Green Room

Why Sarah Palin is right about having a competitive primary season

posted at 2:28 pm on February 2, 2012 by

The short answer is that Mitt Romney isn’t a small-government conservative.  The slightly longer answer is that Barack Obama has been – as he promised to be – a game-changer, and the 2012 election is the one in which libertarian anti-statism will either have a voice in the Republican Party, or will have to do something else.

This primary season is a fight for the character of the GOP.  The fight is not the perennial standoff between “social cons” and “fiscal cons”; it is a long-postponed dispute over the size and charter of government, and how the GOP will approach it.  It is the most basic possible dispute over ideas about man and the state and their consequences.  It’s also a dispute only the Republican Party could have.  The Democratic Party does not have such a diversity of viewpoint, at least not in any politically consequential way.  The decision about whether America will continue on a fiscally unsustainable path of ever-growing statism comes down to the GOP’s fight with itself.

The Romney wing represents the attitude that America is really OK with the size of government we have now: it just needs better management and some tweaking on the margins.  The Romney wing does not by any means have a class-hostile, socialist vision for the future.  It has no intention of interfering with the citizens’ intellectual liberties, and its view of managerial government is not predicated on the idea that the people need to be coerced (or “nudged”) into collectivist life choices.  It simply sees the existing size of government as compatible with a free-enough life, in the sense that we don’t need to push for significant changes.

The other wing – the one that has been getting behind a different candidate every few weeks – believes precisely that America is not OK with the size of government we have now.  Its main point is that our fiscal and economic problems, and many of our social ones, result directly from the size and interventionist activities of government.  The size of government is the problem – already, today – and if it isn’t fixed, America literally cannot survive as a republic with the intellectual and lifestyle liberties we have enjoyed up to now.

Many in the GOP’s “Not OK” wing have perceived government to be out of control for some time.  But the shock administered by the Obama administration gave the most direct impetus to the Tea Party movement, because it brought home to many Americans how vulnerable we had already become to executive overreach.

For this wing of the GOP, it isn’t enough to put a Republican in charge of the sprawling, momentum-driven executive.  The mere existence of such a gigantic apparat is an already-proven threat to liberty.  A Democrat could be reelected to head it at any time, and even with a Republican in charge, the civil-service army would continue in obscurity to pursue regulatory and money-spending charters issued years or decades ago.  The failure of Congress to pass a budget for over 1,000 days has suspended the legislature’s principal hammer over the executive’s freedom to do what it wants.  As long as government limps along from month to month, on continuing resolutions that are mainly about constituency-tending fights in the House and Senate, Congress cannot gather its will to bargain seriously with the executive over spending priorities.

For the “Not OK” wing of the GOP, what is essential in 2012 is repudiating government on this model.  Nothing is more important to America’s future than that.  The different wings of the GOP have differing views of what constitutes “realism”:  the “America is OK” wing views it as unrealistic to focus on something other than putting up the candidate whom they feel will appeal to the most voters.  The “Not OK” wing sees that as an unrealistic perspective on the current situation.  If government is not reined in – put through an effective bankruptcy proceeding, with its assets sold off and its charter reorganized – then nothing else will matter.

Who is right?  While I am with the “Not OK” wing philosophically, I don’t think it would be the end of America as we know it if Mitt Romney were elected.  But I do believe it would be a grave strategic error for the Republican Party to endorse him early, and silence intra-party dissent as if he represents what America really needs.  A Romney presidency would be no more than a hiatus in deliberately using the state as a steamroller for ideological purposes.  That would be better than 4 more years of Obama, but from the perspective of getting America on a different path, it’s not good enough.

The GOP needs this fight over philosophy of government.  What has to be established in the 2012 primary season is that the small-government vote matters.  If that is not established, the GOP itself will matter little.  Its difference from the Democratic Party will not be sufficient to attract (or keep) membership.

