In today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, we’re talking about the Tea Party Movement, the Republicans’ latest pledge to America, the upheaval in the White House’s staff, and we’ll talk to Weekly Standard senior writer Jonathan Last about his powerful new piece on America’s One Child Policy.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment.com and Stephen Clouse and Associates. We’d also like to let you know that we’ve set up a standalone site at CoffeeandMarkets.com for easier browsing of our past broadcasts.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Bloomberg: Jobless Claims Rise
WSJ: Exodus at the White House
RealClearMarkets: Obama’s Problem is Ideology
John Goodman: The True Cost of Health Care
WaPo: Ahmadinejad’s Challenges
WSJ: John Boehner’s Business Ties
Politico: White House Denies Eyeing Koch Tax Returns
Weekly Standard: Goolsbee Talked About Koch Tax Status
Jonathan Last: America’s One Child Policy
TNL: Marriage and Children in America
CBSNews: The Republican Pledge to America
Redstate: The Pledge to Nowhere
Erick Erickson: Most Ridiculous DC Product Since McClellan
Tim Carney: Tea Partiers and Abortion
Bob Inglis: Reagan Wouldn’t Be At Home in Tea Parties
Coffee and Markets Podcast Archive

[tweetmeme]

Update: Welcome Hot Air readers!

Popular right-wing personality Glenn Beck did extended segments yesterday across his media appearances on radio and television about the issue of Puerto Rican statehood and HR 2499, the bill currently before the House which would engage another Puerto Rican plebiscite on the statehood issue.

This is a controversial issue, and Beck thrives on the games he plays with his audience on such matters — warning them with a sotto voce tabloid whisper that what he’s about to say will sound like a conspiracy theory, but always emphasizing that he has the facts to back it up. In the case of Puerto Rico, as on a few matters, I don’t think he does. A few corrections are in order, particularly for the radio piece.

Beck began with an extended monologue about how democracy is an overrated term, and what we need to be on the look out for are those vile “progressives” in our midst — noting that “Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hitler, Mussolini I believe was democratically elected.” Well, Mussolini was democratically elected to the cabinet, but not to the head position in the government — he seized power in a coup to do that. Hitler wasn’t technically, either — he got 37% of the vote, but was appointed chancellor (effectively, a vice presidential role that they thought would keep the boy in line — whoops) [ed. note: thanks to Ace for pointing out that this is a bad comparison -- in reality, given the chancellorship role, it's more like he was appointed as prime minister], another example of why a two party system is a better way to go. Castro deposed a democratically elected regime with a revolution, and thousands of Iranians risked life and limb to defy Ahmadinejad in his rigged election. But hey, maybe Beck thinks democracy is “beautiful in theory; in practice, it is a fallacy.” Mussolini said that.

That was his lead up to talking about the “Puerto Rican Democracy Act,” whose name Beck found suspiciously designed to prevent opposition. He may have a point there — bills are frequently named to achieve that goal (all the more credit to those like Phil Gramm who successfully stand up and block bad bills named things like the “Puppy Protection Act” — true story).

States have become states in different ways — sometimes via odd and interesting paths. Some of these ways include internal elections, some not. In Puerto Rico’s case, America took it over in a war, and then held onto it as a commonwealth for security purposes and eventually because we didn’t want it to slip into communism. The power’s never been at the island to do anything about that status. This bill is designed to change that and force the issue — assuming commonwealth status wins again, it sets up an eight year regular vote on the issue.

Beck acknowledges that what he’s about to talk about could be accused of being a “conspiracy theory,” but that he’ll flesh it out in more detail on his TV show. That segment is here. In it, Beck says a lot of stuff that he said earlier on the radio, but he tacks on this:

Why are Democrats and Republicans for this? Because it’s not about Republicans and Democrats. The progressives in our country know that this is the moment they’ve been waiting for; every Marxist daydream they’ve ever had, now is their time to get it done. They are not going to let it pass. That’s what’s happening: The fundamental transformation of America. And this is only the beginning.

The idea that Puerto Rico becoming a state is a Marxist daydream really didn’t seem to be the case back when Ronald Reagan was supporting it. As Reagan personally responded to an angry letter writer in 1979:

Puerto Rico is a US territory and has been for most, if not all, of this century. My only other reason for mentioning this in my speech was the fact that with our attention to Iran and the Middle East, most Americans are unaware of what has been going on in the Caribbean islands. We are being ringed in there by islands which, one after the other, have come under the influence of the Soviet Union by way of Castro. I believe this constitutes far more of a threat than most people realize–a threat to the security of our country. As you know, there is a Communist radical faction in Puerto Rico which has been trying to bring about independence from the United States. The Puerto Rican Republican Party has opposed this and has worked for statehood for many years. My declaration was simply that if the people of Puerto Rico voted for statehood, I would support legislation to grant this. I was not trying to show how “liberal” I am, for I am not. I am a conservative and will not change my position to seek votes. There would be no purpose in running if I were willing to give up my own deeply held convictions.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

The irony here, of course, is that the Gipper supported Puerto Rican statehood primarily as a push to block creeping Marxism in the Caribbean — something which actually could be said today about South America and Chavez.

