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

Demcratic pundit Hilary Rosen accuses Ann Romney of "never working," Opens new front in the "War on Women" debate

Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen tonight opened a new front in the War on Women debate which has been occurring on Twitter and other Social Media sites in the aftermath of the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke story by declaring on CNN that "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life." (See Reuters story here).

Unfortunately for the President, while apparently intended to reinforce a recurring theme of both the White House and some conservatives that Mitt Romney is "too wealthy" to be in touch with the needs and concerns of "average" voters, the comments instigated an firestorm of criticism on social media and an immediate and effective response by the Romney camp, (see here).

In a historic first, Mrs. Romney, not known for her social media expertise, (in fact, she didn't even have a Twitter account previously!) took to cyberspace to respond to the criticism, tweeting, "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work." She immediately garnered 6000 followers, and thus began an object lesson in the critical nature to both parties of this key part of the electorate in this year's Presidential elections.

Indeed, in an obvious attempt at damage control and to prevent the GOP from regaining the high ground with this core constituency and keep the momentum going their way from a previous "war on women" narrative which the Whitehouse has been successfully using to target female voters on the heels of Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy, the White House and its surrogates responded swiftly with attempts to distance Obama from Rosen's incendiary comments.

Jim Messina, the President's campaign manager, tweeted the following:



David Axelrod, the President's chief election advisor and strategist, was also quick to respond:



Josh Romney, one of those five children Mrs. Romney raised, also jumped in with his own tweet:


A subsequent "apology" by Ms. Rosen, couched in a defense of her comments, didn't seem to help much, driving home the general point that in this election cycle, women, who President Obama leads vs. Romney, are critically important to his chances for reelection, See here.

While Romney leads the President by about 13 points among men, President Obama bests Romney by an even larger margin among women, a state of affairs the President and his campaign would like to keep.  Unfortunately for them, the recent uproar throws a monkey wrench into their plans, as Romney is all but assured of a boost in support among, in the very least, those women who have also chosen children over career.  We shall have to see if this translates into actual votes in November, but one things for sure.  This is going to one very contentious election that will pit poor against rich, black against white, and apparently, family against family.  Fasten your seatbelts folks. jp

UPDATE:  We have  just learned that sources are reporting that Ms. Rosen has been a regular guest at the White House, leading some to speculate that these were more than just random comments, but perhaps even planned to "test" new campaign themes that the President is interested in using on the stump.  While that is certainly conjecture, there is no doubt from the White House visitor logs, that Ms. Rosen indeed seems especially well connected to the Obama White House, having visited more than union leaders or others with natural ties to the President.  Read the whole story here.  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

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

Insulting Ann Coulter- A critique of Philip A. Klein et al's response to “Three Cheers for Romneycare.”

  Inasmuch as we are a non-partisan organization operating in the public interest, and nothing could be more in the public interest than a full understanding of matters impacting on the 2012 Presidential race, we thought it appropriate if we took a moment to respond to the Washington Examiner's senior editorial writer and blogger Philip A. Klein's rebuttal to Ann Coulter's controversial Feb 1, 2011 article “Three cheers for Romney Care.” We do so due to three primary reasons.

1. Because Romneycare, and by extension Obamacare-- on which at least a large number of conservatives seemingly are convinced is no different than Romneycare and have asserted was the “model” for the federal legislation which includes a similar “must purchase” insurance mandate-- is an incredibly important matter of national importance.
2. Because Philip Klein has asserted that Coulter has gone awol and “insulted” the “true conservatives” in the GOP with her assertions and claims in the above-mentioned article, AND
3. Because a proper understanding of these issues is critically important to the selection of the Republican nominee and next President of the United States, as it acts as a “wedge issue” which motivates significant numbers of GOP voters, if not the electorate generally.

  Initially we must note that it is Ann Coulter's rhetorical trademark to be bombastically sarcastic and drive home her logical points and premises with acerbic wit, sometimes to the point of it being difficult to determine the lines of demarcation between where her sarcasm ends and where she should be taken seriously. Indeed, sarcasm is always a delicate matter of interpretation, (and the reason one should, in general, avoid its extreme use in everyday conversation). It is, however, as noted, Ms. Coulter's trademark feature and, of course, her right to employ as she wishes, in our view to increase controversy and hence, her readership, (even if it sometimes results in misunderstanding or offense).

