Iowa or Bust: Rick Perry Campaign Compelled to Try ‘Last Ditch’ Strategy

Posted on Comments

It’s been a while since we’ve updated you on the tragic fate of The Smilin’ Texan whom I first dubbed the “Phantom Menace” back in August, when he was running TV ads in Iowa even while planning to announce his candidacy in South Carolina. (“Howdy. Thank You, Erick.”) And now we find the former front-runner facing dire straits in the Hawkeye State:

Wednesday, Perry began airing an Iowa ad in which he promises to “end Obama’s war on religion” and “fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.” That ad sparked controversy because Perry mentions the recent repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, saying: “You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.” Yet Perry’s spokesman blunted the potential impact of that ad by disclaiming any intention by the candidate to reinstate the policy prohibiting open homosexuality in the armed services.
Michael O’Brien of NBC News described the Perry ads as “part of an emergent strategy … a last-ditch effort to revive his campaign,” and quoted Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying “that’s probably the only path he has left, to be honest.” Sanders is the daughter of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses during his 2008 Republican presidential campaign. . . .

Read the whole thing at The American Spectator.
 
 

 
RECENTLY:


Miracles Keep Happening Every Day

Posted on Comments

What were the odds, huh? Michele Bachmann becomes the fifth Republican presidential candidate to turn down the Donald Trump/NewsMax debate, meaning that on Dec. 27, it’s Newt Gingrich vs. Rick Santorum. This is like the Philly palooka Rocky Balboa getting a shot at Apollo Creed. And Rick’s OK with that:

“Many of my opponents jockeyed to be the first to fly up to New York and use Donald Trump for a photo op and no doubt try and secure an endorsement. But when Donald wants to moderate a debate — they refuse to attend. That’s what’s so wrong with politics today — hypocrisy. At this critical time in our nation’s history, just weeks before Iowans cast this important vote — many of the other candidates want to hide behind TV ads and mail pieces. We plan to be there front and center in person to debate Newt directly, and if it’s just the two of us, we’re fine with it.
“There’s no doubt that any of us are better than Barack Obama — however, we can’t afford to put up a person who can’t clearly articulate a vision or has a glass jaw or an unprincipled past. Donald Trump knows business and knows global markets — and we all know he’ll be able to bring in a broad audience. And let’s be honest, at least Donald Trump will have more in common with the candidates than with the vast majority of past moderators.”

Lisa Graas credits Santorum’s “moral reasoning.” I’d call it a miracle. What were the two things Santorum needed? Publicity, and a chance to show himself the equal of the front-runners.

Boom! He’s got it.

What else does he need? Money.

We’ve had miracles every day since that earthquake in Vanuatu.

UPDATE: “Perry bets the house on social conservatives.”

Yeah. Too little, too late. Iowa’s biggest evangelical leader endorsed Rick Santorum a week ago.

RECENTLY:

Glenn Beck’s Big Announcement: Restoring Love, 26-28 July, 2012

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

What is Restoring Love?
Restoring Love will be a reminder that we best serve our God when we serve each other. It is a reminder that capitalism is not about who can make the most money and that charity is not just about giving handouts, but must include a hand-up.
Restoring Love will bring 100,000 people to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and have them serve individuals and communities where the need is great but resources are limited. It is about the recognition that we are all brothers and sisters.

I like Beck. His effort is a pure play to refresh our Judeo-Christian foundations. While I wouldn’t oversell the sacred value of his arguments, the secular value is undeniable. He’s going to end up giving a three day, worked example of what other recent protests, *cough*Occupy*cough*, could do if they weren’t total noise.

Watching his video intro, I was terrified he was going to announce the formation of a political party. Thanks for not going there, Glenn.

Unfortunately, the World’s Youngest Blogger will be celebrating one year on 26 July, and thus really won’t be up to travel.

Impeachy-Keen Times For BHO’s Admin.?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

The DC Caller:

Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee where Attorney General Eric Holder testified on Thursday, suggested that impeachment of administration officials involved with Operation Fast and Furious may be the only way to bring the scandal to a close.
In a heated exchange between Sensenbrenner and Holder during Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, Sensenbrenner said impeachment is one option on the table if Holder and the Justice Department continue to withhold information from congressional investigators.
Sensenbrenner didn’t specify which administration officials he thinks could face impeachment proceedings, or if Holder is among them. But he did say the drastic measure would be a last resort.