Anyway, back to Beck, where he’s interviewing Rep. Jason Chaffetz from Utah:

GLENN: Tell me about what congress is going to do tomorrow.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Well, there’s a push to push this HR 2499. I see it as part of a four pronged plan that I see to really change the environment here in the United States of America. Amnesty for people who are here illegally, voting rights for criminals and felons. They wanted D.C. voting rights, something, got this little thing called the Second Amendment got in the way. They weren’t willing to put it forward, but they certainly wanted to do something I believe was unconstitutional and give Washington D.C. voting rights. And now this 2499, which is the Puerto Rico statehood bill which is being pushed by the new progressive party in Puerto Rico trying to create a federally sanctioned; that is, a U.S. sanctioned vote that they say is nonbinding but would give them the legitimacy to then come back and try to seat people in the United States congress.

I actually think Rep. Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, sounds far more unhinged in this segment than Beck. He just compared Puerto Rico, which has four million American citizens, voters and law-abiding people, who pay 100% into Medicare and get 70% back, who send young men to war from Vietnam and Korea to Iraq and Afghanistan under American colors, with voting rights for illegals, criminals and felons? There’s a constitutional barrier to the statehood of Washington D.C. And there’s a constitutional barrier to the voting rights of felons and people who are here illegally. But you’re really going to compare that to a place that already has voting rights, and uses them in heavy turnout in primaries and general elections?

What’s more, if this is a four-pronged plan to change America, what about the fact that this bill was originally introduced, in only a slightly different form, in 2007 after consultation with the Bush administration? The language is essentially the same. Did this four pronged plan originate under W, under Reagan? Perhaps Chaffetz dismisses this as being an example of progressivism crossing party lines, as Beck does, but that’s a hard case to make given its long history of Republican support.

As Alex Castellanos notes, “For over 50 years, every Republican president and every GOP platform has supported the right of self-determination for U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico. A bill that would turn that GOP commitment into law is currently moving through the House with 57 Republican co-sponsors. As soon as this Thursday, Congress could decide whether the 4 million citizens of Puerto Rico have the same right as other Americans to determine their own fate.”

If Congressman Chaffetz wants to reject this part of the platform, that’s fine, but he should come up with a better reason than “it’s not necessary” to let these people determine their own fate.

Puerto Rico is larger than roughly half of the fifty states in population. Residents of Puerto Rico are required to pay numerous federal taxes, including import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, Medicare taxes, and so on. Business taxes are a bit more generous than most states. And as Reuters notes, “no Medicaid beneficiaries — the country’s poorest residents — pay taxes, and Medicare beneficiaries on the island pay the same taxes as stateside residents.” That’s no different than living in, say, a more populated version of Mississippi, where many pay less taxes simply because they’re too poor or because they have multiple children. This is a fair point — the cost to the federal government of putting Puerto Rico into the fully formed state level services programs on entitlements and benefits would be great. But that’s an indictment of our welfare and benefits systems, not Puerto Rico.

The other fair criticism of the bill that Chaffetz and Beck bring up: the first, as I mentioned, is the financial status of the island. The second is the ability of roughly 2.5 million Puerto Rican born people who now live on the mainland to vote on the matter. Several of my own family members would be able to vote in this despite living in Massachusetts, Texas, or Washington DC for most of their adult life. It’s a ludicrous proposition — do you get to vote on ballot issues in the state you were born in, even if you live elsewhere now? No. So offer an amendment and take it out in the Senate.

Again, the vote on HR 2499 is not a vote on statehood, but a vote on whether or not Puerto Rico is going to have a formal process to decide its status as opposed to just ad hoc plebiscites every couple of years. The status quo will probably win again — and even if it doesn’t, Congress has to respond before it means anything. There will be pressure on them to respond from Puerto Rico, but that would be a complicated situation, since other states would have to give up Congressional seats (capped at 435). At that point, wheeling and dealing would begin.

Now, back to Beck:

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: I hope you talk about is how the new progressive party has sent people here to serve in congress, sometimes as quote/unquote Republicans, sometimes quote/unquote Democrats.

GLENN: Mmm hmmm.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: But they all come from the quote/unquote — Republican governor of Puerto Rico is the chairman of the new progressive party.

GLENN: It is Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson all over again. Parties mean nothing, nothing. It is only about the size of the government and who controls it. That’s how you get a choice between Nazi and communist. When both sides want gigantic government, that’s how you get that. Not through a republic with limited powers.