 Having thus explained, it is in this light that we think Mr. Klein takes far too seriously some of the Ms. Coulter's comments in finding occasion for “insult” in her article, (instead of choosing to respond in a purely calm and rationed way to its main points). Don't get us wrong, we are not saying that Mr. Klein is not at all rational in his response, or doesn't draw blood with any of his own reasoned points, (of which he certainly has some good ones); we are merely suggesting for consideration that Mr. Klein has fallen unwittingly perhaps into Coulter's trap of baiting him to respond in an overly emotional way.

  It is in this sense-- and particularly re: Klein's essential grievance with Coulter that she has intentionally insulted conservatives and/or misconstrued their views regarding Obamacare and Romneycare and erroneously exaggerated the differences between them-- that Klein seems, at least to us, to himself be guilty of the logical fallacy of “paper tiger,” (setting up an opponent's views so weakly or ridiculously as to be easy to knock them down).

  Indeed, as to the specific claim of Klein and Co. expressed separately by blogger Jeff Emanuel in a similar piece citing Klein's published yesterday at redstate.com, this lack of appreciation for Coulter's trademark sarcasm in interpreting her comments is clearly evident:

Coulter puts her derision for members of the conservative movement on full display by declaring that the only reason opposition to the law exists is because the nickname ‘Romneycare’ sounds like ‘Obamacare.’ 

Jeff Emanuel piece at redstate.com, Feb. 2, 2012. 

In support of this theory, Klein and Co. cite Coulter's piece, where she says, clearly tongue in cheek:

[B]ecause both Obamacare and Romneycare concern the same general topic area — health care — and can be nicknamed (politician’s name plus “care”), Romney’s health care bill is suddenly perceived as virtually the same thing as the widely detested Obamacare. (How about “Romneycare-gate”?) As The New York Times put it, “Mr. Romney’s bellicose opposition to ‘Obamacare’ is an almost comical contradiction to his support for the same idea in Massachusetts when he was governor there.” This is like saying state school-choice plans are “the same idea” as the Department of Education.

         Ann Coulter, "Three Cheers for Romneycare," Feb. 1, 2012.

  While admittedly a bit over the top, Coulter clearly makes, in typical sarcastic fashion, an extremely rational point completely ignored by her critics, i.e., that their leap in logic equating Romneycare, a state law based on market principles, with Obamacare, an entire federal bureaucracy that is clearly not, is quite a leap of logic indeed.  Unfortunately, the near-reflexive response of her critics makes it appear as if the conservative movement has suddenly lost, in addition to its ability to reason, all sense of humor or memory as to who Coulter, a champion of conservatism known for controversy, (who we formerly loved for years of faithfully ridiculing liberals), is.

  For the record, and for the reasons as are set out herein, we are not at all convinced that Ms. Coulter is near so gung ho for health care mandates as her article's very sarcastic title and comments might imply at first blush. Rather, as the above example suggests, we submit that Coulter uses, (to great effect we may add!), such sarcasm as a rhetorical tool to not only increase her readership, but to make valid points on the critical matter under discussion which her critics ignore at their peril, (and, if it needs saying, secondarily to support who she sees as the most worthy Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney, who for obvious reasons is inextricably connected to the subject at hand.)

 We would also like to point out that our goal isn't to “show up” or embarrass Mr. Klein or other conservative bloggers in any way, (as if he is not capable of clarification or response to even today's post by this insignificant blogger); rather our goal is to try and facilitate a more sensible discourse between the two camps on this critical issue, so that any disagreement, if upon a proper understanding such continues to exist, is at least on the merits of the relevant issues instead of based on knee-jerk emotionalism and what one may think their opposite-minded fellows in the movement believe, (but in fact don't).

 Further, it is our concern these very public and divisive disagreements are doing real and positive damage to the conservative movement which is in danger of splintering into a thousand pieces and sabotaging the GOP's chances to come together in the all important goal of defeating Obama in the Fall. It is our earnest hope that a more reasoned and civil approach that results in a balanced and thorough discussion of all relevant issues re: such matters and our future nominee might accordingly accrue to the Republican party and general body politic without need of resorting to such damaging and emotionally-laden accusations and counter-accusations we have witnessed of late which benefit no one in understanding what's at stake in this critical debate. Indeed, such public squabbles and misunderstandings can only cause the broader public to question if we are truly ready to govern other than as children and benefit the progressive left who are delighted at the prospect of our continued bickering aiding them in re-electing Barack Obama to a second Presidential term.

