Freedom Line Blog

Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard explains why the current 1970’s era primary system almost always impedes the Party of Reagan from nominating a Reaganite for president.

So, here’s the question of the day: why can’t the party of Reagan ever seem to nominate a Reaganite?

My answer: because conservative Republicans are not actually in control of their own party. Though they are its animating force – they give it policy ideas to implement, they turn out regularly to support the party in good times and bad, they advocate the party and its ideology to their friends, neighbors, and relatives – they are not in charge, and have not been since the 1970s (arguably the 1920s, but that’s another story altogether).

Later on, Cost describes how GOP moderates maneuver around the conservative base to secure presidential nominations.

Self-identified conservatives tend to be a majority of most primary electorates, so one would think that, even with the limits of primaries, you’d still get a quality conservative nominee. But that isn’t necessarily the case in a three-way race. That’s the final, huge problem with the primaries. They do not build consensus, which ultimately would require the assent of the conservative side of the GOP. Instead, they create a game similar to the show Survivor – “outwit, outplay, outlast.”

If you are a moderate Republican – e.g. Bob Dole or John McCain – you don’t need to win a majority of the conservative vote. You just need to do well enough among moderate Republicans so that you win more votes than your conservative opponents. Then, you simply wait for the media and the party establishment to pressure your conservative challengers into dropping out.

See if this sounds familiar:

The rules of the nomination game favor candidates who have the insider connections, can garner positive coverage from the media, can appeal to non-ideological and poorly informed voters, and who can win perhaps just a third of the vote in the early rounds. Such candidates are rarely the conservatives. Put another way: conservatives consistently lose because they are not actually in charge of their own party.

This is why, moving forward, conservatives need to spend serious time and effort thinking about how to fix this screwed up process. Yes, it is important to consider the big policy issues – tax reform, health care, industrial policy – but without good rules to produce good nominees who can implement those policies, then it is all for naught.

Food for thought.  You can read the entire article here.

The news of President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional and dubious recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was met with near universal outrage, especially here at CFIF.  Already a legal argument is emerging that could stop Cordray’s pledged lurch for power before it takes a second step.

From the Daily Caller:

But an obscure paragraph in the 2010 law that created the bureau may keep Cordray in check unless the Senate formally approves of his hiring — an approval Obama sought to circumvent by making him a so-called “recess” appointment.

Section 1066 of the law says many of the bureau’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.”

That legal technicality ensures that Cordray’s power will be legally crippled, said Roger Pilon, the founder and director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

“I don’t think he would have the authority to act” because he still hasn’t been confirmed by the Senate, Pilon said. “As soon as he did [try to impose a decision], it would be challenged [in court] by one of the people or entities that is affected.”

So now it looks like Obama violated both the Constitution and the federal law that created Cordray’s position.  Next Question: Does this qualify as a high crime or a misdemeanor?

Rick Santorum must be living right.  Even though a Super PAC supporting his presidential bid is closing up shop due to lack of funds it looks like Santorum can count on two other entities to help him mount an advertising war in New Hampshire this week.

CatholicVote.org announced it will air pro-Santorum commercials immediately, while Newt Gingrich is promising to bury Mitt Romney in negative attacks.

As for money to fund a South Carolina ad buy, ABC News reports that Santorum raised $2 million in the last 48 hours, and he’s currently in second place nationally in the latest Rasmussen poll; trailing Mitt Romney by 8 points, 29% t o 21%.

In order to get a come from behind victory, an underdog needs help.  So far, Santorum is getting it from multiple sources.

Stay tuned…

The Manhattan Institute is honoring Rhode Island Treasurer Gina Raimondo for doing the seemingly impossible – reforming a Democratic state’s public pension system so that it starts to realize savings within years, not decades.  (The key is changing the contribution and pay-out systems for everyone, not just new hires and non-vested employees.)

But beyond dollars and cents, Raimondo made an appeal that should convince people whether it’s made by her or Paul Ryan.

Without real reform, Rhode Island’s annual pension costs would soar by hundreds of millions of dollars a year — a large figure in a state of one million residents. Raimondo emphasized that the ever-rising demands of the pension system would mean less money available for education and municipal services, and a deterioration in the effectiveness of government.