This is one of a half a dozen issues for which the GOP, and GOP presidential candidates, should be wrecking the Obama Administration on a daily basis.

In particular, I want know just how the candidates plan to reform the DOJ. Load-shedding major portions of the staff there seems draconian, but what credible alternative is there for restoring validity after this buffoon Holder?

I still maintain that Holder really doesn’t care one whit about these hearings or the threat of impeachment. Holder knows Barack’s got his back. That is, a pardon. The only way to threaten that is for a credible impeachment threat to emerge. But how do you get by the Worst Senator in History (six weeks and change until 1,000 days since last budget) in order to hold #OccupyResoluteDesk accountable?

Hillary just doesn’t seem up to a full-on coup here.

More at Memeorandum.

‘10,000 Marbles, Please’

Posted on Comments

“Pastor Gordon might not be much of an Animal House fan, but he is in effect acting as the Eric Stratton of Iowa conservatives, providing the decisive approval of a madcap scheme proposed by the frat-house slob who, as we all know, is destined to become Senator Joseph Blutarsky. And the dramatic parallel is almost perfect, in that the major media seem to have decided for us that this year’s GOP race is going to be as orderly as a homecoming parade — ‘now that the GOP race has narrowed to a two-man contest between Gingrich and Romney,’ as Maggie Haberman of Politico said.
“Really? Is that it?
“The only choice is between Mitt RomneyCare and Newt the Scozzafava-Hugger?
“Maybe. I dunno. I’m not one of those Smart People like Rove and Krauthammer.
“Maybe social conservatives in Iowa are going to let Maggie Haberman tell them who to vote for. But forgive me for having the urge to walk into the five-and-dime store and ask the clerk, ‘Could I buy 10,000 marbles, please?’ Because if the Iowa caucuses are the Faber College homecoming parade, then the Rick Santorum campaign is a float in the shape of a birthday cake, emblazoned with an immortal motto: ‘Eat Me.'”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Hot Air, “Where’s the Spirit? Where’s the Guts, Huh?”

You know what I hate? I hate when people who think they’re smarter than me try to tell me what to think. So anybody who imagined I would let a liberal like Maggie Haberman tell me that the Republican presidential race is now an either/or contest between Mitt and Newt — well, you don’t know me very well.

That 19-minute Cary Gordon video was on my mind when I woke up this morning, but I didn’t know what I was going to do with it until I saw that Politico article: Little Miss Smarty Britches telling me what to think.

Like that big cake says, sweetheart: “Eat Me.”

RICK SANTORUM for PRESIDENT
Just to piss off Maggie Haberman


UPDATE: Instapundit rolls over for Romney? When I learned about that from Andrew J. Patrick, I was kind of shocked. But meanwhile, we have this interesting news from Kerry Picket:

Santorum also received complimentary words from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin last weekend on the Fox News Channel, prompting some to wonder if her support in the future could help the Pennsylvania Republican go further in the primaries.
“As my folks out there in Iowa are telling me, getting folks to come on board is getting easier everyday,” he said.
Mr. Santorum is participating in Donald Trump’s and Newsmax’s sponsored debate on December 27. Whether the debate turns out to be only a two man forum, Santorum appeared eager to be part of the debate, calling it “a great thing.” Perhaps he is right. Mr. Santorum, right now, is the only other GOP candidate who is part of the forum besides front-runner Newt Gingrich . . .

It’s weird how these little coincidences keep happening. That debate is scheduled for the day after I arrive in Iowa. And who would have ever imagined that Donald Trump, of all people, would give Santorum a straight-up shot at debating the media-anointed front-runner?

UPDATE II: Lisa Graas says this is her favorite part of a post at Hot Air:

Palin is still a player in this race especially among the grassroots, and so speculation about what Palin’s kind words mean for Santorum shouldn’t be taken lightly.

“Ramming Speed!”

UPDATE III: “Something so viscerally right that I think we can all agree on it.”