 And while we cannot speak to Mr. Klein's motives, (who as far as we can see is otherwise a solid conservative, as we would also grant to Ms. Coulter), we think Klein's response, as a whole, misses the forest for the trees, (more on this below). Moreover, we would be remiss not to note that the differences in their respective perspectives may arise, at least in part, from Coulter's training as a lawyer.

 Take for example, the following passage from Coulter's piece, (laced with her typical sarcasm of course):

One difference between the health care bills is that Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. True, Obamacare’s unconstitutional provisions are the least of its horrors, but the Constitution still matters to some Americans. (Oh, to be there when someone at The Times discovers this document called “the Constitution”!) As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws — including laws banning contraception — without violating the Constitution. That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally. The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product. The hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection. (read more here)

Ann Coulter, "Three Cheers for Romneycare," Feb. 1, 2012.

  Now contrast that with comments in Klein's rebuttal:

Coulter then spends the next chunk of her column making the case that Romneycare is constitutional. That’s true – states have police powers that the federal government does not – but that’s a total straw man. That’s not the argument conservative critics are making. We oppose Romneycare because it’s a massive expansion of government, regardless of the fact that Massachusetts was within its power to enact it. To use another example, it’s perfectly legal for a Republican governor to sign a massive tax increase and a budget that doubles spending, but that doesn’t make it a conservative policy.

Philip A. Klein, Washington Examiner editorial, Feb. 1, 2012, click here for rest of Klein's rebuttal of Coulter's article.

  From just this simple comparison it is immediately evident that Coulter is absolutely correct in assertion that “the hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection,” (notice Klein's statement ending the above quote “that doesn't make it a conservative policy,” italics added for emphasis). 

  Thus, it is clear that Coulter is arguing from a legal perspective, and her critics are arguing from a policy perspective. We will talk more about this in coming days, (and whether, in fact, the State should have the right to mandate that you do anything at all, such as laws forcing you to have car insurance, or give vaccinations to your kids), as well as the further political ramifications of all this. 

(Suffice it to say for now, and as an aside, that unless we want to have complete societal anarchy a la Ron Paul style, just because we don't like a policy does not mean it is unconstitutional; it is however why we have national elections, which, if you haven't noticed, we are in the middle of an election year now!)  In sum, while Mr. Klein may have an excellent understanding about the similarities in the Massachusetts law vs. the national version of Obamacare vis a vis their shared “individual mandate” and certain other provisions, he and other critics give short shrift to affirming (or even understanding?) Coulter's point that the critical difference between the two is in fact a legal one, i.e., the fact Obamacare tramples States Rights and, by implication, the legal provision that gives them effect, (the Tenth Amendment), must logically by the same token render “Romneycare” a lawful exercise of State police power.  Thus rather than the tangential and seemingly insignificant difference that Klein makes this out to be, we submit it is the quintessential, defining difference between these two pieces of legislation, (however similar they may otherwise appear on first impression).  

  Klein, however, ostensibly failing to understand the critical legal nature of this point, or even that Coulter is not necessarily saying that State mandates are all hunky dorie, as opposed to merely lawful-- which again, in light of her propensity for sarcastic exaggeration we suggest a latent disapproval of  state mandates may yet be a distinct possibility on Coulter's part but one she eschews due to a sincerely held legal and conservative philosophy of judicial restraint-- simply barrels on with his own philosophical objection to mandates generally.