The emphasis is mine, but it is one Raimondo shares.  Government must do (some) important things and in certain areas it can even do nice things, but it cannot afford to do anything if a policy item starts to eat up the entire budget.

Quin brings up a fun topic about imagining possible vice presidential nominees, but it’s too early to speculate on who a current candidate should choose because it’s too early to know what each candidate needs in a VP selection.

Ordinarily, Veeps compensate for some perceived deficiency in the top of the ticket.  As a former Defense Secretary and congressman, Dick Cheney was the old Washington pro who could help Texas Governor George W. Bush avoid rookie mistakes.  Ronald Reagan picked the elder George Bush to placate the GOP establishment and unite the party’s money with its grassroots.  Bush later picked Dan Quayle to create a bridge to a younger generation.  Robert Dole and John McCain were grizzled senators who needed a jolt of enthusiasm to energize their campaigns – enter Jack Kemp and Sarah Palin.  In each case, the presidential nominee chose someone who clearly compensated for a perceived deficiency in his electoral popularity.  (Of course, you can judge how well these picks worked out by consulting the relevant year’s election returns.)

Tellingly, none of these Republican presidential nominees except George W. Bush picked a vice president as a surrogate for foreign policy.

So far, campaign 2012 has centered on jobs and the economy, as well it should.  Historically high unemployment and a liberal administration promising more taxes and spending cries out for an articulate defender of limited government and broad-based economic growth.  But domestic politics are only half the equation.  As every President learns, foreign policy is the real distinctive of the job.  It’s very likely that within the next month or two a major foreign policy crisis will remind GOP voters that they need a nominee who gets the free market and understands America’s need to maintain its place in the world as the only remaining superpower.

There are two Republican debates scheduled in New Hampshire before the state’s primary next Tuesday.  At least one should be devoted to foreign policy.  Conservatives – and the country – deserve to know who’s strong on foreign policy, and who needs to compensate with a strong vice presidential pick.

Ever heard of the Colorado Model?  The brainchild of four rich liberals, it helped turn a reliably Republican state into a lock-down Democratic state in less than a decade.  RedState excerpts the keys to its success:

Eric O’Keefe, chairman of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, says there are seven “capacities” that are required to drive a successful political strategy and keep it on offense: [1] the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, [2] to pursue investigations, [3] to mobilize for elections, [4] to fight media bias, [5] to pursue strategic litigation, [6] to train new leaders, and [7] to sustain a presence in the new media. Colorado liberals have now created institutions that possess all seven capacities. By working together, they generate political noise and attract press coverage. Explains Caldara, “Build an echo chamber and the media laps it up.”

Throw in some Saul Alinsky-inspired community organizing and the wealth of liberal elites, and you’ve got a strategy being exported to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, among others.

The good news is that conservatives and Tea Partiers can use these principles to swing the balance of power the other way.  The time is now.

At CFIF, we’ve spent some time arguing that Rick Santorum could produce a surprise win in next week’s Iowa caucuses.  Ron Paul continues to top the leader board in the Hawkeye State, rising to a level of support that most consider surprising.  But with news that a Super PAC is switching its support from Michele Bachmann to Mitt Romney, and spending almost $500,000 on an ad-buy for him, it looks increasingly likely that the former Massachusetts governor could be the biggest surprise winner in Iowa.  Why?  Because his campaign took a decidedly hands-off approach to Iowa for much of 2011, preferring to focus its efforts – and locate its headquarters – in New Hampshire.  Now, Romney is peaking at just the right moment.

It’s probably true that there are really three GOP contests in Iowa right now.  Ron Paul’s libertarian caucus, the establishment caucus between Newt Gingrich and Romney, and the conservative caucus between Santorum, Bachmann, and Rick Perry.  Unless Paul wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he’s likely done after next week’s voting.  (But what if he did win both?)  A Romney win in Iowa probably knocks out Gingrich, with whomever survives to win the conservative caucus having an uphill climb against a strengthened Romney.

Because of his record and light campaigning in the state, Romney wasn’t supposed to win Iowa.  If he does, his march to the nomination may be a short one.

Next Tuesday Iowans will begin the process of nominating a Republican challenger to President Barack Obama.  Since just about everyone thinks Mitt Romney will be that man or at least the runner-up, it’s worth reading a revealing New York Times article describing how Romney’s time as a Harvard law and business student made him into a pragmatic problem solver.