I believe Palin has a strategic view of America’s future that looks beyond the 2012 election itself.  The most important thing now is that the small-government perspective continue to have a chance to express itself on its terms.  If it is silenced in electoral politics, there will be no hope of changing America’s path.  And the only way for it to have a voice is for this primary season to continue on a competitive basis.  That is the mechanism through which the voice of either wing of the party matters to the industry of politics.  That’s where the noise has to be made.

Palin is right.  This is an incredibly “political” year, more so than any year I can remember other than maybe 1979.  Americans are more engaged in political ideas than I have ever seen them.  Obama’s poll numbers aren’t good, but perhaps more importantly, those numbers and others on GOP candidates keep shifting.  People’s choices haven’t been set in stone.  They’re not sure what’s going on, they’re still trying to find a candidate who says what they’re waiting to hear, and they haven’t made up their minds.  The media will do what they’re going to do, but the people are having a separate dialogue with themselves, and it isn’t over.

I believe the GOP would be out of step with the remarkable nature of this year to crown a big-government-as-usual candidate early, on the theory that we need to damp down philosophical debate and concentrate on “campaigning” as early as possible before November.  The campaigning is what is annoying the living bejeebers out of the voters; it’s the philosophical debate that matters this year.  Shutting it down would be a tactical as well as a strategic error.  The only way to force Romney to the right is to keep the primary season competitive.  It’s also the way to keep quality attention on the most important debate America has had on the nature of government since 1860.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Uh oh. Palin threads tend to get vituperative, for some reason.

squint on February 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Uh oh. Palin threads tend to get vituperative, for some reason.

squint on February 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Funny, isn’t it? For someone that supposedly has no influence?

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Wham! Bam! Thank you, ma’am. This article is outta sight for this “Not OK” Okie. ;)

AH_C on February 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

For the “Not OK” wing of the GOP, what is essential in 2012 is repudiating government on this model. Nothing is more important to America’s future than that. The different wings of the GOP have differing views of what constitutes “realism”: the “America is OK” wing views it as unrealistic to focus on something other than putting up the candidate whom they feel will appeal to the most voters. The “Not OK” wing sees that as an unrealistic perspective on the current situation. If government is not reined in – put through an effective bankruptcy proceeding, with its assets sold off and its charter reorganized – then nothing else will matter.

The “OK” vs “Not OK” issue is the festering issue of the day. Who is right? We’ll see based on turnout in November.

I for one plan to do my part by lancing that boil (vote 3rd party/write-in) and hope that at least 30% of the other voters agree with me that the status quo is not OK. Even 20% should be enough to start draining the boil as the remaining panicked incumbents feverishly work to protect themselves from being run out of office in 2014/16, regardless of who wins the top spot. And if by chance the “Not OK” voters reach critical mass and win, well, the recovery can begin in 2013, instead of the next cycle.

For what it’s worth, it took the GOP 3 legislative cycles and 1 POTUS cycle before Lincoln won, routing the Whigs forever more. Using that example, the genesis of this generations rout would be 2010. I don’t want to wait till 2016 to complete the GOP transformation or its elimination.

If only 45% of the voters could be persuaded to ditch the electability canard and stand up to be counted as ‘Not OK” on 6 Nov, we could do the job here and now.

AH_C on February 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

While I am with the “Not OK” wing philosophically, I don’t think it would be the end of America as we know it if Mitt Romney were elected.

The country would be better off with Romney than the current guy. It would be putting a tourniquet on — stopping the bleeding, but not yet stitching up the wound. What we also need is a much more Tea Party oriented Congress such that they can put a check on the President. Romney’s enough of a weather vane that if he sees the country going more conservative, he’ll go that direction too.

rbj on February 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I believe the GOP would be out of step with the remarkable nature of this year to crown a big-government-as-usual candidate early, on the theory that we need to damp down philosophical debate and concentrate on “campaigning” as early as possible before November.

That is exactly what the GOP is doing, which is why I keep saying that an Obama vs. Romney election is an election in which America loses either way. This big-government behemoth cannot be “managed” to be less oppressive. Someone has to go into the WH and strong arm our tradidionally weak-kneed Republicans in Contgress into knee-capping it.

