Rand Paul's Bilderberg “No Comment” and The Logan Act

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Rand Paul has been under intense scrutiny, not from usual suspects, but from his father’s national base of fervent libertarians and constitutionalists.  Since his controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney last week it has been all-hands-on-deck in the liberty movement.  People are beginning to know a little bit more about Rand and they do not like what they see – the honeymoon is over.

While some speculate his endorsement was a way to neutralize opposition from establishment GOP, laying down goodwill for his anticipated presidential run in 2016, others wonder whether he may be positioning himself as Lady Liberty’s double agent.  Ruminations aside, antennas are up and ready to analyze Rand’s next utterance.

This is one of the latest:

The secretive Bilderberg meeting concluded its most recent controversial confab earlier this month in Chantilly, Virginia.  The conference welcomed its typical shadowy constellation of global elite including many from all corners of American government: NSA chief General Keith Alexander; Thomas Donilon, Obama’s National Security Adviser; former U.S. National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger; failed GOP Presidential hopeful and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.); World Bank boss Robert Zoellick; Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Co-Chair and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and reportedly, among others, one - Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

The “reporter” from WGCN Radio Chicago was unable to confront Sen. Paul about his endorsee’s participation in Bilderberg, but his “no comment” on whether Kerry (and by extension his new found political pal) was in violation of the Logan Act speaks volumes; specifically he didn’t say “no.”  This reinforces Sen. Paul’s purported political gambit – sacrificing for a moment philosophical purity for the larger more pragmatic prize of the Presidency down the line.

Sen. Paul is no doubt familiar with his father’s position on members of the U.S. government meeting behind closed doors and discussing policy.  Rep. Paul has called for investigations into public officials and their Bilderberg attendance.  On talk radio he questioned Gov. Rick Perry for his participation:

“This information about him going over there and violating the Logan Act and getting involved, I’m just impressed that that’s in the ordinary media — I think that’s encouraging, too...”

While it is clear by now the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree it is also evident that Sen. Paul is not his father and may not be as eager to work outside the system as libertarian ideologues would wish him to be.

The Senator’s political nolo contendre with regard to the Logan Act thus exposes many things: his misgivings with the secretive annual meetings, his refusal to abandon a tenuous political alliance with the political establishment, but most of all his realism.

If Sen. Paul can keep his cards close, even from a once adoring alternative media and if he can weather reactionary Paulistas his options remain aplenty moving forward.  To delve into an obscure and evidently toothless piece of legislation isn’t good politics and hurts him more than it would bring violators to justice.

To be sure, the Logan Act has barely seen the inside of a court room and the only times it has been mentioned is in the congressional record and referenced within Justice Sutherland’s 1936 Supreme Court opinion affirming the President as constitutional representative of the U.S. with regard to foreign nations.

The Logan Act reads, in part, as follows:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

When Sen. George McGovern was accused of its violation in 1975 the U.S. State Department issued this statement:

“The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution…”

Nowhere in the act does it say that members of our government can’t meet with other government agents “in secret” as so many activists assert.  Meeting in secret or at least without record, in and of itself, is not illegal and in fact happens regularly even outside the twenty or so elite summits that occur every year around the world.

It is interesting to note that Dr. George Logan, from whom the bill derives its name, was a pacifist who helped quell tensions when the U.S. and France fought an essentially undeclared war at sea – the Quasi War – at the end of the 1700s.  When Logan returned successful partisan Federalists were unhappy he received undue adulation from the media and sought through law to “curb the temerity and impudence” of such individuals. 

The question arises then: when are we to apply and not apply the Logan Act?  Are we to merely call for its enforcement when it offends our egalitarian and conspicuous sensibilities?  That wasn’t its intent.  The Logan Act has been used in the past to threaten those who want to continue dialogue when our government has ended diplomacy.  Think Jesse Jackson and his Cuban negotiations, Sen. McGovern and Stokely Carmichael in protest to Vietnam.

There is as much an opportunity for enemies of peace to use this act (if it ever saw the light of day) against those who would choose to open a back channel and avert open war, say with Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia as it is for those to use it against the world’s enigmatic power brokers seeking to influence our elected representatives.  Something lobbyists do on a daily basis.

But, how many undeclared wars do we currently fight?  If Rand Paul, or Ron Paul for that matter, were prosecuted under the Logan Act attempting to quell one of these many dubious interventions – undeclared wars – we now find ourselves apart, the irony would be overwhelming.