If you’re pressed for time (and with the holiday season here, I hope you are), Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin provides a good summary on what the NYT report tells about Romney’s current place in the Republican field:

What his classmates saw at Harvard are the same qualities that both attract and repel voters today. His economic expertise and pragmatism make him the most electable Republican in 2012, while his lack of ideology makes many conservatives long for anyone else to lead their party. Had a more credible conservative appeared to challenge him, Romney wouldn’t have had a chance. But in the absence of such a paragon, Republicans will probably have to make their peace with the man who seems to be very much the same person who excelled at Harvard four decades ago.

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal draws attention to the central  failure of Republicans losing ground against a Barack Obama quietly gaining in popularity:

One mistake the party is making is fighting this race like the 2010 midterms. A certain laziness has settled in, based on the notion that the GOP can make 2012 another referendum on the president’s mismanagement. But while Obama-bashing may again fire up the conservative base, it delivers nothing to those crucial independent and middle-of-the-road voters who are anxious, confused and looking for someone to convince them they have a better plan.

Strassel goes on to explain how focus groups in battleground states are showing a consistent pattern in swing voters.  They want Republicans to make a moral case against the President and his policies.  They assume both parties will overspend.  What they want is a coherent explanation of why Obama’s policies are wrong for the country and wrong for them.  In short, what Americans want are concrete arguments explaining why Obama’s liberalism is so bad for the country, followed by an alternative vision that flows in the mainstream of American political thought and experience.

More Strassel:

Consider that ObamaCare was a concern of the focus group, though it had notably receded. This is in part because, while the GOP often complains about the law and its individual mandate, it has largely stopped explaining to voters what else is in it, or how other upcoming provisions will hurt consumers, or exactly how they grow government.

Presidential aspirants and congressional Republicans, take note: To make a moral argument against the president, you also have to make one for yourselves. To the extent the GOP is lobbing the usual Obama complaints or going to the mat over who cares more about a piddling payroll tax holiday, it is wasting time.

In a nutshell, the GOP’s messaging failure explains Paul Ryan’s success.  Almost alone among major Republican leaders, Ryan is defining the problems we face with confidence-building detail, offering thoughtful, consensus-based solutions, and justifying them in light of our history and tradition.  This is the work of a statesman.  The sooner Republicans take the hint and follow suit, the sooner America will remember the moral case for prosperity.

Quin makes some excellent points about the PR disaster that is the payroll tax cut extension debacle.  In addition, the spin on the debate is missing two important angles: (1) the Senate GOP’s apparent backstabbing of House Speaker Boehner, and (2) the fact that a trivial 60 day pay raise (the most any taxpayer will save is $40 per paycheck) won’t make a difference in anybody’s bottom line.  If the payroll tax “holiday” is extended, however, it will take another misguided step toward eliminating the tax permanently.  Recently, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer explained why that’s bad (requires WSJ subscription):

Make no mistake, if the payroll-tax cut is extended, it will become permanent. Social Security will become another welfare program as the tie between what someone pays and what they receive gets broken. To a large degree, the tie has already been broken. Social Security’s trust fund has been raided for years by both parties and Medicare is already significantly financed through general revenues instead of through its dedicated trust fund.

Instead of squabbling over how to extend the payroll tax break, the GOP should concentrate on revising the tax code so it promotes growth and jobs, while reforming our entitlements.

Quin’s right.  Republicans need to use the payroll tax cut debate to educate the American public.  Phony nickel-and-dime policies like a 60 day, $40 tax cut are not solutions to Washington’s deficit addiction.  Neither, frankly, is a year-long tax holiday that moves Social Security from an under-funded to an unfunded mandate.

Since the Senate went home and President Barack Obama is in Hawaii on vacation, it looks like a great opportunity for Boehner to call a primetime press conference to explain why good policy is good politics.

While responsible politicians like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) are busy proposing a bold reform of Medicare, others in Congress are engaging in less helpful behavior on the public dime.

To wit:

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., embarked on a 24-hour hunger strike in solidarity with four Occupy DC protesters who have gone without food since Dec. 8 to advocate for D.C. voting rights.

Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in the House, met with the hunger strikers Thursday and pledged to read their declaration – which calls for full voting rights for District residents as well as legislative and budget autonomy – on the floor of the House of Representatives to enter it into the congressional record.