The really sad part of this election cycle is that most of the credible Republicans who could do such a thing were either pressured not to run, ridiculed out of the race, or mercilessly smeared for the past four years by Romney operatives, the GOP establishment, the MSM, and the left with the same DailyKos-inspired lies and Allinsky tactics.

We should be choosing between people like Jindal, Palin, Daniels, and Perry…not Mitt Romney, Newt freaking Gingrich, and a room-temperature-IQ doofus like Rick Santorum.

We might as well face it: it will be at least four years before we can elect someone to take control of runaway government…IF then. It sure as hell isn’t happening this time around.

Actually (and I hate to say this), I’m pretty sure America is in an inevitable decline that’s too steep to pull up from. As the quote from the opening episode of the Sopranos says, “the best is OVER.” We came in at the end. I hope I’m wrong, but I strongly suspect I’m not.

DRayRaven on February 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

AH_C

I for one plan to do my part by lancing that boil (vote 3rd party/write-in) and hope that at least 30% of the other voters agree with me…

They wont. The only viable candidates in the election will be Obama and Romney. (probably)

If only 45% of the voters could be persuaded to ditch the electability canard and stand up to be counted as ‘Not OK” on 6 Nov, we could do the job here and now.

Electability isn’t a canard. You need to get elected to have influence. End of story.
There is no conservative case to be made for re-electing Barack Obama. Throwing your vote away in the face of this existential threat to the USA is a betrayal of conservative principles and arguably a betrayal of the country.

V7_Sport on February 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Good article.

I strongly suspect Romney will be the eventual nominee, and if so I will vote for him and hope he wins.

However, I agree that it doesn’t need to come “too easy.” Handing the nomination to him on a silver platter prior to Super Tuesday would simply let him think he can govern down-the-center, as a slightly-liberal POTUS.

If he wins a close contest, the odds of him picking a more conservative VP, or having other prominent conservatives on his radar as cabinet picks, etc. increase IMO (what better way for him to solidify the base for the general than by naming a half-dozen solid conservatives who would have prominent roles in his administration?)

cs89 on February 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM

V7: ‘Throwing away your vote’ by voting for someone who won’t do what is necessary to fix our country can also be considered a betrayal of conservative principles and arguably a betrayal of the country.

That’s _exactly_ the argument we are having on the Right this year, and trying to browbeat people (either way) is not going to help matters.

So, do you want to have that discussion, or do you not want to have that discussion?

Scott H on February 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

cs89: Well, beside the fact that McCain did that in 2008, and see where it got him….

The ‘Not OK’ crowd will be ‘Not OK’ with another 2008 bone thrown their way. The GOP needs to realize what its base is saying, and react accordingly.

Scott H on February 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Scott H on February 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Fair enough. With the current field, I don’t see much of a better option, though.

Romney is most likely to win, IMO, and it will be better if it isn’t too easy.

Gingrich may have some better ideas, but comes off as half-baked with some of his ideas & has a checkered past.

Santorum hasn’t really taken off to make a credible challenge to Romney.

Paul? Um…

So, here we are, it would seem…

cs89 on February 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Nice post J E Dyer..Very good blog post.. :cool:

Dire Straits on February 2, 2012 at 6:44 PM

1) This would make some sense if Palin wasn’t asking people to vote for a guy who’s even less of a conservative than Romney.

2) You do have a very fertile imagination – the conspiracy theory about the Florida redistricting is evidence of that.

But you know something is out of control when you start seeing things as a “philosophical debate” happening. Prolonging the primary won’t lead to any sort of philosophical debate – rather to inanities about starving Holocaust survivors or how venture capital is so bad.

joana on February 2, 2012 at 7:02 PM

What Schmidt and Wallace, ‘knifed’ her in the back, after it was decided to throw the match, because Obama’s the reincarnated RFK campaign, (that sort of folderall, was stated by Schmidt at the U. Delaware)

narciso on February 2, 2012 at 7:27 PM

It’s also the way to keep quality attention on the most important debate America has had on the nature of government since 1860.

