's solicitor general in arguments before the High Court?)

On the other hand, as above alluded, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, as all indications are that he will be, not only is there a very real risk that many conservatives will lack excitement to get out and vote on election day, but others in converse (and perverse!) fashion, will "rest on their laurels" thinking "now that we've defeated Obamacare there is no reason to get too excited about the election." Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, (which is why I say that the inevitable outcome of an Obama defeat on Obamacare in the Supreme Court is likely to decrease the chances of denying the President reelection, rather than enhance the chances of Republican victory in November. 

Defeating Obamacare, while likely to result in a short term economic boon, in the long term will result in government policies more likely to harm both our freedoms and our economy.

Wait a minute, are you meaning to say that a victory for anti-mandate forces at the Supreme Court will actually have a bad effect on the economy and conservative movement over time?Yes, that's exactly what I am saying! This is so because just as many will not vote once they perceive the "threat" of Obamacare to be gone, the same lack of enthusiasm as outlined above could very well cause a number of Freshman Republican House Members to lose their seats to angry and reinvigorated Democrats, and flip control of the Congress back to Democrats, (indeed, in a close election, as this one is likely to be, voter turnout can win or lose an election!) That means that rather than sane forces for change like Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin leading the House Budget Committee, we will have people like Democrat Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, (who brought us Obamacare in the first place and said we would "have to read it to see what's in it"!) back in charge. Of course, this will inevitably just be a self-perpetuating cycle which will bring in more big government, anti-freedom policy prescriptions on not just health care, but environmental, social, regulatory, and tax policies that makes the freedom loving faint of heart.

Indeed, when added to the next attempt to "fix" health care of the Democrats they will likely try if Obamacare is struck down-- and yes, I am talking about a "single payer" fully-socialized system like Europe's or Canada's, which has really been the plan all along if you read liberal blogs or the legislative history of the 2010 lame duck Congress' attempts to put in the law the so called "public option,"-- whatever the Democrats cook up next will make Obamacare look like "the good old days," I promise you!

This will in turn damage our free-enterprise, choice and consumer driven system that most of us have known and loved all our lives into something little distinguished from European "social democracies" where government has a much larger role in all our lives (with a corresponding reduction in standard of living and rise in national debt, and we've all seen what's happening in Greece and Italy!). Need I say more?

Failure to defeat President Obama and the Democrats will hurt our National Defense

Finally, the economic disaster that Democratic control of the Congress and retention of the White House by the Obama Administration that would result upon re-election, on top of the already draconian cuts the disastrous "automatic cuts" the GOP was forced to concede to the President as part of last years "budget agreements," would cause such an economic downturn as would be likely to ensue that it would incalculably threaten America's ability to defend its prestige and interests at home and around the world!

And while this may not be a problem for the Paulbots who think that if we just "play nice" with the world dictators like Iran's WackedIsHeajob, (I never could spell! lol), Venezeuela's Chavez and N. Korea's child president, (to say nothing of newly invigorated Putin, Al Quaeda, fair weather friends in Pakistan our "friends-with-the-Taliban" government in Afghanistan!) will kindly return the favor, the far more likely result is an increased need for American military presence around the world to protect our way of life at home, (not to mention access to the oil that, like it or not, is still the lifeline of our industrial ability and economy, and I don't have to tell you the policies of this Administration that have exasperated that with the gas prices at record levels, do I? Just think "Keystone" and ANWAR).

And a final word for those Paul supporters and like-minded isolationists/libertarians; while libertarianism has to this point played a somewhat positive role in the GOP, (a subject for another day), and is not to altogether be discounted, if you think for a minute that once America and free countries around the world will somehow not be brought to our knees by lack of energy resources in a way that will make your right to freely smoke pot, have gay sex, engage the services of a prostitute at will, or whatever, (FILL IN THE BLANK) currently prohibited by your own government seem trivial and/or will magically result in less oppressive government with more "opportunity" to exercise basic civil rights you really need to lay off the crack cause your mind is just not working right!! (And this is saying nothing of the President's recently overheard apparent willingness to jettison what little missile defense systems we have planned to yet again appease near-totalitarian Russia). 

Indeed, besides the crippling effect on our readiness to defend strategic interests like the Straits of Hormuz and other friends like Israel, Japan and South Korea, the most basic right of a government is to protect her citizens from harm from hostile foreign governments. Indeed, as many libertarians like to quote Ronald Reagan, perhaps they should heed his very non-isolationist maxim of foreign policy, "peace through strength," (or if you prefer, the certified way to deal with Bullies, for which I refer you to your local elementary school playyard manual-- and no, America is not and never has been an international bully, and if you believe that spare me the mail as you and I will never agree!)