What activists and concerned citizens should continue to do is scrutinize and expose where the rubber meets the road, where ideas are put into action – political reform, legislation, executive orders, court decisions, administrative rules and regulations, etc.

While every decision our leaders make should be thoroughly investigated, vetted and debated, for now Rand Paul should be allotted some breathing room.  He has set himself on the path for the presidency and while many wish he’d just take off where Ron left off, the princeling may not be – his thing.  Rand has yet, as far as his voting record is concerned, to fall to the dark side, until then we should reserve judgment.

What Rand Paul's Endorsement Is and Isn't

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for President has formed a crack in the Paulista universe.  The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters, save an actual poll, are clearly rejecting the move as a sign that after all of their hard work, donations and success Rand has abandoned his base and sold out to the political establishment.  Just take a look at his Facebook page, yikes.

One example of the outrage: “NWO has a brand new tool in their toolbox.  How could you?”

Ron Paul by any measurement led the libertarian movement out of the political wilderness.  For decades he remained stalwart in his advocacy of the Constitution often being a lone voice of reason amidst calls for war, bank bailouts, undermining civil liberties and growth of national government.  Similarly his son has espoused these beliefs with the same vigor in his brief time in the Senate and has often been found willing to debate the finer points of libertarian philosophy while it may not often be popular.

The Pauls have been rock stars of a young, growing and vibrant liberty movement, which has proven capable of dismantling and remaking anachronistic state GOP leadership in their own image.  The Paulistas, while rancorous at times and buying wholesale into a very cynical view of their government, have displayed adept political maneuverability in securing more delegates than anyone thought possible.

The Ron Paul Revolution has tapped into a sustainable and vigorous movement while simultaneously creating a home replete with models of representation for moderates, disaffected liberals and disgruntled conservatives.  Why then would Rand endorse the personification of establishment politics?

First, lets make clear that what Rand Paul has not done, which is hurt the liberty movement.  The recent success of Ron Paul has shown the growing power of this faction of new politics.  The Ron Paul Republican is here to stay and that’s why you won’t see Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney.  The brand is secure, however, there is some politics left to play – and this is all about politics.

The Paul strategy is quite clear - graft healthy philosophy onto a dying system.

Rand Paul's ideology might not be identical to his father's, however, the
movement of which he claims to still be apart may act like a life giving
philosophical graft.  The GOP is the dead vine blow, the liberty
movement is grafted above.

There is a reason why Rand chose Sean Hannity’s Fox News program to announce.  It is one of the most watched shows on television and the platform is directed right into the homes of moderates and the full breadth of the conservative establishment.  His intended audience was the GOP not his base, which looked at objectively is a small, but growing part Republican politics.

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post:

"In making clear that [Rand Paul] is publicly behind Romney, Rand Paul is sending a very clear signal: I’m a good soldier for the GOP.

Make no mistake: The Republican party establishment will never embrace Rand Paul as one of their own — nor would he want them to. But, it is possible that Paul playing the role of loyal Republican in the 2012 election could well neutralize some of the fears the party regulars have about the prospects of him carrying their standard at some point down the line."

His gamble has initially paid off as self proclaimed “neocon” commentators are already warming to a future Rand Paul run. As Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller crassly put it: “He’s everything you like about Ron Paul, without the crazy.”

This neutralizing effect would quell the anxiety over future attempts at interparty quibbling and reported outright fraud.  Even the firebrand Alex Jones, an advocate of libertarianism and paleoconservative ethos, on his radio program today wanted to believe that Rand and Ron Paul were more politically savvy than it would seem given the endorsement.  However, he argued that not only was this a bad move for Rand Paul, who has been on his show many times along with his father Ron Paul, but it was a move that the media elite and establishment agents may use to attempt to splinter the liberty movement.

Cynicism has its place, however, sometimes it gets in the way.  Jones does bring up a great point though, Ron and Rand most definitely coordinated the move, but to what end?  Cillizza points to something we’ve all suspected, but what about the Romney/Paul ticket?

We have speculated Ron Paul as a possible Vice President and gave the reasons why it would be a good idea.  We have also suggested Rand may be tapped for VP for the same reasons.  Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative gives a few more:

"The symbolic power shift of putting an anti-statist, non-interventionist Republican in the number 2 slot — in contrast to Cheney in the last GOP administration — would have real-world consequences. That would keep Romney more interested than he would otherwise be in placating constitutionalists, for fear of an embarrassing split within his adminitration.