 Then too, Coulter's critics seem to miss (or ignore) her point that Romneycare, while certainly imposing an obligation to purchase insurance on Mass. residents similar to Obamacare's mandate on citizens of all states, is a far cry from the 2000+ page bureaucratic-laden Obamacare which, in its full manifestation, will determine what kind of health services one can receive, where and by whom they will be received, and when they can be received, (something which Romneycare, with its emphasis on private insurance purchased in government “exchanges,” doesn't come even near the same level of regulation of the health industry). As Ms. Coulter poignantly said in her article, Obamacare is:

[A] 2,000-page, trillion-dollar federal program micromanaging every aspect of health care in America with enormous, unresponsive federal bureaucracies manned by no-show public-sector union members enforcing a mountain of regulations that will bankrupt the country and destroy medical care, as liberals scratch their heads and wonder why Obamacare is costing 20 times more than they expected and doctors are leaving the profession in droves for more lucrative careers, such as video store clerk. 

 Now before I get any hate mail please don't misunderstand; Klein, and any conservatives so inclined, certainly have the right to object to either Romneycare or Obamacare on any grounds they wish to advance in the public arena, (and indeed, we have exercised our rights accordingly, see our post “So what's really the problem with Obamacare?”). What is wrong however, and what one cannot do, at least logically and fairly, is to act like Coulter's emphasis on the legal aspects which are currently the focus of the pending Supreme Court appeal of Obamacare by 26 states' Attorney Generals is a willful ignoring and “twisting” of the issue under discussion or some kind of rejection of conservative values and philosophy generally. 

 Again, as Coulter points out:

Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats' piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry. In November 2004, for example, libertarian Ronald Bailey praised mandated private health insurance in Reason magazine, saying that it "could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion." A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing. Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care. 

In this regard, again, the critics' reply, like Jeff Emanuel in his post on redstate.com yesterday, is:

[W]hat Coulter ignores is the fact that Heritage has since repudiated the idea of an individual mandate at any level, writing in an amicus brief (pdf) filed in a challenge to Obamacare that “since [the passage and implementation of Obamacare], a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option.”

Jeff Emanuel piece, redstate.com, Feb 2, 2012. 

 But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Policy makers rely all the time on the best information available at the time, as even Mr. Emanuel's argument concedes. To hold Romney, or Coulter responsible that, in hindsight, this or that might not have been the best policy solution to the problem is to ask the impossible of our leaders and those like Coulter, who at best are limited to rallying citizens to make their wishes known to their leaders beforehand and afterwards can only comment on the governmental action. Indeed, it is completely irrelevant that the Heritage Foundation, or any other organization or think tank, may, years later, file a legal brief making certain policy arguments, (arguments by the way which are not really “legal” at all but rather "political questions" better addressed to the legislative branches than the Supreme Court which must as a proper function of the judiciary grapple with matters of Constitutional law such as Coulter has rightly focused on).

Then too, Klein states:

Romney signed the health care law with a smiling Ted Kennedy at his side knowing that Democrats had the votes to override any symbolic line-item vetoes of certain provisions. Furthermore, when he signed the law, he had already announced he wasn’t seeking reelection as governor and knew that it would almost certainly fall on Democrats to implement the law. Part of being a limited government Republican is realizing that once you put the infrastructure in place, successors can always add to it.

 Leaving aside another obvious logical fallacy for now, (that of guilt by association), what does the fact that Romney was shortly leaving his office as Governor of MA. have to do with anything?

 First of all, to claim that Romney somehow should have “known” that “it would almost certainly fall to Democrats to implment the law” is again, a standard no politician could ever meet. By this logic I expect every conservative to immediately denounce George Bush (and the Democratic Congress, there's that “guilt by association” thing again!) for passing the Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9/11.  Of course, other than for Ron Paul, whose extreme isolationist ideas and fears enforcing our borders may lead to the government “keeping Americans in” have not mustered more than token support in recent primaries, this will never happen, as conservatives distinctly and almost universally recognize such views as being both irrational and out of the mainstream.

 Lest you should miss my point here, to say that Romney “should have known better” than to pass a law attempting to deal with a real policy problem is akin to saying Bush shouldn't have passed the Patriot Act because “successors can always add to it.” But this surely could be said about any law, and is the reason we have the ability to take action by exercising our rights at the ballot box, (as well as to petition the government for redress of grievances generally); for the purpose of defeating legislators and laws that are burdensome to our liberty or that we don't approve of, (as occurred recently with the ill-fated Sopa and Pipa legislation, see our post on that subject here).  Indeed, and contrary to the idea put forth by Mssrs. Klein and Emanuel, Democracy is not a “do once and done” kind of thing, and never has been.  Rather, as Thomas Jefferson poignantly said, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