For all the above mentioned reasons, reasons that will be enhanced and not decreased in our view by re-election of President Obama, (which, for the economic and policy reasons as given above will be exasperated by Obamacare being struck down in our view), this core obligation of the Federal government to protect U.S. citizens can only be adequately protected by a strong National Defense capability, (which as pointed out above will be significantly decreased if not economically impossible if the Democrats, and Obama in particular, are re-elected to power).

So, kind reader, what are we to make of all this? Lest you sink into despair, let me encourage you, it is not too late for the greatness of American to be restored. Moreover, I could be wrong; I am no prophet, and the above is not inevitable. However, it is in our view more likely if Obamacare is struck down, (as we predict it will be), so we must be prepared! So what must we do, how can we come to the aid of our country in these perilous times?

We must redouble our efforts to defend conservative principles, to speak out against liberal and ineffective policies, to donate and become involved in the campaigns and causes we believe in, to return our country to fiscal sanity, and to unify the party most in tune with conservative principles; in short, we must work tirelessly to support whoever and whatever candidates support our values and to heed the advice of the man most of us believe was our most effective modern patriot and stalwart of freedom around the globe, our beloved President Ronald Reagan again, who spoke of the importance of unity and the Eleventh Commandment, ("Which you really need to read more and should google if you are that uninformed politically).

And while Reagan undoubtedly was speaking about his own party, which as a matter of public record was the Republican party, we welcome comers of all political stripes who support our mission to join us in this endeavor by linking to this site and following us on Twitter, anything to get the word out about what's at stake in this coming election (and current fight at the Supreme Court for that matter).

Friends, we must do this not out of partisanship but out of patriotism, as Americans, in order to insure we have a change in policy in our government that respects our Constitution!

This will will not be easy, it will not be fun, and don't let anyone tell you it is "already baked in the cake" or that we can afford to become complacent, (because we surely can't!).

Rather, if we are to preserve freedom and our Republic's way of life, we must take action, for our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor. God help us if we don't. Jp

Does the GOP nominating Romney "give up" health care issue for Conservatives?

We've all heard the narrative-- repeated insistently by Rick Santorum in the primary battle he is currently waging for the presidential nomination in the Republican party-- that if the GOP nominates Mitt Romney to face Obama in the Nov. 6, 2012 general election the issue of Obamacare will be “taken off the table,” or at least opposition to the unpopular “individual mandate” much debated in the Supreme Court this week will be less effective. Indeed, it is a position that this party at one time gave credence to. But after listening to the last few days of Supreme Court arguments, one has to ask, is the premise underlying this narrative really true?  Will the issue of health care truly be “lost” and conservatives somehow be weakened in their attack on the Obama Administration's signature domestic policy achievement that was forced through in the dead of night by a lame duck Congress with much manipulation and cajoling, (as noted by some of the justices this week), if Romney is the Nominee? While I have already dealt with the differences between Obamacare and Romneycare in my rebuttal to Phil. A. Klein's critique of Ann Coulter's editorial “Three Cheers for Romneycare,” (see here), and will attempt to not waste time repeating all those points here, further reflection on the critical issue at hand has convinced me that the answer to this question is clearly “no.” 

I share my thoughts not to open yet another fissure in the conservative movement of the many that have become evident in the contentious primary process we have witnessed, but rather to bring a sense of perspective (and closure?) that seems sorely lacking in the heat of partisan battles.I also realize that there are honest, differing perspectives on this among conservatives. But with the intention to help conservatives avoid making a decision that could lead to even more catastrophic results, (as will hereinafter be made clear) I must share my heart on this subject. So what exactly is it, especially in light of my personal fondness for Rick Santorum's campaign previously, that has brought me to this most recent conclusion?

For starters, the narrative pushed by the Santorum campaign, and conservative supporters generally, is based on a faulty assumption: Namely, that the “Obamacare” issue will be as salient in Nov. (and our nation's future), as it is now. For several reasons we believe it will not be so.

First, in light of the open skepticism of the Supreme Court regarding the federal mandate contained in Obamacare-- and the lukewarm support of even some of the more liberal justices on the High Court-- we firmly believe that the “Patient protection and Affordable Care Act” (as it's formally named) will, in fact, be struck down, in whole or in part, by the Court (and resoundingly so).

We believe this will have at least two effects: 1) It will invigorate left of center voters to go to the polls who are not likely to be favorably disposed to Rick Santorum's brand of social conservatism, and 2) It will depress voter turnout of those conservatives who might most naturally tend to favor the candidate who has most closely tied his fortunes to opposition to mandates generally, Rick Santorum.