Progressive in Puerto Rico doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing Beck thinks it does (Canada either). While Puerto Rico has historically been a place of high spending and government expansion, Republican Gov. Luis Fortuño is doing a lot to change that. Much like Chris Christie in New Jersey, Fortuño has faced a $3.2 billion budget deficit not by looking for handouts from Capitol Hill, but by instituting a hiring freeze, slashing pay for himself and across all agencies, cutting back on politically appointed positions, and recommending an across the board 10% cut in spending. In less than two years in office, Fortuño has slashed the deficit from 45 percent of the budget to 12 percent, bringing Puerto Rico out of a pretty deep economic hole.

This is a place which probably needs to do a lot more work toward being able to stand on its own two feet as a 51st state. But to suggest that Fortuño is a “progressive” in the sense Beck means is ludicrous. He’s even staring down a lefty student strike right now. His health care policy is bad, but hey, so was Mitt Romney’s — and he’s a good sight better than a lot of other Republican governors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jodi Rell, Linda Lingle, and for a few more hours, Charlie Crist.

Beck is, as always, a consummate Howard Beal-school entertainer. He likes to connect disparate threads into a conspiracy-like whole. It makes for great TV, and good radio — but usually, it conflates things that are unconnected with some grander plan, and plays on people’s willingness to be paranoid. Comparing Puerto Ricans loving America so much that they can’t wait to be fully part of it to a Marxist conspiracy to get a bunch of criminals the right to vote is a pretty jarring statement.

The reality here is very simple: The whole point of this legislation is to drive the Puerto Rican status question toward a resolution. Puerto Rico’s people consider themselves Americans, and are divided roughly in half about whether they ought to be a state or not. But after a century without clarity, they want some and have been trying to achieve it for a long time. It’s been in the Republican Party platform since the days of Eisenhower that the GOP supports this, and if Beck thinks that’s a progressive conspiracy, well, he’s welcome to it.

Follow Ben Domenech on Twitter.

>> One more thing that Reagan was right about: Gorbachev outs himself as a believer.

I’ve been a fan of the Criterion Collection DVD series for some time, ever since I saw a friend’s copy of their wonderful remastered version of Charade – perhaps the best Hitchcock not directed by Hitchcock – whose VHS version, when you can find it, is notoriously grainy and washed out, even to the point of eliminating the dimple in Cary Grant’s chin, which Audrey Hepburn points out as she asks, “How do you shave in there?”

If you haven’t seen one of their other films, the Criterion folks pull together a film-school session in a DVD package – a full range of supplemental materials, commentary, interviews, and background info – coupled with some excellent design perks. They all cost about twice as much as a normal DVD, but if it’s for a film you really enjoy and will watch over and over again, it’s worth it.

That brings us to the Criterion edition of “Ernest Hemingways’ ‘The Killers.’” The set includes three films – all share a title, two share the same opening scene, and little else is common between the three.

The least known and shortest film is the 1958 version of The Killers, which was put together by a famous Russian director, Andrei Tarkovsky, as a student film project. It’s chilling and stark, but it also is the most true to the fatalism of Hemingway’s original story – about two hired killers who come to town in search of a target, a man they don’t know named “The Swede.” But when the man is warned of the fact, he greets the news of his oncoming death with a calm resignation. He is not interested in running. When he originally wrote the story, Hemingway is said to have changed the title from “The Killers” to “The Matador” and back again. The idea of the man who stands as the bull charges is very Hemingway, yet it’s the Russian who seems to best summarize this idea in a simplistic three-scene film.

The 1946 Robert Siodnak version of The Killers is an apotheosis of film noir, all characters in darkness emerging into pools of light. Siodnak opens with the scene in Hemingway’s story transferred to a small New Jersey town, which is full of ominous wit. But that’s only the first reel of the film – after The Swede is killed (Burt Lancaster in the role that really launched him as a star, even at the old Hollywood age of 32), the film invents a reason to delve into backstory.

What’s interesting about the ’48 film when viewed today is how much of the plotline and characters have been imitated and duplicated since, even to the point of relatively recent films. Busted caper films really are limited in their form, and there are only so many ways to change it by inventing new venues or twists. And while the packaging may be dark, the film’s actual message is less so – the villains get what they deserve, the everyman hero figures out the mystery, and the femme fatale (Ava Gardner) is reduced to begging the dying husband she doesn’t love to clear her name. The film actually ends on a joke, one that feels more appropriate for a radio serial. This is old-school noir – a great model of a film that deals with the darkest corners of human existence, while still being essentially a family-friendly enterprise.