 Furthermore, if the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts had the power to “override any symbolic line-item vetoes of certain provisions,” as Klein insists, then they could just as easily have passed a much worse single-payer government health delivery system and, absent Romney's moderating influence, overrode his veto to pass such a plan into law, (even if he had never tried to reach a market based solution to broadly provide health insurance in MA.).  Indeed, by this token, one could easily argue that rather than proof of Romney's "liberalness" and impotence as a "conservative" governor, the truth was in fact just the opposite, as he was able to prevent this much more invasive approach long favored by leftist Democrats from becoming law instead of "Romneycare."   


  Indeed, while any idiot can argue after the fact that as governor Romney should have done this or that differently, the plain fact is that you or I weren't governor of Massachusetts at that time; it is thus simply unfair and unreasonable to hold Romney to a standard that no one could have met, or worse, to somehow conclude that Romney is a “closet liberal” from such actions, rather than a pragmatic Republican governing a very liberal state that did the best he could under difficult circumstances with an extremely liberal state legislature.

 Now I know that will not satisfy the “purists,” for whom nothing short of a blood oath to a "scorched earth" conservatism that strictly subscribes to their pet beliefs and personalities will do, but politics is the art of compromise and incremental reform, and sometimes the best we can do is be involved to protect the fairness and dignity of the process and let our voices be heard in the hopes to effect the outcome. Sometimes the results are immediate, and sometimes that takes decades, (like the fight of Wilber Wilberforce to end slavery in Great Britain), but trying to force an immediate outcome that accords with our views, or, worse, attempt to erect someone who will assume powers to do so, is a prescription that always ends in tyranny! (Indeed, it is also the reason why the way the Democratic Congress forced Obamacare through in a lame duck Congress with backroom deals and sweetheart deals for key Senators was widely seen, and rightly so, as corrupt; My question is, if as conservatives we universally condemned such tactics, are we now willing to adopt the very same corrupt practices as those we then condemned? (Indeed, and again as an aside for those ignorant of American history, this is also why our founders discouraged “direct democracy” in favor of the much more stable "Republican" system of representation by elected representatives guaranteed by our Constitution).

 Thus, and in short, to make the argument that Coulter has “ignored” the relevant arguments of her critics or abandoned conservative principles makes no more sense than the simplistic arguments of Michael Moore or the “Occupy” movement which conservatives reject, e.g., the argument “Bush lied, people died” made in derogation of the fact that at the time the Bush Administration acted on the best data it had available to it and which other countries also stated as fact.  If we now are going to start engaging in Monday morning “after the fact” litmus quarterbacking of fellow Gopers to determine who is truly “conservative” we are going to be busy shooting each other for a very long time. Moreover, again for those short on history, no one would pass that test, (remember, even that “stalwart” of conservatism Ronald Reagan whose name all Republicans revere passed the largest tax increase in California history at the time and, unbelievably, was once pro-abortion!). Accordingly, and along those lines, if we are only going to vote for perfect candidates we might as well reject Reagan's legacy and give our democracy over to dictators now!

 Yes, it is a fact that Romneycare has resulted in a huge increase of public expenditures on health care, but again, as Coulter and her critics both seem to agree, this is due to the state Democratic legislators additions since Romney's original market-based idea, (and as Coulter points out, at least in regard to Mass., a full 45% off their health care budget was paid for by the Feds before Romneycare was passed in the State). Thus, rather than such facts being used to bludgeon fellow conservatives and our leading Presidential nominee to death over things that happened in the past, might we not rather use such facts to come together in universal agreement in the present re: the ills that can be expected of Obamacare, a much more invasive and government-mandated system which everyone, including Coulter and Romney, agree must not stand? Instead, liberals are laughing in glee as we lynch Ann Coulter who we now “purge” as a “betrayer to the cause” with such fervor as would make the strictest Stalinist proud!

 Moreover, our doing so appears, at worst, to ascribe willfully-ill motives to Ms. Coulter which are far from proven, (which we have notably refused to do in regards to Mr. Klein), or, most charitably, to fundamentally misunderstand Ms. Coulter's point that like it or not Romneycare at the time was considered a conservative alternative to the “single payer” system long sought by liberals.