Not to be outdone in the brazen department, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) berated former Senate colleague and multi-millionaire Jon Corzine for his MF Global failures.  Apparently, though, there is at least one other reason for Stabenow’s outrage:

The Democratic senator who savaged Jon Corzine at a high-profile Capitol Hill hearing this week had another reason to go hard on her former colleague — she recently pressed him for campaign contributions but didn’t get any.

“She would literally call once every two or three weeks,” one Corzine intimate said of Sen. Debbie Stabenow (DMich.).

“She called all the time.”

But to no avail.

Sources in Corzine’s inner circle said they were “stunned” and “amazed” by Stabenow’s attack.

The two had served together in the Senate, but Corzine hasn’t delivered with contributions in some time.

So far this year, Corzine’s name has not appeared on Stabenow’s campaign finance reports.

Records show he last donated to her in 2006, contributing $2,000. Corzine and his then-wife, Joanne, each gave Stabenow $1,000 in 1999.

Thankfully, both Ellison and Stabenow are up for reelection next year.  Perhaps their antics will inspire some enterprising campaign lawyer to put together the first Super PAC to defeat loudmouth liberals.

How about it, Renee?

As an addendum to my column on Eric Holder’s disastrous tenure as U.S. Attorney General, the AG was kind enough to deliver a speech on the Voting Rights Act in Austin, TX, Tuesday night.  Though Holder castigated two Republican examples of voter fraud – both of which were swiftly remedied by the Justice Department – he (unsurprisingly) failed to mention any investigation into the well-documented voter fraud conducted by supporters of Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Al Franken (D-MN) during their successful bids for U.S. Senate.

Omissions aside, Holder made an all-too-typical argument: claiming for government the privilege of taking yet another activity away from otherwise responsible adults.  Here’s Holder’s take:

All eligible citizens can and should be automatically registered to vote.   The ability to vote is a right – it is not a privilege.   Under our current system, many voters must follow cumbersome and needlessly complex voter registration rules.   And every election season, state and local officials have to manually process a crush of new applications – most of them handwritten – leaving the system riddled with errors, and, too often, creating chaos at the polls.

Fortunately, modern technology provides a straightforward fix for these problems – if we have the political will to bring our election systems into the 21^st century.   It should be the government’s responsibility to automatically register citizens to vote, by compiling – from databases that already exist – a list of all eligible residents in each jurisdiction.   Of course, these lists would be used solely to administer elections – and would protect essential privacy rights.

So Holder thinks that overburdened, cash-strapped governments can extract accurate registration data while protecting each individual’s privacy rights.  (You trust, Big Sis, don’t you?)  He thinks that registering to vote and casting a ballot are so important that ordinary citizens can’t be counted on to do the process themselves.  And he believes, along with his liberal activist friends at the ACLU and ACORN, that the reason for low voter turnout after decades of federal approval of political map drawing, “public interest” lawsuits filling the court system, and Motor Voter laws that automatically register licensed drivers to vote is not enough government control over who votes and how often.

You’ve got to hand it to big government liberals like Holder: at least he’s consistent.

From an excellent column by Jed Babbin at American Spectator:

Another reason Gingrich isn’t fading is Mitt Romney. Let’s face it: Mitt Romney is the Republican version of Al Gore. Even people who are predisposed to liking him can’t seem to get there. Romney is supposedly more electable than Gingrich, at least according to the Inside the Beltway crowd and the major media.

Really? Liberal pollster Peter Hart’s focus group, asked to pick a family relationship to Romney, labeled him “black sheep,” “fun neighbor,” “cousin,” “second cousin,” “dad that was never home.” The same group labeled Gingrich “grandfather,” “father,” “my favorite uncle,” and “uncle who keeps bringing home different wives.” Is grandpa less electable than the dad who was never home?

Labeling Romney a black sheep and the GOP version of Al Gore really crystallizes his failure to excite Republican primary voters, doesn’t it?  The most devastating part of these analogies is that they manage to be accurate without being overly negative or hurtful (unless you factor in political pain).