Not so for the 1964 Don Siegel version of The Killers, which is famous for a couple of reasons: it’s got the best performance of Lee Marvin’s storied career; it was supposed to be the first honest-to-goodness major made for TV movie (NBC ultimately passed on it because of the violence); and it has the last performance of Ronald Reagan, as the villain. The ’64 film is noir without the shadows. It has no darkness in it – even every death is in broad California daylight, which somehow makes it more disturbing. There’s no diner scene in this, no Hemingway (a fact that led to much critical disfavor at the time), and the Swede has turned into a modern race car driver, but the violence – particularly that directed at Angie Dickinson, all legs and hollow promises, who gets smacked around by half the men in the picture – is surprisingly raw for the time, and it tells us a lot about how much Hollywood has changed in less than 20 years. A movie like this obviously pales next to Reservoir Dogs, but it’s obvious that they’re on the same visceral coninuum.

Marvin really is very good, driven and undeterred and a murderous student of human nature. His death scene over the last few minutes of the film is chillingly great. Sidekick Clu Gallagher’s performance as the younger yet more heartless hitman serves as a rebuke for every snotnosed brat packer who’s tried a similar role with less dedication. And Reagan, though he hated the film, and only did it as a favor to a friend, is steadily great. “I approve of larceny,” his character says, “Homicide is against my principles.” The best moment for Reagan comes at the end, as Dickinson weakly tries to lie her way out of death. Reagan glances at the ill-gotten cash in his hand, and gives her a sideways look that hints at quiet disgust. Dickinson’s doe-eyed act, which worked on so many others – including the audience – doesn’t buy her any mercy from Marvin. “Lady,” he spits, “I don’t have the time.”

The dark hitman drama is one of Hollywood’s standbys, and films like Collateral continue in the tradition of the ’64 Killers. Yet there’s little joy in such inhuman protagonists, and limited story to boot. There are elements passed on from these older films to the revenge flicks like Man on Fire, Road to Perdition or The Limey – yet it’s illuminating to realize that the more enduring films are ones like Leon (The Professional), where the redemptive power of human relationships drives the emotional attachment to storyline.

The novelty of a flawed criminal or violent killer as a protagonist was a part of the ’46 picture; it was all of the ’64. Now there’s no novelty left. And what you really see here is actually a darker story: how, from 1945 to 2005, we got to a point where we have more antiheroes than actual heroes at the movie theater.

(Originally posted March 2005)

So here we are, at the turn of the tide: one vote from winning the court; two-to-three good years from winning the largest stage of the war; the pressures of the Oval Office at their dramatic peak. A critical moment in our nation’s history, time for an individual with the strength and courage to do what the moment demands.

In 2008, I support John McCain.

“But…but…” my friends say incredulously, “But John McCain is crazy!”

“Perhaps,” I answer. “But you say this as if it’s a bad thing?”

It’s true: stubborn and irascible, John McCain’s living rendition of Don Quixote has been infuriating to watch. He always had a bit of the mad saint of the valley to him—a quality that has only increased with age. His breaks from conservative doctrine are manifold, but fewer in number than those of several of his fellow Senators. Yet McCain’s breaks seem so much greater than those of, say, John Warner—why? Because when he goes on his separate path, he damn well wants you to know it, and know that he thinks you and his other conservative opponents to be inches from Lucifer for your damnable orthodoxy.

Or as Lileks put it: “I like John McCain. He seems like the sort of guy you could have a beer with, right up to the moment where he smashes the bottle on the table and jams it in your face over something you said six years ago.”

It all used to have an endearing Abe Simpson quality to it—“Dear Mr. President: There are too many states. Please eliminate three.”—but there is a ferocity that has emerged in recent years that has led to countless run-ins, of the sort staffers share in loud whispers after too many drinks. They tend to remind me less of the befuddled Abe than of Richard Burton as Henry VIII responding to Woolsey in defiance of Rome—“How far would I go, you ask? I would cleave the earth in two like an apple, and fling the halves into the VOID!”

Yet this is also what I’ve always admired about McCain, even if conservatives curse him in the course of legislative battle: he is the same man, whichever side he is on. He brings that same infuriating passion to our cause when his inner compass has led him to alliance. His support of the surge confounded the glitterati of the MSM, who gave him every opportunity to break with the president in a fashion that would’ve led to countless more cover appearances for the late-night self-pleasuring of pimply interns of the New Republic. And yet he could not be agreeable to them, as tempting as the doyennes and the cameras were: he rambled through, grousing yet triumphant, middle fingers raised to Rumsfeld on the right and the New York Times on the left. Even if you dislike McCain, you have to admit: It was a glorious moment for him.