But why is this so? Simply for this reason: After all the brohouha over mandates that has embroiled the Republican primaries, and raised conservative concerns, (rightly so), over the effect on our Republic and Constitution of the federal mandate contained in Obamacare, any decision striking it down by the Supreme Court-- which the justices have widely indicated will come by summer-- will accordingly reduce the urgency of the issue in the Nov. general election. As a result, though not by any means all, some conservatives for whom this is THE burning, penultimate issue in the elections might stay home, (thus hurting Santorum's chances if he is the Republican nominee). Of course, as any astute student of politics knows, turnout is key in a close election, (which make no mistake, this election will be!) 

On the other hand, Mitt Romney is far more likely to pull not just Republican voters, but independents and undecideds, (who in the Illinois primary recently, an election which demographically more closely approximates the general electorate, broke in large margins for Romney). Indeed, there are a lot of different reasons general election voters might vote for Romney, none of which have to do with Obamacare, (which as we've said, will already be “done and decided” come Nov. 6).

Secondly, as the price of gas rises amidst continued fears of global unrest and the Iranian situation, we believe “bread and butter” issues like jobs and the economy will dominate voters concerns in Nov.

Now don't get us wrong. We believe so called “social issues” are critically important as a part of the GOP's pro-family platform. However, we believe economic and other concerns will, as polls now show, continue to dominate the minds of the broader electorate that will be voting in the general election in November. For reasons as have been previously expressed by us as well as others, we believe this not only favors the nomination of a proven business “outsider” such as Mitt Romney, but it could critically also “insulate” and protect Romney's ability to press the issue of health care notwithstanding his passage of what many consider the “blueprint” for Obamacare, his state-passed “Romneycare” while governor of Mass.

The controversy over this issue, as well as the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, have already been well documented, and for our purposes here will not need to be repeated, (suffice to say that there is a huge difference between a complete federal takeover of health care and more localized solutions arising from the “laboratory of the states” to deal with the problems associated with rising health care costs that will undoubtedly be highlighted in the Supreme Court's imminent decision).

But saliently, and as even acknowledged by “Romneycare's” harshest critics, the States undoubtedly have the power under the Tenth Amendment-- or at least aren't proscribed by the federal constitution-- to impose all sorts of “mandates,” (including ones relating to health care) at the State level by virtue of a State's inherent “police powers” in the general interest of public health and safety, (and for those libertarians who disagree with this fundamental concept we ask if you also disagree that the State can regulate alcohol sales or require you to buy car insurance? Of course, and as an aside, the Santorum campaign's repeated pounding of an “anti-all-mandates” drum belies an inherent contradiction in believing such matters as contraception can be regulated by the State while failing to explain why matters of health care cannot, but I digress).

Again, lest any misunderstand, we are not saying that we, as an organization, favor even the less intrusive-- and constitutional, at least from a federalism standpoint-- state mandate to purchase health insurance found in Romneycare, (indeed, to focus on this is to miss the point of our focus on politics begun in our prior post).

Rather, and more salient to our discussion here, we simply believe that in the hearts and minds of general election voters, Romney's previous position on record as doing something about healthcare will help, rather than hurt him, in ways that are not true with Rick Santorum.

Indeed, we believe Romney's previous attempts at insurance/health reform at the state level in Mass. will actually insulate him from one of the President's chief attacks leading up to the Nov. elections, specifically the one that goes like this: When it comes to the important issue of health care “reform” Republicans are “do nothings” who can only obstruct and have no ideas of their own to help people with the rising cost of health insurance, (which regardless of the Supreme Court's decision will continue to be an issue due to advanced technology and demographic trends pushing up the price of health care services).

This, to us, will likely be a far more salient issue (and likely line of attack of the Democrats), in November, especially when it will be coming, as now widely expected, after the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare.

Not so with Rick Santorum, who will easily be painted by the White House as an “extreme obstructionist” that can only feed the narrative and effectiveness of Obama's attack on Republicans as the party of “do nothings” when it comes to health care, (to say nothing of Santorum's stance on social issues, which personally we rather like but when combined with the expected liberal backlash on the striking down of Obamacare will result in an extremely unified and motivated Democrat party at a time when due to lingering bitterness over extended primary battles Republicans may be less so).

Indeed, in such a “post Obamacare” political environment we think it will rather be Romney, not Santorum, whose political position is most strengthened by this turn of events.