And a public official never just occupies a single office: the staff that Rand would put into executive-branch positions (even those associated with the institutionally weak vice presidency) would gain experience that would make them powerful rivals to the neoconservatives in staffing future GOP administrations."

Unfortunately none of these scenarios are likely to come to fruition.  The motivation against Barack Obama is demonstrably more widespread than the enthusiasm for Rand Paul and other than enthusiasm and fresh ideas Rand Paul doesn’t bring much to the table – as far as an establishment politician is concerned.  Marco Rubio on the other hand offers Latinos and Florida, Nikki Haley offers women and ostensibly some libertarianism, while Rob Portman is simply a reassuring water carrier.

To be sure, this was a political decision; therefore it should be judged on those grounds.  If Rand Paul doesn’t get anything for his endorsement, while pulling the chair out from under his supporters, it will be to his chagrin.  However, speaking slots at the GOP convention, cabinet appointments and other tangible influence will be a victory for the liberty wing of the GOP.  Revolutions don’t occur overnight, at least the organic ones.

Paul is Out, Liberty Coalition is In

Topher Morrison 

www.PurpleSerf.com

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Paul has thrown in the towel, kind of.  He will not be competing in any of the states that have yet to vote, namely his home state of Texas and the other delegate mammoth, California.  Needless to say, Mitt Romney is the nominee, but this won’t be the last time we hear from Ron Paul.

From the Washington Times:

"Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August."

For the coalition of conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, paleo conservatives, gold bugs, etc. who fell in line behind Dr. Paul this has always been more about the elevation of ideas than it has been a reaction against Mitt Romney or a “cult of personality” as some would have it.  Ron Paul is an admirable man, but as far as personality goes there are other more exciting libertarians – as we shall see.

This last drive was about building a home for sound money, constitutional government and a responsible foreign policy within the GOP.  That goal has been achieved.  You may be a Reagan Republican or a New Deal Democrat, but there is a new club to choose.  As I have mentioned before, 2012 bears witness to the rise of the Ron Paul Republican.

After the convention Ron Paul will most likely focus on his Campaign for Liberty and spreading the message he has for decades.  The 74-year-old Representative of Texas will conclude his official political life and will no doubt offer his support and endorsement to a new generation of libertarians.

Watch for politicians in the Liberty Caucus, the libertarian wing of the Republican Party to swell in the coming years.  Its members will undoubtedly be the next place to look for another Ron Paul.  Others to keep an eye on are:

Wayne Allen Root, vice presidential
candidate for the Libertarian Party
 and media personality

Sen. Rand Paul (R-TN)
Son of Ron Paul

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Endorsed Ron Paul for President (2012)
and one of the youngest federal office holders.

There is a growing awareness of what libertarianism, just check out the Top 100 Libertarian Blogs, the message is expanding.  The most amazing thing about the liberty perspective, however, is the lack of recidivism to the old left/right paradigm.  Unlike all of the ex-conservative and ex-liberal stories out there – once a libertarian always a libertarian.

3 Reasons to Repeal 1913

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

cross-posted at

GreeneWave.com

This Saturday at a stump speech in Rochester, Minnesota Ron Paul may have outdone even himself.  Famous for advocating the repeal of many laws, the elimination of numerous agencies and substantially reducing the size and scope of the federal government Ron Paul recently told the Wall Street Journal “I’d really like to repeal 1913.”  Why a whole year?  Three reasons:

·      On February 3, 1913 the 16^th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified.  The amendment allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states per the Constitution Article I, Sections 2,8, and 9.

·      On May 31^st, 1913 the 17^th Amendment was declared part of the Constitution by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan.  It established the direct election of U.S. Senators by popular vote stripping the right away from the state legislators.

·      On December 23, 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed.  This act grants a consortium of private banks legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes.

These three events are barely discussed in today’s retail politics, but they are at the genesis of nearly every controversy the country suffers from today.  After 1913, the United States, once a grand laboratory of democratic experiments became irrevocably chained to the one-size-fits-all decisions of experts and special interests in Washington D.C.

The 16^th Amendment or the federal income tax created the IRS as we know it today and allows the federal government to pool national wealth and keep it without returning it to the states.  This allows Washington to create massive entitlement programs, go to war, prop up foreign governments, fund extensive bureaucracies and bribe state governments with their own money to accept federal regulation.