Improving Our Accuracy: Laser-Like Focus

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Clausewitz and the Rule of Threes

Daily Pundit posted, and I responded. Daily Pundit replied, and we appear to be talking past each other. Unexpectedly. My Mudville Gazette link to Clauzewitzian Triangle did not refer to

Effects of the Clauswitzian tripod of Friction, Fog of War, and Point of Victory. . .

at all. Pardon my 0300 posting, which could have more clearly linked to the material of interest at Mudville Gazette. What I’m trying to get at, from the On War, with some formatting from me:

  • The first of these three aspects mainly concerns the people;
  • the second the commander and his army;
  • the third the government.

The passions that are to be kindled in war must already be inherent in the people; the scope which the play of courage and talent will enjoy in the realm of probability and chance depends on the particular character of the commander and the army; but the political aims are the business of government alone.

In other words, irrespective of the Army, or the whims of the Executive: the Army, Government, and people have to be kept in synch. The difficulty of maintaing the triangle is proportional to the duration of the action. Witness the brief foray into Pakistan to rub out Osama. Witness the decaying support for the recent Libyan action. Witness the general Constitutional queasiness triggered by both actions.

Codevilla is great, and comes at it from the policy perspective. Clausewitz gives you the strategic, i.e. military perspective. This is also called the Clausewitzian Trinity, but ‘trinity’ has religious baggage for some, and so we called it the Triangle in my Strategy and Policy class.

Bickering and Arguing Over ‘Oo Oversimplified ‘Oo

Bill Quick says:

Our military is designed to kill people and break things. Or it should be. It is not a missionary force, a religious force, a cultural force. It is a military force. If it had been used as police generally are, it would have begun to withdraw (or turn in the direction of Tehran) immediately after Bush made his famous “Mission Accomplished” speech.

Well, yeah, but more than a trifle over-simplified. See Austin Bay on Strategy Page for an important brief on DIME.

The acronym is “DIME” — a quick verbal coin for the four elements of national power: “Diplomatic,” “Information,” “Military” and “Economic” power.
When “policy is working,” diplomacy, economic interests, military power and information power (both the ability to communicate and to gather intelligence) complement one another. It’s a difficult ballet, but choreographing and directing this dance is the business of statesmen.

You can tweak my beard for invoking “Team America, World Police”, fine. But that seems precisely where you’re going with “Our military is designed to kill people and break things,” Bill. Remember that M is but a quarter of DIME, and using it singly leaves DIE.

Can we back up and ponder the broader scope of American history, in our Tea Party exuberance? If you read Six Frigates you discover that the debates haven’t changed much in 200 years. Prior to the National Security Act of 1947, we did not retain standing land forces between wars. Air, of course was new. You can point to the Great White Fleet, like the Six Frigates, as a sea example of peacetime navel force, sure: very Mahanian.

My argument here, call it the ‘soft Paul’ is that having a vast DoD is kinda problematic for the Tea Party purist. The excellent counter is “OK, if not U.S. hegemony, then who?” The answer is: why, no one. If there must needs be an 800 pound gorilla in the world, let it be us. Sure, the best defense is a good offense, and I play a mean white side on the chess board.

Conclusion

Coming full circle to the original question of “America can win any war it chooses to fight, quickly and permanently” I guess for managed values of {win, war, fight, quickly, permanently}, your point is spot on, Daily Pundit. Which of {Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan} do you feel apply? Gulf War I was certainly a victory; Kuwait was liberated. Yet what precise value of ‘permanent’ had us staging a drag race in Iraq during the next decade between the Marines and the Army?

You like the Osama raid? Libya? You do realize that these are Spec Ops intensive topics. More and more, Team America polices the world via “Dudes that to ‘bump’ in the night”. From a Tea Party perspective, should the decreasing relevance of the Constitutional protocol of having the POTUS request a Declaration of War from Congress be a problem, or should we just chock it up to technological drift? War is hell, and politics is a psychotic Ex-. The notion that we can win any war is arguably true in the abstract, and practically falls apart in extended real-world examples.

Update: I just caught up with Belvedere’s Pax Americana post.

The proper form of Pax Americana is where The United States is able to project it’s military forces anywhere Tyranny threatens to expand itself or sow Chaos. Tyrannical governments will always exist, but they can be contained and prevented from disrupting or conquering other nations. When the situation requires America to act to preserve the peace, it should go in, crush the enemy, and leave, telling the peoples of the area as it exits: ‘We’ve solved the problem at hand; you’re on your own; straighten things out; don’t cause anymore trouble because, if you do, we’ll be back with even greater force this time’.
The Pax Americana must also take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that Weapons Of Mass Destruction be possessed only by The United States and it’s close Allies ? preferably restricted to just the nations of the Anglosphere.