As alluded to above, not only would it completely insulate Romney from the repeated attacks of President Obama that Republicans are happy “doing nothing” on the important issue of health care, but coming on the heels of the expected reversal of the unpopular federal law Romney will be able to exhibit leadership and an understanding of federalism by saying convincingly, “This is why such matters need to be made at the State and not federal level like I did in Mass.” (Indeed, re: the latter we would not be at all surprised if part of the Supreme Court's decision highlights this fundamental federalism of our constitution vis a vis a focus on the differences in the lawfulness of State vs. Federal mandates inherent in the Tenth Amendment, further buttressing Romney as opposed to Santorum who has publicly thrown in fully against any and all mandates).

Remember, elections can be won or lost on the slightest of impressions, and the one emerging from this turn of events clearly would buttress one surrounding Romney's strengths stemming from his business and Olympics experience, that of executive leadership.

Moreover, as pointed out in our rebuttal of Mr. Klein's anti-Coulter piece, in light of the fact that Romney's state “mandate” setting up market-based exchanges where insurance companies competed for the business of individual consumers stopped the Democrats from imposing an even more instrusive “single payer” government run insurance system in Massacheussets, it also adds an element of wisdom and executive effectiveness in working with both parties to Romney that is sorely lacking in Santorum's candidacy. (Indeed, it strenghthens the Romney narrative that he is a “get it done” outsider from the world of business, quite unlike the “lifelong politician” model which voters have increasingly soured on).

Such considerations and ability to counter the big government ideas of obvious statists become even more important when one considers that Democrats, if able to wrest control of the House of Representatives from Republicans on the enthusiasm of their base post Obamacare's unconstitutional demise, are likely to impose in its place an even more intrusive “single payer” system if Obama is reelected by simply expanding medicaid to all, (a government program that has already been deemed constitutional and would be immune to the sort of legal challenges currently being made against Obamacare). Such an outcome would be like going from the frying pan into the fire for conservatives, and have a far more devastating impact upon individual liberty and the free market than Obamacare, (which, for all its flaws, at least preserves the vestiges of a free market system).

It also bears considering that the above “doomsday” scenario for conservatives of the Democrats regaining control of the House from Republicans-- who currently hold a slim majority-- a prospect which polls show is significantly more likely if a polarizing candidate with less “coattails” like Santorum is the Republican nominee in the general election. Indeed, polls consistently show that Romney is more acceptable to a wide swath of voters “in the middle,” (you know, the ones who actually decide national elections?) 

Even more important is the U.S. Senate, where any negative downticket conseqences to our nominee could cost us chances to regain control over the critical task of judicial oversight and confirmation of judges to the federal judiciary, (including the Supreme Court itself, where matters such as the future of the fateful and anachronistic Roe v. Wade decision and Gay marriage enshrined as a “right” in the federal constitution will be decided). 

Assuming the worst case scenario of both a Presidential and Senate setback for conservatives, that would leave President Obama and his leftist supporters the chance to fill as many as three Supreme Court vacancies with those who share his progressive vision of law and the Constitution and the potential to set back any conservative gains that we make at both the federal and state legislative level, (witness the California Supreme court's overturning the clear will of the voters to support marriage as one man and one woman which, even if review of said decision was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court, is doubtful we would have the votes to prevail); in short, even on social issues, (the one area where Santorum potentially trumps Romney's “conservative cred”), it could open a pandora's box of mischief and immorality that would make Santorum himself blush, (which admittedly, might not be too hard if it is true he almost "threw up" on hearing a speech by JFK on the 'separation' of church and state, a matter not at issue here). In this regard it is irrelevant that we may personally like Santorum's strongly “conservative” stand on social policy issues, (as well as his emphasis on manufacturing); the fact remains that his defeat as a general election candidate would potentially do far more damage to the conservative position on such issues than he could possibly further if elected as President.

Moreover, and in terms of basic electability, it is indisputable that among almost all demographic groups, (including the critical ones of women and independents as a whole), Romney retains a significant advantage; In short, if Santorum wins the GOP nomination for President it could have significant “downticket” consequences which leads to Democratic control of the Congress. And if that happens, if will make any conservative victory on Obamacare in the Supreme Court in a few months a distant and insignificant battle in a much larger war we can not risk losing.

I began this article with the primary purpose of debunking the oft-repeated idea that Mitt Romney's passing of “Romneycare” as governor in Mass makes him a less effective or desirable candidate for President in the general election to oppose President Obama compared to Rick Santorum, and have covered a lot of ground, (much more so than I intended when I began). 

Hopefully some of the points I have raised will begin a much bigger conversation amongst conservatives leading up to this critical national election, or we may be stuck with suffering the collateral consequences for a much larger time to come, and on a much larger scale, than we can now envision. Jp

SHOULD GOP CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE SHERIFF PAUL BABEU'S "COMING OUT" OF THE CLOSET DOOM HIS CANDIDACY FOR CONGRESS?