Looters and moochers will win, again. Nothing will change, except the looter will be richer and the moochers will be more in numbers.

The producers will be less, because they will show all a big finger and go gulching.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Romney folks lie better than he dies.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM

“America is Beautiful” — Romney 2012

“From Diapers to Depends” — Obama 2012

Which one do you think will win?

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Coultergeist

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2012 at 7:42 PM

If he wins a close contest, the odds of him picking a more conservative VP, or having other prominent conservatives on his radar as cabinet picks, etc. increase IMO (what better way for him to solidify the base for the general than by naming a half-dozen solid conservatives who would have prominent roles in his administration?)

cs89 on February 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Very well said.

Thanks JE Dyer for this excellent piece.

Missy on February 2, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Is this a functional unit? Inquiring minds want to know. And so does Dire Straits.

predator on February 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The Romney wing represents the attitude that America is really OK with the size of government we have now: it just needs better management and some tweaking on the margins. The Romney wing does not by any means have a class-hostile, socialist vision for the future. It has no intention of interfering with the citizens’ intellectual liberties, and its view of managerial government is not predicated on the idea that the people need to be coerced (or “nudged”) into collectivist life choices. It simply sees the existing size of government as compatible with a free-enough life, in the sense that we don’t need to push for significant changes.

I don’t share that view at all. As I said earlier today at a different thread, we need relentless but not sudden change because Americans will not abide by it. Relentless does not equal “tweaking around the edges”. I am realistic and understand that without a majority in the House and Senate nothing will get done. It’s a delicate balance getting there. Do I wish Romney did a better job of articulating ideas? Absolutely. Do I want Newt Gingrich articulating anti-capitalist ideas for the Democrats? Hell no.

As for Palin, she is doing a particularly rotten job of promoting her ideas lately. IMHO it began with her Iowa speech when she suggested our candidates are “crony capitalists” and that raising “massive amounts of cash” was somehow corrupt. Her Fox appearances lately have been a joke. She is so much better when she puts ideas out on facebook. She says our candidates need to “focus”. Fine, I agree. She should take her own advice and stop her populist shtick which is a huge distraction and unnecessarily divisive. She needs to stop whining about how much money Romney raised and spent. It’s not his fault Newt is incompetent, unorganized, and came unprepared for a Presidential race.

Buy Danish on February 2, 2012 at 8:03 PM

It is functioning here..But something is wrong in the Headlines promotion!!??!!.. :cool:

Dire Straits on February 2, 2012 at 8:04 PM

All of this would have been more believable and effective if Palin had chosen a real conservative and not supported a progressive establishment political hack to make her case.

Gingrich and Romney are two sides of the same coin on almost every issue important to conservatives.

Supporting Perry, Santorum or even Paul would have given her more credibility and might have even turned the tide. Now we may be stuck with Romney because he will win in a two way race with Gingrich and since Gingrich is not a conservative, Romney will not feel the need to turn to the right. Gingrich is actually attacking Romney from the LEFT.

Santorum needs to stay in. He is the only hope that we have to keep the conservative conversation going. Paul is good fiscally but his libertarian foreign policy is a no go.

fight like a girl on February 2, 2012 at 8:06 PM

An excellent piece by J.E. Dyer.

It was Palin herself who said that it doesn’t matter if there’s simply a change in uniforms in D.C..

The point in this election is rather simple: the difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama wishes to drive towards the insolvency cliff at 90 miles per hour, while Romney drives towards the cliff at a more sedate 60.

Either way, with Romney, the Left wins all the battles and sets the terms of debate. His Rombot supporters don’t get this. Yesterday’s kerfuffle about the minimum wage was enlightening in this regard.

victor82 on February 2, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I don’t think it would be the end of America as we know it if Mitt Romney were elected.

Now, that’s a rousing endorsement of Willard!