Bob, I love you man, but the horses are already out of the toothpaste tube. Sorry.

VA Senate Debate As 2012 Opener

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

There hasn’t been a GOP primary yet, but former VA Senator Allen is already mixing it up with that ex-Governor who was such a potent DNC chair that his replacement by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was something like a vast improvement. *snort* Via Roll Call, we have some details:

The first sharp elbow was thrown on the third question, when Kaine was asked whether Allen’s use of the term “macaca” when describing an Indian-American video tracker during his 2006 re-election campaign — something he’s since apologized for — should be brought up nearly six years later. Kaine campaign officials said Tuesday that it was fair game, and Kaine did not back down from that position.
“The implication was that this young student was less of an American than George or than you and me,” Kaine said. “I don’t know why he would say that, but for whatever reason he said it, it’s part of the divisive politics that we have to put behind us in this country.”

Yeah, macaca: yeah! If we had, say, an ounce of gold for every time the propaganda-mongering Left tried to squeeze meaning into those three leaden syllables, we could pay off the national debt. You just keep on pluckin’ that chicken, Timmy, and you’ll do as well as Creigh Deeds did in his 2009 triumph over Bob McDonnell. Macaca was pure propaganda in 2006, and, five years on, about the only thing dumber is blaming the economy on Bush. To which idiocy you’re also welcome, Kaine.
And then “The implication was that this young student was less of an American. . .” what kind of metrosexual talk is that, Kaine? Allen was, at worst, engaging in a bit of sporting trash talk. Informality. I’m sure propaganda mongers of prior centuries gaze up from hell with approval on what the Democrat party and the WaPoo did in 2006.

Allen asked Kaine why he spent the final year of his gubernatorial term serving as DNC chairman — “the most political, partisan job in America,” as Allen put it — rather than focusing on the needs of Virginia. Kaine’s answer: “To serve the president, the president who is our commander in chief, the president who helped capture [Osama] bin Laden and wipe out al-Qaida leadership.”

Let’s put Timmy’s statement in context:

  1. $4 Trillion of casual debt,
  2. (ObL),
  3. $4 Trillion of casual debt!

Translated Kaine: “I am a tool, a tool’s tool, and a scraping tool used by other tools engaged in self-cleaning.” But you just keep on doing those victory laps, Timmy. We’ll let you know in 2012 how cool you look.

I don’t know how the VA GOP primary will shake out. This is an important race, and I remain an Allen admirer, for all I like the Tea Party influence of Radtke. The Left knows that every Senate seat is equally important, but the VA one is slightly more equal than others, given the names involved. Heartache.

via Daily Kos

‘Womyn’ Gripped By Tim Tebow Terror?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

I would probably s/assault/insult/ in the first sentence here, but Gabriella Hoffman raises an interesting question:

Thanks to feminazis and other self-hating “womyn,” male effeminacy continues to assault manhood. Nevertheless, Tim Tebow stands out at 6’3’’ and touts manliness wherever he goes. He does not wear skinny-jeans or don high-heels. Instead, he prides himself in looking sharp and being a gentleman. He has too much self-respect to kowtow to feminist demands. Moreover, he is indomitable and high-spirited. Young men idolize him, young women fawn over him. As a result, Tebow terrifies feminists and rightly should.

Read the whole thing. My question is, do manly men ever feel terrorized by feminists? I muster a high dudgeon for all of the Postmodern idiots plaguing society today, self-hating “womyn” among them. Bunch of Godless Commies, as far as I can tell, spreading the falsehood that there is no difference between women and men, or that either gender is somehow inferior to the other.

I can nearly admire the purity of the evil in their arguments. Overall, feminism seems to say that the obvious natural arrangement of women and men is somehow wrong. And yet, the same people serving these falsehoods wax smug and condescending over yoga, vegan diets, and the Noble Savage Myth. Postmodernism takes its cues from Satan himself, ever offering cheap substitutes in place of something better.

The joy of a blog is telling these feminist nitwits: “Get Stuffed!” They can take their corrosive, false statements about human existence and retire to Lesbos, for all I care.