Last Saturday rising Republican star Sheriff Paul Babeu, an outspoken critic of the Obama Administration's border and immigration policy currently running for Congress, "came out" as a gay man at a press conference he had called to address recent and sensational claims that he used the authority of his office to intimidate an immigrant with whom he had a relationship to keep the affair under wraps.   

The almost immediate reaction of most in the politosphere re: the revelations of Babeu's sexual orientation is that it would bring an abrupt end to the political aspirations of this rising star in the Republican Party, who as a result has been forced to resign his position as State Co-Chair of the Arizona Romney Campaign.  Indeed, many from the conservative-leaning and largely rural Arizona district which he seeks to represent, including many well connected political observers in that State and around the nation, have speculated he is all but doomed in his campaign to represent the newly-formed 4th Congressional district in Arizona.

And we admit, portions of the recent claims are extremely troubling, not just for the stark juxtaposition of the revelations with the squeaky-clean "All American" image he has successfully portrayed, but even more saliently the allegations that Mr. Babeu may have used his position as Pinal County Sheriff to threaten his allegedly illegal immigrant lover with deportation if he did not agree to remain quiet about their affair so as not to damage Babeu's chances to win a seat in Congress.  Such claims, if substantiated, would not only raise serious questions of abuse of power, but would seemingly open Babeu, who has made a name for himself with a "get tough on illegal immigration" persona that he has developed in extremely public disagreements with Administration immigration and border enforcement policy, to charges of hypocrisy in his area of strongest political appeal to Arizona voters.  

While Sheriff Paul's "guilt" or innocence to the most serious charges that have been made against him are not at issue here— indeed, the right to be innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental and sacrosanct value we champion here at the ACLP— and we certainly are firmly on the "conservative" side in the raging national debate on such social issues as the enshrinement in federal law of "gay marriage," in this case however we see a much more basic point.

Should an otherwise qualified candidate for Congress be prevented and/or excluded from a seemingly otherwise successful run for Congress due solely to his sexual orientation? Of course, the question presupposes that Sheriff is, in fact, innocent of the "intimidation" or "abuse of power" allegations that have surfaced in conjunction with his outing— a factor that could obviously change— but nevertheless, the question, at least at this point, remains. So what?

Does it really matter the sexual practices of a candidate in their private life, as long as they are able to adequately perform their duties as an elected official? Or, put another way, are we unconsciously limiting the pool of qualified candidates to elected positions due to the "gotcha" style of politics that seems to pervade our political system nowdays?

Of course, the fact that Sheriff Paul felt constrained to attempt to keep the affair silent by having his attorney contact his alleged lover speaks volumes about a related issue, certainly a legitimate question, to wit: Is a person in position of authority more susceptible to blackmail and/or "pressure" to not faithfully exercise their duties if they are homosexual? (a particularly important question in the areas of military intelligence, politics or national security.)  

And if so, is this due to irrational "homophobia" in society, and thus an argument in favor of more tolerant "mainstreaming" of homosexuals into all positions of service in the military and society overall in order to force more "acceptance" of "alternate" lifestyles and an according drop in "stigma," (as the Obama Administration seems to think), or, rather, erring on the side of caution, should homosexuals be banned from certain positions to protect them (and society) from the corrupting effects of susceptibility to blackmail that fear of involuntary "outing" necessarily involves? Tough questions, and all ones we are not going to tackle today, (as if we even could settle such thorny issues that easy!)

But taken simply on an individual basis, in the contexts of Sheriff Paul's case before us, we find certain implications for the "big tent" party of Lincoln, as well as society, disturbing and worthy of address.

Of course, the ultimate determination on Sheriff Paul, at least politically, will be up to the voters to decide. One could certainly make the argument that by deceiving voters as to this salient and core feature of who he is, he doesn't now deserve the benefit of the doubt to be elected, (or re-elected for that matter). And one would certainly be entitled to that belief.

However, that still leaves unaddressed the question of why, in this particular case, (other than the above-mentioned intimidation claims), Sheriff Babeu's orientation should really matter at all?

On Babeu's watch, spending and waste in his department has been reduced, even as effectiveness and morale has gone up. Drug and illegal-immigrant interdiction have grown markedly more effective, and he has proven courageous and effective in addressing real public-safety issues of the people whom he serves in the rugged area near the border of Mexico in which he works on a daily basis.

Indeed, there is no one who can claim, at least with a straight face, that Paul has not been an effective leader and public servant as Sheriff of Pinal County for the years he has headed that law enforcement agency, (indeed, he has been selected multiple years in a row by his peers to head the Arizona Sheriff's Association).