However, Willard. . .

represents the attitude that America is really OK with the size of government we have now: it just needs better management and some tweaking on the margins.

The size of government is too large. The federal deficit is laughably high–about 40%. The US is rated AA+, down from AAA, soon to be BB+ (junk, according to Standard and Poor’s). This is a systemic problem that cannot be managed. Watch California starting in March. There is no more money.

Willard probably believes that the Fed can solve the problem, but it’s not a liquidity problem any more–it’s a problem of solvency.

Emperor Norton on February 2, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Buy Danish on February 2, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Says a Romneybot butthole.

CoolChange80 on February 2, 2012 at 8:07 PM

No, you have not put forward an argument, you have cast aspersion, not nearly the same thing, So we are to believe
that the operations of one firm, represent the sum total of
capitalist enterprise, that is a ludicrous notion, and that there are not corrupt power linkages at the top of the political establishment, I don’t think she has taken issue
with how much he has raise, except the purpose to which said funds have been directed. To coopt the Tea Party, to spread
cretinous lies about recent history.

narciso on February 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Sarah Palin is always right, one just has to be unbiased and take a deep breath. Sarah’s thinking is often ahead of the curve in most issues. She addresses them well ahead of schedule, well before people actually can see and understand her points.

Sarah gets attacked and ridiculed by liberals whether she is right or wrong. She gets the same treatment from Establishment Republicans (politicians and non politicians). Right now, she is being attacked by the Romney people in a worse way because she is isn’t satisfied with Mitt Romney who is closer to a conservative Democrat than a moderate Republican.

Thank God the primary rules were changed this year so that nobody will get enough delegates until months from now. That will keep the process going regardless of the outcry from the Romney people and the GOP establishment.

In the end, Conservatives will realize that Mitt Romney is not going to do anything to change the current system and has ZERO chance of getting elected President….since there isn’t that much difference between the real Mitt Romney Romney and Obama.

jules on February 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Sarah Palin has more wisdom than all the shills on TV. Palin has the real life insight and experience in big time politics. There is more value to what she says then say Karl Rove or Dick Morris. Palin has actually played in the game instead for being a coordinator. Although I bet she make a darn good coordinator or chief of staff, but I would rather see her be the quarterback.

CoolChange80 on February 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Sarah Palin is a visionary and a one of a kind politician. Flailing Romneybots know nothing about anything especially dopes like bluegill, csdeven,Buy Danish, and haner.

CoolChange80 on February 2, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I am not attacking Palin or her theory. I am attacking her credibility. For three years she told her supporters that it mattered who we replaced Obama with. She railed against crony capitalism, the inside the beltway good old boys and the lack of character and adherence to conservative principles in most of the GOP. THEN she supports Gingrich who is everything that she supposedly was fighting against.

Either she was simply fooled by Gingrich, she didn’t mean what she said or she is not being truthful about prolonging the primaries for the good of the country and the GOP nominee, or she is just striking back at the GOP for treating her so badly by supporting the worst candidate in the race.

Disappointed, Yes I am.

fight like a girl on February 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Great piece, J.E.

Kataklysmic on February 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Disappointed, Yes I am.

fight like a girl on February 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM

You’re clueless….

idesign on February 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM

She quit, again, so who cares?

Your Mamma loves me on February 2, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Either she was simply fooled by Gingrich, she didn’t mean what she said or she is not being truthful about prolonging the primaries for the good of the country and the GOP nominee, or she is just striking back at the GOP for treating her so badly by supporting the worst candidate in the race.

Disappointed, Yes I am.

fight like a girl on February 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Are you really that clueless? Palin has made it quite clear why she says she would have voted for Gingrich in SC and FL and then in NV. The math is the math. If Gingrich is the worst candidate, why hasn’t Santorum done better? She sees Gingrich as the one to stop Mitt’s premature coronation. In her appearance last night on FBN, she emphasized, “At this time”, meaning right now it’s between Mitt and Newt, and the numbers show it. While no doubt that Santorum is the most conservative socially, he’s a big government statist.