Of course, there is another candidate who shared many of these admirable traits: Rudy Giuliani. It might surprise a few of you to know that hizzoner was my first choice, and first choice by a mile, in this election. No, Rudy’s not a full-bore conservative, but we thought George W. Bush was, and we’ve all seen how that has turned out. The rationale for me was simple: the next four years will be very, very rough for the Republican Party as a whole. The next President will likely be working opposite large Democrat majorities in the House and the Senate. In such a scenario, having a President who does not fear telling Nancy Pelosi to shove it—in fact, ENJOYS the very act and revels in the consequences—is enormously advantageous. In New York City, he survived by keeping his head on a swivel, which is what you gotta do when you find yourself in a vicious cockfight. We could use that in Washington.

Nearly two years ago, I started working in a voluntary capacity alongside others to share the perspective of a dedicated social conservative with the nascent Giuliani campaign, arguing that—with a few internally consistent moves rightward on matters of judicial policy—Rudy could establish himself as the consensus second choice for many social conservatives. He could issue a sterling call for a New Federalism, as Dan McLaughlin has eloquently offered—that while personally pro-choice, he believed Roe to be bad law, wrongly decided, and that every American should have the right to have their voices heard on such an issue by voting in their state. He could argue that it was high time the federal government got back to the business of defending the country, not squabbling over marriage and stem cell funding. With such a position, I still believe that after Brownback, Huckabee, and others inevitably faded, Rudy could have been the consensus pick.

Of course, Rudy’s campaign could easily ignore me or any of the other dirty web folks saying this, but it was advice echoed publicly by genuinely smart people: Patrick Ruffini, Michael Barone and Fred Barnes among others. His campaign chose to ignore all this advice. Instead, they started believing their own name-ID-elevated tracking polls about their frontrunner status. I sat and watched in Houston as Rudy unequivocally passed on the opportunity to become a consensus candidate. They ran the most short-sighted, parochial, and—frankly—flat-out wimpy campaign I’ve ever seen at the national level without the inclusion of Dick Lugar. And that’s saying something.

It’s not like Rudy was the only disappointment, of course. This cycle has been full of them. The only candidate to overperform, as you look over the field, has been Huckabee. As a naturally gifted communicator with good instincts and an evangelistic temperament, I think that people need to recognize that Huckabee represents the views of a significant number of people in the Republican Party, whether they like it or not. If he isn’t chosen for Veep this time, I have no doubt he’ll run again for POTUS in the future, and probably with the Tom Joad impression tempered a bit. A McCain-Huckabee ticket would make Rush Limbaugh’s head explode, as it would for many of our readers, but it’s a ticket that would fully satisfy a good 75% of Republicans, if not more. That’s the reality, folks, and if you don’t like it, then get to changing it.

With Rudy’s ship sinking, Fred a non-factor, and Huckabee hampered by lack of foreign policy chops and a shoestring budget, the opportunity was there for McCain—once the establishment pick, imploded and then reborn, to once again don the armor and save the unseen Dulcinea and her doubtless properly filed FEC paperwork.

We are left with two realistically possible nominees, with hopes for a brokered convention dashed. In 2008, the question has become: do you support the calculating unprincipled friend, or the passionate principled foe?

For me, it came down to three choices, made on three critical fronts: McCain’s decision to side with President Bush on the surge, with President Bush on Alito and Roberts, and against President Bush on the largest entitlement in the history of America. In each of these areas, we were and are agreed—and in each, McCain displayed the courage and patriotism he has always possessed—the strength of character to do what he believed was right, regardless of whether it was popular.

There are other areas, yes. It’s true that when history calls out for a strong choice, I often say “No!” as McCain, onscreen, declared “Yes!” And in response to that same demand, Mitt Romney has answered loud and clear in his four years in elected office: “Present!”

We may rightly ask: what would John McCain’s first 100 days look like? I’m sure any of us could sit down and outline them in rough but accurate fashion—the good and the bad are well known to us by now, and we can anticipate them with all the regular rhythms and sound effects of a 1980s sitcom. We would have to balance against him on some things and cheer him on in others. We know him as a foe and a friend, and know him well.

On the other hand, what would Mitt Romney’s first 100 days look like? I cannot begin to answer that question, because it’s ludicrous to conceive of this as even a possibility. It simply will not happen, ever. The man has the highest negative ratings of any candidate in the field not named Hillary, and she still beats him by an easy margin—one that will only increase as the Oprah-fueled excitement gap widens.

After two-plus years of having Candidate Mitt before us, conservatives have barely scratched the surface of this candidate’s remarkable political liabilities. His weaknesses are not just small or needling—they are epic. More troubling for those who value winning, though, is the fact that Romney campaign’s reactions to assaults are easily foreseen and more easily outmaneuvered; the predictability of out-populisting Huckabee in Michigan followed by blasting John McCain’s conservative position on Medicare in Florida is the hallmark of this movable feast of a campaign (corn dogs here, caviar there, and be sure to peel the skin off that fried chicken).