The 17^th Amendment, while affirming the redemptive qualities of popular sovereignty by instituting direct elections of U.S. Senators, removed the state governments from the federal process.  The bicameral legislature was originally set up to represent both the people (House of Representatives) and the states (Senate) as an indispensible component of federalism and an essential check on government overreach.

Prior to 1913 Senators gave the 10^th Amendment teeth by acting as jealous guardians of individual state rights.  Held to account by local legislatures U.S. Senators were charged with preventing unlawful federal encroachment upon those rights.  Any legislation that would emphasize the federal government over of the state governments or their citizens would be voted down.

The Federal Reserve Act also known as the Aldrich Plan effectively privatized what was otherwise a public utility, the nations money supply.  Handing monetary policy over to a fundamental conflict of interest is all that is important here.  The Constitution as originally conceived charged Congress with the public regulation of monetary policy, not private banks.  The Federal Reserve inherently desires our government to spend more and thereby borrow more at interest, whether it be for peace or war.

Few Americans appreciate the fact that while the last century is known as the “American Century” we began it already on top.   By 1906 the United States was the dominant economy in the world, enjoying the highest living standards and literally recreating the world in our image.  It stands to reason therefore that it is what we did (or better yet, did not do) as a country in the 19^th century, which led to our prominence in the 20^th.

With this in mind it strikes me as odd when someone praises what we “accomplished” during the last century when it in fact these accomplishments testify to where we are now – divided, decadent, laden with debt and in decline.   Nonetheless it has become a buzzword for some to claim the Tea Party movement, conservative leaders and libertarians want to “repeal the 20^th century” evidenced here, here, here and in this video:

This byword hides the fact that nearly all of the 20^th century’s legislative accomplishments and wars are predicated on the fundamental changes that literally ripped the heart and soul out of the Constitution.  Its a matter of perspective, does one measure accomplishments on what we are able to do through government namely by winning wars or passing laws?  Or does one measure accomplishments on our aggregate ability to progress and add value to each others lives, something government can never do?

These three pieces of legislation over the last 105 years acting in concert have effectively ended capitalism and replaced it with corporatism.  The year of 1913 was crucial in reducing a vibrant republic to one glacial organism monolithic in its agenda, pallid in its imagination, unresponsive to the needs of its people and growing in capacity to harm not only Americans, but others as well.  We must now ask ourselves: shall we like so many other nations succumb and be pulled back into the fog of history or are we to reclaim our culture of freedom and emphasis on the individual and resist the fate of so many nations?

Ron Paul's Liberal Honey

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

cross posted at

GreeneWave.com

   Now that everyone’s feet have hit the ground and Romney has reasserted his “front runner status” (as the mainstream media enjoys to browbeat) some like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard are musing about another Santorum surge; praying, hoping for Bush 2.0.  There is only one problem.  Although the GOP is potentially dethroning one of the most radical presidencies since FDR or LBJ, as Kristol laments, their Florida primary turnout was actually down 12% from 2008. 

How can Barak Hussein Obama, the Premier of Polarization, not light a fire under the GOP?  They better figure it out.  In Florida, Mitt Romney may have been able to outspend Newt Gingrich by a 4 to 1 margin; that will not be the case against Barack’s billion-dollar war chest.  Romney will need a lot more than millions in milquetoast rhetoric to revitalize this evidently anemic party. 

To be fair, this may have merely been the Florida GOP, Iowa’s turnout after all was record breaking, but was that because of Romney or something else?  Maybe it was the ugliness of the campaign that kept Floridians at home, but that most assuredly will not change as the Democrats plan to make this election more about character than content.  Perhaps it was the nature of the caucus. 

While the Florida Slugfest was grabbing national attention Ron Paul as usual was quiet, but diligent.  He was the first to release ads in Minnesota and Nevada and able to stay clear of the mud he was left alone to continue his long-term caucus strategy, which is proving fruitful regardless of the what the Media Masters tell you.

Ron Paul claims he is 3^rd in delegate count and supported: here and here even though the MSM has him in 4^th: here, here and here.  Why the discrepancy?  Free information sites like Wikipedia and The Green Papers offer a little more insight into the fog that often surrounds the U.S. electoral system. 