NoNails on February 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Sarah Palin is a visionary and a one of a kind politician. Flailing Romneybots know nothing about anything especially dopes like bluegill, csdeven,Buy Danish, and haner.

CoolChange80 on February 2, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Hi todd,

I was wondering what’s like being a kept man?

Your Mamma loves me on February 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Laura Ingraham was on the Factor tonight, and she put the best face on Romney of anyone I have listened to date. Ingraham: Romney is a turn around guy, that’s what he does he turns things around.

It’s not enough to turn things around if we still have the same folks in charge of our purse strings.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Actually (and I hate to say this), I’m pretty sure America is in an inevitable decline that’s too steep to pull up from. As the quote from the opening episode of the Sopranos says, “the best is OVER.” We came in at the end. I hope I’m wrong, but I strongly suspect I’m not.

DRayRaven on February 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

2012 is probably our last chance to reverse this. I think we will probably be bankrupt before the next election or so deep into the tailspin that things will be unsalvageable.

Doomberg on February 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

I was wondering what’s like being a kept man?

Your Mamma loves me on February 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Pretty dumb screen name dude….

looks like you might have a woman problem.

idesign on February 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Says a Romneybot butthole.
CoolChange80 on February 2, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Ah, meet the articulate spokeswoman of conservative ideas.

fight like a girl on February 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Heretic!

Buy Danish on February 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I am not attacking Palin or her theory. I am attacking her credibility. For three years she told her supporters that it mattered who we replaced Obama with. She railed against crony capitalism, the inside the beltway good old boys and the lack of character and adherence to conservative principles in most of the GOP. THEN she supports Gingrich who is everything that she supposedly was fighting against.

I think the point most people are missing is that she isn’t actually ENDORSING Gingrich, she’s trying to drum up enough support for Romney’s closest competitor to make this primary process last quite a bit longer than the “Establishment GOP” wants it to. Pretty sure she knows Gingrich isn’t much better, but if Romney wins too early, too easily, you can FORGET about him catering to the conservative wing of the party AT ALL! He’ll be sucking up to the liberals to try and score the unsatisfied Independents that voted for Obama last time.

Mrs. Palin is FAR more intelligent than most give her credit for.

Ghostflames852 on February 2, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Heretic!

Buy Danish on February 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Don’t be so hard on yourself….

idesign on February 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Great post JE! Calm and reasoned. This is indeed a battle of philosophy and just what is a proper size and function of government. Palin knows the importance of this more than most of her snob critics. She suggests keeping things competitive to move the scales to the right. Like she can control the fact that Gingrich and Santorum are all that’s left. Good grief.

Three years ago this was the party of “Never again.” Now it’s the party of “Maybe incremental changes will save us from our immediate problems. Let’s just play it safe………again.”

Dongemaharu on February 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

NoNails on February 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

No, you and Idesign still believe she is going to get in somehow. Delusional.

If Gingrich were ahead, would she say to vote for Mitt so that we could drag out the primary process? Doubtful.

And will she tell people to vote for Santorum in Missouri where Newt isn’t on the ballot or in Michigan and other states where Rick runs ahead of Gingrich?
Will she tell the people of Virginia to vote for Paul? Again, doubtful.

By what you wrote, you don’t think she supports Newt out of principle but because she thinks he has a mathematically better chance of beating Romney. So what the hell happened to “it matters who we replace Obama with?’ What happened to standing for your convictions?

You only prove my point.

fight like a girl on February 2, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Dongemaharu on February 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Nice post.. :cool:

Dire Straits on February 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Allahpundit on February 3, 2012 at 2:17 AM

That’s _exactly_ the argument we are having on the Right this year, and trying to browbeat people (either way) is not going to help matters.

So, do you want to have that discussion, or do you not want to have that discussion?

Scott H on February 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Sure, however I reserve the right to browbeat. :-)

V7_Sport on February 2, 2012 at 9:18 PM