And politics aside, he has certainly been an effective voice for better drug and border enforcement, an important issue for large swaths of the electorate— and indeed, arguably to the safety of Arizona and the Nation— even if agreement on the importance of this from a public policy and political standpoint is in dispute.

So again, assuming the allegations of abuse of power and intimidation are not substantiated, and assuming one agrees with Mr. Babeu's public policy prescriptions for border issues, why should this former military man who has served with distinction in every position he has ever held be excluded from consideration for a seat in Congress based solely on his sexual orientation? Or, put another way, is a man's (or women's for that matter) sexual orientation sufficient cause to end their career?  Indeed, the simple answer is, in fairness, it shouldn't be.  Now I know what some of my conservative brethren are thinking here.  Has the man lost his moral marbles?  But before I answer that question, (or you do!), it behooves us to examine a few other matters first.   

I'm sure most Americans would agree that it is a basic axiom of our individually merit-based society that one should only be prevented from securing a position, any position, due to their not being suited to the position by their training and/or an inability to carry out the duties which that job entails.

Indeed, it is a principle that has been fundamental to the American dream, and dear to political conservatives in particular, from almost the foundation of the Republic in spirit, if not in deed.

It is also a core part of the bulwark preventing our nation from dividing (degenerating?) into separate "special interest" groups which the nation's founding fathers would have called the danger of "faction" in America, (Federalist Nos. 10), and constituted in their minds a real and present danger to the success of our national experiment in liberty.  

Indeed, this principle is the only rational basis which one can employ even handedly to prevent discrimination of all kinds from wreaking the kind of social unrest and injustice that otherwise would rage unchecked much like the "class warfare" rhetoric of today engenders on a parallel plane. And it is a road we do not, as a nation, want to go down.

Indeed, if sexual orientation— note I say "orientation," not sexual conductt— becomes a "legitimate" grounds upon which to fire or promote, it opens a can of worms that has no end.

Similar to that invidious distinction of race, when governmental policy favors one race over another, it guarantees future discrimination and injustice in a most destabilizing way, as those who "merit" the privilege of special preference and protection from government today may be the exact opposite "group" who claims it tomorrow, (with the only distinction being which societal "group" can wrest control of the levers of popularly elected government from their former "oppressors"). It doesn't take much to imagine the destructive effect this could have to a representative democracy in which all are supposed to be treated "equal" in the eyes of the law. (Indeed, the avoidance of such mischief was a chief concern the Founders sought when they "built in" so many "checks and balances" into the our Republic's primary law, the U.S. Constitution).

So back to Sheriff Babeu. 

 In light of such principles, and the danger to our Republic that abandoning them in one case— however shocking the specifics of an individual case may be to us personally— holds for the our national good, we believe it behooves us to 1) Resist the temptation to rush to judgment, and 2) Unashamedly pronounce that as Americans dedicated to the Rule of Law, precluding consideration of an otherwise and obviously qualified candidate for public office based solely on his sexual orientation is anathema to core principles of law and fairness our government is founded on and ought to be vehemently opposed by all persons of good will.

So in conclusion we say, let the Arizona election proceed, and let the voters decide... but let them do so not based upon such an extremely personal matter of Sheriff Babeu's as has been exposed of late. Rather, let it be on the public policies, governmental preferences and performance Mr. Babeu has exhibited as a public servant of the people of Pinal county, Arizona. Fairness, as well as sound public policy considerations, demand no less. Jp

Has the Republican Party been taken over by Ron Paul Libertarianism?- An analysis of the causes, history, and effects of the GOP's Libertarian Streak

In the course of following-- or attempting to follow-- the crazy ups and downs of the near fratricidal intra-party war currently being waged in the Republican primary for which candidate will be the party's standard bearer to go against Barack Obama in the Fall, one thing has become increasingly clear, or maybe two. There are deep fissures of division among the parties core constituencies, with each passionately devoted to their policies and version of the truth vis a vis what they think it will take to defeat the sitting Democratic President in November.

In this regard there are none for whom this is more true than Ron Paul supporters, who in spite of few victories thus far in the campaign, and even fewer delegates, clearly compensate by sheer determination and enthusiasm for their cause.  We thus thought it appropriate to take a moment and examine this core component of the modern Republican party in light of a few key considerations, 1) The history and roots of Libertarianism (in the Gop and nationally), 2) The effects within the party with an emphasis on primary and general election politics, and, 3) The potential consequences of Ron Paul Libertarianism upon national policy as expressed in social, economic and foreign policy.