  And while we don't have the time to go point by point through every one of Mr. Klein's and others “responses” to Ms. Coulter, a careful reading of Klein's indignant rebuttal by those so inclined reveals that there are many such examples of such erroneous-- and judgmental?-- fallacies prevalent throughout. Indeed, it seems that Klien and Co. are at least equally at fault for ignoring Coulter's claims as they assert she ignores theirs! (If we were writing about liberals we would call this “hipocrisy.”)

  But as to perhaps Mr. Klein's most vaunted “factual” point, he exerts significant effort to proving that the “premium subsidy” provision of Romneycare requiring that Mass. residents pay something towards their health insurance costs is not to “balance out” the “freeloaders” who use the system-- or in fact, even come close to paying the costs of the expanded number of people now utilizing the health care system in Mass under Romneycare-- and that the requirement to “repay” by way of premiums of residents is not, in fact, utilized for this purpose. Most saliently, he takes Coulter's alleged reliance on this claim, as prima facia evidence proving Ms. Coulter has an ax to grind or is otherwise arguing in bad faith. However, again, in our view, his argument misses the forest for the trees; Indeed, who really cares why Romneycare requires such payments into the system in such a way as to go towards repaying the State for their residents' actual share of health care use or whether such “savings” are achieved by forcing healthier people into the system? More to the point, does it really matter whether the costs of health care are fully reimbursed by people contributing back to the system in the form of premiums or is just representative of the fact they have taken some responsibility for their health insurance costs? (Of course, we concede such hypothetical questions are certainly critical from a fiscal perspective; however, this is not a fair basis on which Klein attacks Coulter because she has not addressed such matters and the question of increased fiscal expense is one on which we surmise all conservatives would agree; thus it is irrelevant to purposes of our discussion here). Rather than center on how or if such savings are attainable, again, the key question that must remain at issue is whether requiring citizens of the individual states to purchase health insurance, or any product for that matter, is a constitutionally valid exercise of federal power under the Constitution's “Commerce Clause.”

  In this light, and while we could certainly have a discussion about whether the alleged savings or “economies of scale” allegedly attainable by mandating that all must purchase some sort of health insurance are, in fact, illusory in light of the increased number of people receiving care, or whether such “savings” could be achieved by increasing the numbers of “healthy” people contributing to the system, accepting such premises on which to argue is not only irrelevant but to cede the argument to the social engineers, (because all such arguments presume that the ends justify the means if we can just show sufficient “savings,” thereby conceding the validity of the ultimate goal of liberal social engineers to establish health care as another entitlement or “right” provided by the government).

  Such an error of course in turn leads straight to what conservatives are supposed to fear most, (not only the loss of personal autonomy in health decisions but the inevitable rationing of care, as if the only worthy goal of our health care system is “savings” an approach utilizing, say, the euthanasia of the elderly could certainly achieve that goal in short order, an utterly abhorrent idea). Again, such arguments as advanced by Klein's "rebuttal" to Coulter's article, philosophically-based as they are, miss the point that it doesn't really matter why government mandates increase the cost of health care or how they are reimbursed, (or not); The questions on which we must remain focused are rather, a) Whether the individual mandate of Obamacare is legally permissible under the Commerce Clause, AND, b) Whether there are other considerations, such as one's genetic makeup predisposing them to certain disease, which justifies the sort of “one size fits all” entitlement approach of mandates as a moral imperative regardless of the cost to society, (which conservatives, again, almost uniformly reject).

  Therefore, while we here at the ACLP certainly believe that the loss in freedom and patient autonomy in making these most personal determinations by individuals themselves instead of allowing the government to determine when and how individuals access healthcare is the primary principal at stake here, to pretend that the Coulter's of the world are literally “off their rocker” or have turned into “liberals” and left the conservative reservation in the dark of night by simply disagreeing on the basis for their dissent is to itself engage in a sort of political correctness which demeans the rigorous intellectual discussion that has long been the hallmark of the conservative movement.

  Of course, surely Mr. Klein must know this, all of which leaves us wondering if perhaps Mr. Klein isn't himself utilizing Ms. Coulter's fondest rhetorical flourish of triggering reactions in others for his own reasons of increasing readership. As they say, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. jp