As general election strategy goes, Barack Obama would have Romney twisted in all directions, with strong words and an easy smile; the Clinton machine would dismantle him piece by piece with a singsong sledgehammer, leaving bits of bone and blood as bleak warnings to future would-be CEO-politicians. The end result is the same: when he’s been chewed by the machine, Mitt Romney will come to symbolize every worst cliche of corporate greed and offense, be reviled as out of touch and inconsistent, and be mocked at length as the whitest white man in America.

Allow me a moment to be blunt: The Democrats will hand Mitt Romney his ass on a silver platter, and force him to wear it as a hat. His sunny demeanor unchanged, he will give a strong farewell speech thanking his supporters, and give the experience a solid B+.

In 2000 I wrote that Joe Lieberman was a man forever at war with his conscience—Mitt Romney battles his very self on what seems like a daily basis. At least Lieberman’s struggle was interesting and soulful—with Romney, one might as well watch varying shades of astroturf compete for territory. Find me the one issue that Mitt Romney will fall on his sword for, and it would be the first. He is not just untested and unmeasured by adversity or serious political firefights (people speak about him “saving the Olympics” as if it was something that mattered; guess what? I’ve been to the Olympics; the Olympics are the United Nations of sport, where everybody gets together to hate on America; nobody actually likes the Olympics, not even Costas), he has the CEO’s strong aversity to the very concept of things falling apart. Equipped with the flat, even optimism that only the gift of a silver spoon and prep school makeout sessions in the bushes near the quad at Cranbrook-Kingswood or Phillips-Exeter can bring to a man’s life, he comes before us as one who has never risked his all for any cause without having a fallback, who has never overcome a vice, who has never wanted for anything.

American voters are fickle creatures, but with great consistency, they recognize such poll-tested waffle-patterned on-demand candidates as being either naïve, otherworldly, or false. With Mitt Romney, would-be heir to the “once adamantly pro-choice” Ronald Reagan (“I was an Independent during Reagan-Bush, I don’t want to take us back to Reagan-Bush”), they may well judge him as all three combined. In another political day, candidates of his ilk won with regularity; they still develop a train of guppy fish lackies in some circles—yet that was before people’s inauthentic comments were fodder for the internet grind, and Romney talking about “seeing the Patriots win the World Series” would get repeated on CNN, Comedy Central, and ESPN News for the next 48 hours, and sent via YouTube to 100,000 people in mere moments. “Conservatives are such rich white idiots,” they will say, and move on.

The Reagan coalition has and will survive many things. But can it survive the total loss of one of its strongest remaining assets—the authentic, consistent, principled leadership it represents? Make no mistake: Clinton or Obama know Mitt Romney’s weaknesses, and they know those of the Republican base as well. They know the opportunity he represents to slice the Reagan legacy away from the Republican Party—a well-manicured pretender to the mantle who gets by on pancake makeup, eyebrow waxing, and hair gel.

So here we are, at the turn of the tide—and you go to the polls with the candidates you have, not the candidates you want. Saint John McCain of the Campaign-Finance Cross versus Willard of the North, well-mannered Ken Doll? The choice is an easy one for me. Let’s help old Don Quixote into the saddle one more time, and set him on his merry way, to win or lose with him.

The Reagan coalition survived Read my lips. It survived Bob Dole’s peanut butter. It survived compassionate conservatism and its kid stepbrother national greatness. And it will survive John McCain and everything he will do as our nominee and as president. In fact—in a twisted version of the ancient Vulcan proverb “Only Nixon could go to China”—only McCain can save it.

They will say the coalition is dead—but we will know better. We know it only sleeps. We will cast our votes knowing that the day will come, four years from now, when a new leader, one who knows what the shining city truly means, stands in front of the fresh-dug tomb, and calls into the blackness, as if to Lazarus—”Come out!”

And when we hear it, we will rise from out of our stupor, dust cobwebs from our arms, stumble to the door, our eyes blinking in the sunlight … and we will know our day has come.

It’s okay, you can smile. The bastards won’t know what hit ‘em.

crossposted at redstate

As the Iowa voters prepare to go to the polls and their places of caucus, the individuals and organizations conservatives respect are raising endorsement flags above their heads, declaring their allegiances. It is time for me to follow suit. And there is no question in my mind that there is one candidate in this cycle who truly stands above the others in several significant areas.

That candidate is Mitt Romney.

I share so many opinions with my colleague Thomas, but on this one I must break from him. All of the candidates in this nomination battle have important and significant qualifications that cannot be underestimated. Yes, they have their flaws—but surely we could trust Rudy Giuliani, the man who fixed the unfixable city, to be an effective Commander in Chief; surely we could trust John McCain, patriot, war hero, old man who shakes fist at clouds, to be a just if irritable POTUS; surely we could trust Fred Thompson, irascible conservative hewn from old growth timber and stained with single malt, to slug the hippies and cut the size of government; surely we could trust Mike Huckabee to use his silver tongue to make NARAL and the ACLU’s collective heads explode on a daily basis; surely we could trust Ron Paul (albeit in an alternate parallel universe where human nature does not exist and there is no need for interstate highways) to rule his idyllic Randian paradise with a soft yet perfectionist touch, fanned with palm fronds by volunteer Oompah Loompahs who sing glorious songs about the gold standard that would make your heart break.