The Libertarian "wing" of the Republican party makes up one of three key groups making up the bulk of the Republican base today, the other two being the Christian or cultural conservatives and so-called "Establishment" or "country club" Republicans. And while the Libertarians certainly agree with the other two "legs" of the Republican stool, if you will, on the need to defeat President Obama to meet party goals and reverse various national policies and objectives of the Obama Administration which they view as destructive to our economy and very way of life, they differ markedly in both the specific policies they view as most destructive as well as their level of enthusiasm and dedication to the party in general. As this author can personally attest, this has sometimes resulted in a seeming unwillingness and/or or inability of the those on the extreme end of the Libertarian wing to "play nicely" with the other wings in the GOP, and has led in the eyes of the other two legs, fairly or not, to a perception that the Libertarian wing has a "take their ball and go home" attitude not conducive to party unity and the ability to come together for common goals necessary to achieve electoral success.  Of course, this could perhaps be equally said of any of a major party's key groups, and in the case of the GOP could perhaps equally apply to the Cultural converservatives for whom "social issues" are most important, or the "establishment Republicans" for whom stability and an emphasis on free market economics is most important.  However, those wings of the GOP are not currently the subject of this article.  Rather, this post shall examine the history of the Libertarian movement in general and within the GOP, the reality of the perceptions often associated with and the practical effect upon the party, i.e., how it helps, or hurts, in our humble opinion, the GOP's overall chances to win, (and as an aside, Ron Paul's chances at the nomination).

For starters, as alluded to above, the Libertarian wing is easily a contender, along with the Christian/cultural conservative wing of the GOP, for the most enthusiastic group in the party.  Many have noted that the Libertarian movement, and the youthful and energetic "fresh blood" that it brings into the party, is critical to the Republicans' success in the kind of campaigning and "street level" politics that provide energy and awareness among the general public in a way that is helpful to the party and its nominee leading up to the General election.  However, there is a darker side, a "cost" if you will of their particular brand of politics as well, one which this article will examine in detail.  To do that we must delve into Libertarianism's beginnings.

The national and political history of American Libertarianism

American Libertarianism has its roots in American politics going back to the nation's founding.



The philosophical underpinnings of American Libertarianism

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct against GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain Mount

 Mounting allegations against Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain have roiled the Republican Presidential nomination process, leading to speculation that the candidate's stunning rise in the polls may be followed by an equally devastating fall from grace within the Republican (and American) electorate even as he has steadfastly resisted calls to drop out of the nomination race. 

 Although recent polls have not yet seemed to register much of a change in opinion among Republicans towards the embattled candidate following his staunch denials of allegations that he sexually harassed several female employees of the National Restaurant Association in the late '90s when he was President of the organization, that is likely to change with Sharon Bialek, one of the alleged harassed women, now coming forward to publicly air lurid details of his attempted advances and use of employment as leverage in attempts to procure sexual favors, see here.

  And although as a non-profit organization we don't often publicly express opinions on purely political matters better left to the judgment of the American voters (as opposed to examination of the issues), and don't usually endorse particular candidates, these extraordinary events lead us to make the following statement:

 1)  With the publicly detailed allegations now given increased credibility, as well as yielded publicly the name of a second woman and U.S. treasury department spokesperson Karen Kraushaar, also allegedly harassed by Cain, raising the likelihood of further revelations to come, (indeed, news has broken that a planned news conference of all the women claiming harassment by Cain in the 1990's is planned),  AND,

2)  The revelation by the Candidate himself that at least one of the woman claiming harassment was paid a "severance pay" to drop her claims of sexual harassment in the '90s and the National Restaurant Association has confirmed the existence of at least 2 such complaints against Mr. Cain, and WHEREAS,

3)   It appears highly likely to this organization that dragging this matter out will prove not in the interest of all parties, (including the women involved in these incidents, several of which have expressed a desire not to have the whole thing made public), and further focusing on such matters will only serve to contribute to the cynicism and low esteem in which the American public already holds their elected leaders and political institutions and can at this point serve no legitimate law enforcement purpose these many years later long after the statute of limitations on any civil or criminal action can be brought have expired, AND FURTHER,

 4)  That a continuation of Herman Cain's presidential campaign can only harm and reinforce by association, fairly or not, in the eyes of a significant portion of the public, a negative view towards conservative principles and other candidates who might otherwise better be able to promote policies more in keeping with the values and goals of the ACLP than the present Administration, MOREOVER,

 5)  That further scheduled debates, one of which is scheduled for November 9, 2011 on CNBC, is likely to focus considerably on the claims as have been made against Mr. Cain and thus serve as a distraction to the discussion of the critical public policy issues facing the nation at this time, NOW THEN,

 The American Center for Law and Policy calls on Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain to suspend and/or end his campaign for President of the United States and put his country's need  to focus on the critical issues it faces in these uncertain times above his own political aspirations. 