There are, for example, differences in “soft” versus “hard” delegates and “pledged” or “bound” delegates versus “unpledged” or “not bound” delegates. It essentially boils down to reporting projected versus formally pledged delegates.  The MSM prefers the latter.  In the end it’s more than just the ballot box, as Politico’s James Hohmann points out:

The primary and caucus “…states don’t award delegates on the day they hold votes, instead apportioning delegates at local party meetings, where Paul’s camp believes its superior organization can help it capture a majority that their candidate may not have won outright on election day.”

Spontaneous organization and zeal as I have mentioned is the bread and butter of Ron Paul’s Guerilla Grassroots.

            As the Christian Science Monitor points out Ron Paul with this odd strategy may in fact win more delegates this coming month than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich combined!  The reason?  It is what Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all lack and what Ron Paul is in large supply – liberal honey.    

As evidenced in Iowa, Ron Paul pulls from the top of the political spectrum.  This may seem odd to hear, however, many now understand there is a false dichotomy afoot when someone tries to paint another as either left or right.  It is why we see Americans leaving the GOP and Democratic parties in droves.  Fundamentally the real dichotomy is authority versus liberty, everything else is retail politics.

Ron Paul is above the fray in this respect pulling and converting ostensibly progressive and conservative independents into his libertarian coalition of sustainable governance.  The most attractive characteristic of Paul’s liberal honey is it’s cheap enough for a conservative, but sweet enough for a liberal. 

Take ending the War on Drugs for instance.  It promotes personal responsibility with respect to treatment and education while simultaneously emancipating billions of taxpayer dollars dedicated to massive incarceration, property seizures and interdiction from the grip of big government.  Legalizing and regulating drugs like alcohol and tobacco as they once were would serve the single biggest blow to drug cartels and inner city gangs sustained by the black market’s inflated prices.  Moreover, the Drug War disproportionally affects minorities whom notoriously side with Democrats.  Ron Paul’s plan fundamentally undermines this entitlement.

            Liberal honey most importantly allows a left leaning voter to swallow some of Ron Paul’s economic medicine some view as austere.  His stance on the Federal Reserve for example is as bipartisan as it gets, over 75% of voters want a full audit of the Fed.  The idea there is a coalition of private banks dictating how much money to print for themselves, leading to trickle down inflation, is appalling to most Americans.  Ron Paul retains nearly exclusive rights to this idea – End The Fed.

            Local governance looms large in our political future too.   The famous liberal idiom “think globally, act locally” is about to be fulfilled and added to the libertarian lexicon – “think globally, govern locally.”  For far too long central planning has concentrated the power of government in Washington D.C. at the expense of our states, counties and townships.  Ron Paul’s efforts to allow the states to decide on abortion, gay marriage and education allowing everyone to more easily vote with their feet by rekindling our 50 democratic laboratories.

            While the anti-war movement was eviscerated after the election of our Peace President Barack Obama, Ron Paul’s plans to close our foreign bases and return our troops home resonates with independents, paleo-conservatives and progressives alike.  Its police state ancillary, the technological and industrial blowback from our militant adventurism, is on Ron Paul’s chopping block too.  Ending the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, fusion centers, and curtailing Top Secret America appeals to social libertarians and liberals alike.

          When it comes to a head to head between Barack Obama and Ron Paul it would be a gas to see a 74 year old man run a hard right on economics all the while luring Obama’s base away from under him with all natural liberal honey.

How is Ron Paul like a Chevy Commercial?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Poll averages since November 2010 for the 2012 GOP
presidential nomination.
Image Source: RealClearPolitics.com

He's like a rock, ohh like a rock!  Dependable, long lasting and hard working a true and tested 2012 Ron Paul at a poll near you!  Maybe Bob Seger could endorse Ron Paul, I can just see the campaign ad now...


          Throughout the campaign, much like his career, Ron Paul has been the consistent conservative; like his policies his support has remained unwavering.  With the exception of two candidates whom were essentially dead-on-arrival, Ron Paul has had the lowest poll swings among all the candidates.  The GOP presidential nomination has resembled the stock market more than it has a traditional campaign.  Just look at those coasters, it could make an Imagineer blush!


          There have been lots of hares in this race from Rick Perry's meteoric rise and crash to Herman Cain's sharp ascension, but Ron Paul's slow and steady pace may indeed win him the race.  While a massive swing into the positive would of course be welcomed by the Ron Paul campaign and his ardent Paulistas, it may be better to save his growing war chest for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.