It is not necessary, but oh so fitting that the week ends with news that GOP presidential candidates Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann will not be attending the December 27^th debate “moderated” by Donald Trump in Des Moines, IA.  After a spirited exchange with Quin and Troy, I’m glad to see my musings about a Lincoln-Douglas style debate between Gingrich and Santorum taking a turn toward reality.  With other candidates Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman already declining – and Herman Cain out of the race – that leaves Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich as the only participants in what could be a decisive event one week before Iowa Republicans caucus to pick a presidential nominee.

Perhaps the twists and turns in this wacky pre-primary season aren’t done just yet.  Next up: Santorum publicly challenging Newt to a one-on-one debate over the past, present, and future of America.  Something tells me it’s the kind of challenge a ‘world historical figure’ like Gingrich won’t pass up.

The seriousness of Eric Holder’s failings as U.S. Attorney General came to a well-deserved head yesterday during tough questioning before the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee.  Though Quin has spotlighted several other kinds of abuses worthy of investigation by Congress, the Judiciary Committee’s focus was on the growing number of lies and distortions given by Holder’s Justice Department to congressional investigators about the Fast and Furious operation that let over 2,000 guns intentionally “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

Under withering questions from Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R- WI) about what it means to lie to Congress, Holder tried to dodge:

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) drew Holder’s attention to internal emails showing anti-gun rights bureaucrats and political appointees speculating about using the failure of Fast and Furious fiasco as an after-the-fact reason to extend gun control regulations:

Most disturbingly, Holder acknowledged that no one in the Justice Department knows how many guns are actually out there, but that the repercussions will be felt “for years” in both the United States and Mexico.

For all his failures as Attorney General, the Fast and Furious scandal should be the one that brings Eric Holder’s tenure to an abrupt end.  President Barack Obama should clean house at the Justice Department over the Christmas break by firing Holder and those lieutenants involved in the serial lying to Congress.  If not, House Republicans should explore impeachment proceedings against Holder.

As I said in my column this week, Holder’s statements and actions amount to perjury and obstruction of justice.  In his misleading testimony before Congress and in numerous refusals to share information that when shared was later acknowledged to be false, Holder has proven his reputation and career are too intertwined with Fast and Furious to make him an unbiased administrator searching for the truth. Most importantly, he’s proven he won’t tell the truth when asked under oath. If an everyday American must face consequences for perjury and obstruction of justice, so too should the Attorney General.

Huzzah to the 241 members of the House of Representatives who, in a thinly bipartisan vote today (4 Democrats voted in favor), passed H.R. 10, better known as the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.  As the acronym indicates, the bill wants to limit President Barack Obama’s ability to impose job-killing regulations on the economy.

How does the REINS Act purport to do its job?  If passed by the Senate and signed by the President then every new federal agency regulation inflicting at least $100 million in economic costs would be subject to an up-or-down vote by both houses of Congress.  ($100 million is the threshold for “major” regulations these days.)  When those bills fails – which they almost certainly will unless they are inextricably intertwined with a national security issue – the bureaucrats who dream up these obstacles to economic growth will have to go back to the drawing board and divine a less expensive way to grow the federal government.

Characteristically, the Democrats running the Senate and the one occupying the White House have promised to do nothing to help pass this bill.  (The President even threatened to veto it should enough Senate Dems have the temerity to save their states’ small business owners from the paperwork onslaught thanks to 219 new regulations poised to add thousands of dollars per worker in compliance costs.)

Today, fiscal conservatives can cheer passage of a real “job creation” bill thanks to the conservative plurality in the House of Representatives.  Next year, it will critically important to elect more of these to the Senate – and hopefully the presidency – so that America can get back to work.

Troy, your analysis of Santorum’s weaknesses as a debater is well taken.  You’re also correct to draw out the positive of having so many presidential debates: it allows second tier candidates to make a mark in the public’s consciousness with well-delivered messages whenever the moderator gives them 15 seconds to speak.  Unlike Gingrich and Cain (and arguably Huntsman), Santorum has not made the most of his limited opportunities at these forums.

But that might change with the growing boycott of Donald Trump’s Newsmax debate.  So far, only Gingrich and Santorum have confirmed their attendance at the debate on December 27^th in Des Moines, IA.  With Huntsman, Ron Paul, and as of yesterday Mitt Romney (rightly) calling the Trump-as-moderator idea a distracting publicity stunt – and Michele Bachmann leaning towards declining the invitation because she correctly points out that Trump is considering a third party bid – it means that Rick Perry is the only major candidate yet to decide.  If he bows out, then the debate in Des Moines will feature a Newt v. Santorum one-off exactly one week before the Iowa caucuses.