  Indeed, to do so would allow a time of healing and reflection that would innure to the benefit of the country and good will of all Americans and positively reflect on the character of Mr. Cain that, prior to the recent revelations, had been so much a part of the appeal of his campaign for the Republican nomination to the presidency.  (After all, even Nixon had the decency to resign rather than put the country through a grueling and extended impeachment process that would have only served to further divide our country at a time in which, as now, our attentions could be better focused elsewhere, for instance, Iran, or the world economy).

  On a more personal note, we also urge you Mr. Cain to seek personal redemption and reconciliation for the matters of which have been reported on which will undoubtedly require your attention in your own life regardless of whether the offenses claimed have been exhaturated and/or promoted for partisan political purposes as you claim. 

  We also call on all other Republican candidates for the presidential nomination to condemn, in no uncertain terms, the kind of acts as are alleged and have been reported widely in the media, as several have already moved in the direction of doing so, (see comments by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum). 

  The issue of sexual harassment is a very serious one, as are the issues that further focus on the sensational claims as have been made against Mr. Cain will undoubtedly crowd out from public consideration if the allegations as have been made persist in dominating public discourse as they have the last week in the next.

  We therefore appeal to you personally Mr. Cain, to do the right thing and step down from consideration for the nomination to the office of President so that a comprehensive and dispassionate examination of the relevant and crucial issues facing our nation may be able to move forward and ultimately innure to the general welfare of these United States.  jp

Obama to Black America: Quit whining, grumbling and get to work

 As of late President Obama's re-election strategy has become increasingly clear.  Tack left to his base and run against an "obstructionist" Republican Congress that favors the rich at the expense of the middle class, (or so goes the argument).

 While such a tactic is of questionable effectiveness in the best of circumstances, (because frankly, after blaming George W. Bush for 3 years most people, including us here at the ACLP, would rather hear about what President Obama is going to do instead of simply finding a new scapegoat to blame), and completely ignores the lack of the President's leadership in creating jobs and the failed keynesian "stimulus" plan he championed, at least President Obama knows how to play to his base. Or maybe not?!

 In a mystifying jab at black America, one of Obama's last and strongest remaining bastions of support in the American electorate amidst a torturous slide in popularity among all groups which presages potentially ominous chances for his re-election, the President brazenly admonished-- replete with semi-black-preaching style cadence and mock southern accent-- a gathering of African-American activists at the annual awards dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus by stating:

"Take off your bedroom slippers... Stop complaining... Stop grumbling, stop crying... We have work to do."  - President Obama, Congressional Black Caucus dinner, Sept 24, 2011.

  Unfortunately for the President, rather than rally his supporters, (the speech's ostensible intended effect), it's patronizing and somewhat condescending tone had the same effect as Governor Rick Perry's recent gaff at the Republican primary debate in Orlando when he bluntly told conservatives they "had no heart" if they didn't support in-state university tuition for illegal immigrants in response to fellow Republican critics.   The reaction of influential black caucus members was swift.

  Maxine Waters, (D-CA.), was particularly keen in her response to the President's chastisements, stating, "I don't know who he was talking to because we're certainly not complaining." 


  Continuing her criticism of the President's remarks, the California Congresswoman said:

"I found that language a bit curious because the president spoke to the Hispanic Caucus, and certainly they're pushing him on immigration... he certainly didn't tell them to stop complaining... And he would never say that to the gay and lesbian community, who really pushed him on Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Click here for full story and video links at CBS news. 

  Now we are not genuises here at the ACLP, but it doesn't take a genius to know that when you've ticked off your base and the best you can come up with generally is blaming everyone and everything else for your problems as the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world-- including your normally strongest supporters-- you are in serious trouble.

 Of course, as any reader of this blog can tell you, we are not fans of the Obama Administration's policies. But neither are we extreme partisans who want a U.S. President, any President, to fail simply for failing's sake.  Rather, our concerns are rooted in very real philosophical differences and a deep belief that this Administration, in the very least, is utterly inept to solve the great problems facing our country at this critical time.  In short, it is the failed and corrupt policies of the Obama Administration that we object to, not the man himself.

  What the dustup with the Congressional Black Caucus reveals is that, in addition to failing to be the "great uniter" of America that President Obama promised in 2008, he can barely unite his most natural base of political support.

  And that, to us, by any measure bodes very poorly for this President going into the 2012 election season.  jp