These are good, committed men. There is much in them to appreciate. Yet these candidates all pale when compared to THE Man, Mitt Romney.

Some may point out that Mitt Romney has the least political experience of any candidate in this field. This is of course a bigoted lie. The least politically experienced candidate in this field is, after all, Alan Keyes. And Mitt Romney’s achievements in his lone electoral victory in Massachusetts cannot be underestimated in any respect. As everyone who knows anything knows, Massachusetts residents speak of the Romney years with a mournful fondness unmatched in human history, except perhaps of Adam and Eve speaking in their old age of the lost Garden of Eden. Most cannot speak of it without breaking into a fountain of regretful tears, crying on street corners, wearing sackcloth and ashes as they beg for the return of their lost executive. In the waning days of the Romney rule, one fellow I know actually took to standing outside of the governor’s mansion holding a boombox above his head playing “In Your Eyes,” begging the governor to stay, wailing as if pining for a lost lover.

But Massachusetts’ loss will be America’s gain, as our golden hero brings his unique amalgam of talent in such a critical time in our nation’s history. He has run the best statewide healthcare insurance plan in the country, the best investment capital group in the global economy, and the best Olympics pageant in the history of mankind. Imagine what such a man can do with the United Nations! I know I, for one, am very excited.

Some may say that Romney is merely Steve Forbes circa 2000, a wealthy man attempting to buy a nomination, with few principles but a better face. This is a shallow, bigoted lie. Mitt Romney’s other physical features are also far more attractive than Mr. Forbes’, as anyone could tell you. Mr. Forbes also showed himself to be an inflexible and non-representative politician what with his loyalty to the so-called Flat Tax and his dedicated work on behalf of fiscal conservatism. To be charitable, perhaps it is true that in one area, and one area only, Mitt Romney lags behind Mr. Forbes—Mr. Forbes has an obvious and ironic sense of humor and wit, as displayed with verve on Saturday Night Live, while Governor Romney’s laugh has been called “robot-like,” “less human than Al Gore,” and “like a horse coughing on a large fly” by some. But no worries, he is cognizant of this minor personal flaw—we are continuing to work with the focus group on this and will have the Romney laugh resolved into a smooth, hearty guffaw in time for the general election.

Some may say that Romney’s endorsement by the National Review was a dark moment in the history of that fine journal. This is yet another bigoted lie. The truth is that the New York offices of the National Review have been very even handed throughout this entire process. They have weighed each candidate equally, and found the rest wanting. They do have high standards—the National Review famously declined to endorse Dwight D. Eisenhower, after all—but in each and every way that was meaningful, Mitt Romney represents their views.

This brings us to an important point. Some may say that Romney is not a candidate who can be trusted. This is another bigoted lie. On the contrary: we can absolutely trust him! We can trust him to follow the path that our country charts for him. Are we not interested in representative government? Of course we are! And Mitt Romney is perhaps the most representative of all the candidates to ever seek the presidency of any nation, ever, even the imaginary ones with the aforementioned Oompah Loompahs—there is nothing untrustworthy about this man, not even his hair. When the electorate wants him to believe something, he believes it! When they want him to oppose something, he opposes it! When they are divided, he waffles! This is man is not just the one to lead our nation—he symbolizes it in all its indecisive, fickle greatness, just as Ronald Reagan did when he stopped being pro-choice!

Some may say that comparing Romney to Reagan is like comparing 98 Degrees to The Beatles. But they are by that very argument revealing themselves as nothing more than shallow bigots who have allowed their bigoted minds to overwhelm their slightly less-bigoted hearts to create a bigoted bigot-fest of bigotry.

The example, however, provides some interesting comparisons. It is true that America loves all things processed and manufactured—one need only note the aisles of meats, cheeses, music, television, and grande lite vanilla soy frappucinos. But it is also true that for every giddy, screaming fan of such sparkling pre-packaged talent as Ashley Simpson, Jamie Lynn Spears, or Hannah Montana, there are also “player-haters” who denounce these nipped, tucked, remastered and vacuum-sealed productions as “sickeningly sweet” or “almost repulsive” or “no-talent assclowns.”

Yet as the Republican brand faces an identity crisis, shouldn’t we take a cue from reality television and the boy band mafia? The American people LIKE things that are processed, predictable, and fluctuate as needed. Don’t we believe, as free market conservatives, that the market should get what it wants? This is an on-demand culture, and it’s time we met the demand with the man who understands how to adapt the best, and the fastest, to suit the needs of the moment.