Despite all his miscues in the debates so far, Santorum would be face-to-face with the current GOP frontrunner seven days before Iowa Republicans –  a state party dominated by grassroots conservatives – goes to the polls.  If this unique opportunity comes to pass and Santorum still can’t master the sound bite, he should demand a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Newt on who has the most compelling conservative vision for America.  That means Trump would effectively become a timekeeper while arguably the two biggest conservative reformers of the 1990’s go at it to prove their base bona fides.  (And if Trump can’t handle not being the star of the show, this gives Newsmax an excellent reason to let him bow out.  Besides, his participation has already cost them ratings with the refusals of several big name candidates.  As a parting gift, they could let The Donald hock his new book during commercial breaks.)

Newt would relish the opportunity.  He has already debated Herman Cain one-on-one, and is set for a Lincoln-Douglas face-off with Huntsman.  Moreover, he said he would challenge President Barack Obama to an L-and-D format where each participant gets an extended period of time to speak and respond.  How could he refuse to engage in the same kind of debate with Santorum?

Both Santorum and Newt have thought seriously about the issues confronting the country, and this format would give them each the opportunity to demonstrate their seriousness to a national audience.  And, with the slow news cycle during the Christmas break providing the perfect opening for sustained attention to the debate before and after, the uniqueness of the event would no doubt increase viewership and water cooler talk.

It’s true that Santorum seemingly needs a miracle where all of the major candidates take themselves off the stage and allow him a one-time shot to prove to conservatives that he is a better Mr. Right than Newt Gingrich.  That seems to be happening with every new debate decline.

Thoughts?

Though there are many positive things to say about Rick Santorum’s candidacy – battle-tested conservative on national security, welfare reform and foundational issues like family and marriage – he has yet to catch anything resembling a break while seemingly every other Republican running for president has (witness the regrettable Jon Huntsman ticking up in New Hampshire).

Unlike frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum has no personal baggage, and has not flip-flopped on any principled issue since entering public life twenty years ago.  As we’ve discussed before, Santorum has great ideas on personal and corporate tax reform that would lead to real economic growth.  So, with the base refusing to support Mitt Romney and others skittish of Newt Gingrich’s past and future, why can’t Rick get a break?  Is it media bias over his stance on social issues?  Bad debate performances?  Does he lack contacts with big donors?

Byron York has written several pieces anticipating an Iowa surge for Santorum, but so far…nothing.

Thoughts?

Here’s my contribution to the debate on how to cut the federal deficit: Congress should cut the criminally mismanaged loan program administered by the Department of Energy.  Under Secretary Steven Chu’s watch, the department has doled out $535 million to the now-bankrupt Solyndra, with a separate $400 million sweetheart deal to Abound Solar.  Both firms are financially backed by top-dollar campaign bundlers for President Barack Obama’s presidential runs.

Had this program not been in place nearly $1 billion of taxpayer money would not have been parceled out to crony capitalists.  (Add the $548 million steered to Siga Technologies Inc. for a smallpox drug America doesn’t need, and you’re at nearly $1.5 billion to pay for products the private market doesn’t want.)  Is there a Democrat in Congress willing to defend this massive waste of taxpayer money, money that could have been spent to pay down the debt, shore-up Social Security, or extend the payroll tax holiday?

The best reason to get a Republican nominee quickly is so that the broader American electorate can be educated on the enormous amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse inflicted on the nation’s fisc by the Occupiers in the White House.

Earlier today Newsmax invited the main Republican candidates to a December 27^th debate in Des Moines, IA.  One catch: it will be moderated by Donald Trump.  Somehow a “moderate” Donald Trump doesn’t seem possible.

In a way it’s fitting that Trump, erstwhile Republican presidential candidate, will be preside over what may be the final GOP debate before the January 3, 2012 Iowa caucuses.  Trump started the anti-Romney conservative popularity surges that later carried Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich to prominence.

But for all his popularity, the choice of Trump is a bit curious since he’s recently admitted to thinking about running for president again – this time on a third party ticket.  While the venue and media exposure may preclude candidates from staying away, I would be wary of taking questions from a guy who could use his moderator’s role to pin down potential rivals.