Don’t you see? When the bigoted liars attack Mitt Romney for saying things like “let me check my notes” on an issue as important as the tactical surge in Iraq, they are merely confusing a negative with a positive. Aren’t you tired of the tone-deaf administration we’ve got right now? Under a Mitt Romney administration, our president will understand America enough to know that he needs to check the polls up to the very minute of the State of the Union address to determine what he ought to say about our Global Warming policy. Want to make it illegal to drive cars? Want to make it illegal NOT to drive a Hummer? America, now you too can decide! Just dial the number and press 1 or 2 respectively to make your voice heard.

Some may say, such as Redstate’s own Dan McLaughlin in his well-written but clearly wrong-headed series on the Unbearable Lightness of Mitt, that Romney is a liability for the Republican Party—that he has the highest negatives of any potential nominee, rivaling Hillary Clinton’s. Some may say that Mitt Romney’s path to the nomination would be a victory for the lowest common denominator. And some may say that given the power of the Executive Branch, Mitt Romney’s cadre of loyal supporters will be like Clintonites on speed, leaving a path of vindictive destruction as they target bigoted liars to be investigated, audited, and personally embarrassed.

These are all bigoted lies, and if you believe them, please register your complaint below while including your email, permanent address, and SSN for our files. We will contact you after the election.

I have chosen not to listen to such fools. Fie upon them. It is the dawn of the age of the pre-packaged candidate. Look on Mitt Romney’s works, ye mighty bigots, and despair.

crossposted at redstate

We got in line yesterday around 3 PM, with about a hundred people ahead of us. We were dead center in the front row, bordering on the reflecting pool, looking straight ahead at the Capitol and the glowering statue of General Grant on horseback. We waited for the arrival.

Folks were from everywhere – Iowa, Austin, Chicago, Minnesota, Kentucky, Frankfurt. Not everyone was a Republican… but someone who saw me reading NR did ask if Ramesh’s piece on Spitzer was good. It was probably the most calm and polite line I’ve ever seen in DC. It really was sweltering, but the Red Cross was there, and water was plentiful.

That mini-evacuation scare was really just frightening to the out-of-towners (anyone who works on the Hill is used to getting those sort of warnings by now), and the locals helped people out. All ages were there – old military men, young families, a baby that couldn’t have been more than a year old.

We counted the stacks of water bottles on wooden pallets scattered around the grounds. Approximately 1,800 bottles per pallet. Upwards of 110,000 bottles of water. They were going to need more.

The F-15s flew right above us, the sunlight winking off their wings. As the last fighter broke off towards heaven in The Missing Man maneuver, I knew this was one of those moments I’ll be telling my grandchildren about someday.

There was a circle of silence that surrounded the horse without a rider – it was awesome, in the true sense of the word. The murmur went through the crowd from those holding newspaper clippings – those were his boots in the stirrups. They were. But of course they would be.

At first, there were just a few hundred people in line. Then it grew. As the casket made its way slowly up Constitution, passing by the thousands who lined the streets and the balconies, watchers would break off and move up towards the line. They stood in families and groups and in crowds, on the sidewalks and the steps, knowing that others stood at home.

By the time the caisson reached us, there were tens of thousands of them, moving steadily down the mall, watching from a distance as the honor guard carried The Man Who Wrestled the Bear up the steps.

I’ve never had a soft spot for Nancy. But to see her standing up there, a frail yet strong figure at the top of the wide stairway, reaching out for one touch, was as moving a sight as I have ever seen.

The lines of the honor guard looked straight and steady as they bore him through the door. Someone cheered – and then another – and then everyone was clapping and whistling, as if welcoming home a conquering hero.

There were hours more to go in the heat as we worked our way through security and up towards the southwest entrance. The sun set when we were by the reflecting pool. We were in the first group to go in – they were counting us off, and we were numbers 143 and 144.

Up the steps, across the front, through the outer door, into the entranceway. Throats are clenched, hands held tight. The guard nods. The doors open.

The room is hushed. The crusty military man in front of us, whose legs were broken on some mission long ago, creaked up to the velvet rope and did a slow, solemn salute. We stepped together around the axis of the rotunda, as slow and deliberate as the honor guard. The draped flag shone bright in the spotlights, shimmering with color, vivid and unashamed.

We wept for a man born before our grandfathers.

One last glance, and then we are in the outside world again. The air seems lighter now. Standing atop the Capitol steps, we look across towards the Potomac – past the crowd, the trees, the monuments of heroes, and up up up to that night sky where the fighter jet rose like a soul aloft, busting through the clouds – straight on through to the kingdom of heaven.