          The Drudge Report linked "New Polls Show: Romney Ahead in First Four States", but the article also mentioned something not widely accepted, the fact that it looks as though Ron Paul is beating not only Newt Gingrich, but Rick Perry as well.  Moreover, as Bachmann's summer star continues to fade Rick Santorum and John Huntsman look more than ever, irrelevant.  Once all three have finally sung their last song all attention will undoubtedly be on three others: Cain, Romney and Perry, but Ron Paul will evidently be in 3rd regardless of who is paying attention.  

The Real GOP Choice: Paul or Romney?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Who's it going to be GOP?

Ron Paul is now and has been for sometime a legitimate candidate.  Romney is on his second chance, Paul is as well.  A recent Rasmussen Report shows Romney is the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama, but Paul is within a percentage point.  The question then is, who will the GOP rather have as their candidate, Paul or Romney?


          Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a skillful debator and a smooth orator.  Ron Paul on the other hand has a voice that unfortunately comes off a bit whinny, he tends to stammer and loses a bit of coherence from time to time.  However, when in small groups, in interviews with major media and when compared to last year the Congressman from Texas has made huge improvements in his ability to connect with people. 


          When the rubber meets the road, Romney is peeling out.  Mitt received some Big Love from fellow Republican Jeff Flake today adding fuel to establishment support along with the capitulation of Tim Pawlenty who as of last week permanently subdued his criticism of Obamneycare and jumped on board with the former Governor of Massachusetts.  Other nominations like Sarah Palin (if she doesn't run), conservatives stars like Paul Ryan, and other campaign dropouts that may be cannibalized are waiting in the wings.  Is there any doubt that John Huntsman will propose in similar fashion and marry into the Romney camp once his campaign has embraced its futility?  I think not. 


           Meanwhile... Rick Perry has a commanding lead over both Paul and Romney in major polling, yet he falls behind Obama 46% to 39%, according to Rasmussen.  Perry enjoys broad support among conservatives and has Lord Limbaugh fawning since I can't remember, but can he "win over suburbia?"  The differences in Romney and Perry are succinctly described by Alex Castellanos, former aid to Romney:

“You can see the playbook pretty clearly here: It’s populist against patrician, it’s rural Texas steel against unflappable Romney coolness, conservative versus center-right establishment, Texas strength versus Romney’s imperturbability, Perry’s simplicity versus Romney’s flexibility.”

It is on this question that the Romney appeal factors in, electability.  For once Ron Paul is a factor is this equation as well.  Paul is in third in a Real Clear Politics average if the non-candidate Sarah Palin and those voting for her are factored out.  The recent surge for Paul came after Bachmann's latest backfire.


          If we accept, contrary to the generic ballot, which favors Republicans on average by 0.5% that if Perry wins the GOP nomination he will lose to Obama, who is most reflective of the country's and the GOP's values?  Most Americans want Obamacare repealed while only a third believe it is good for America.  In this case Romney and his health care reform in Massachusetts isn't copacetic with the American mainstream.  


          When it comes to bailouts, while Romney criticized holding General Motor's hand on CNN he championed the TARP program, the essentially ex post facto legislation endorsing the myriad of financial vehicles covertly concocted by the Federal Reserve to bailout big banks.  At the 2009 CPAC Conference Romney evidently didn't believe America could survive without them:

"I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system."

          Ron Paul on the other hand excoriated all attempts at price fixing, printing money, secret lending, etc. and therefore shares more common ground with the American people who loath all recent bailouts than Mr. Romney.  Moreover, the American public wants to see the Federal Reserve fully audited, however, Mitt is contented with current auditing practices as he "believes" the Fed is "independently audited" and doesn't want Congress meddling in its affairs.  If the Fed is so transparent perhaps Romney will explain why Bloomberg required the US Supreme Court and a FOIA request to pry out that the they lent $1.2 trillion in secret lifelines to foreign banks.

          When it comes to foreign adventurism or national defense (can't seem to find a consensus definition) the American public overwhelmingly wants out of 10 years in Afghanistan, doesn't know or care for anything in Libya, almost half don't think "major" cuts in defense will put America at risk, and almost 80% of Americans feel we spend too much protecting other countries.  Listening to our generals, as Mr. Romey would have it, most likely doesn't accomplish a more noninterventionist foreign policy something mainstream America seems to crave. 

          If the campaign were tomorrow, the GOP would be in a tough position to choose to either to win big and lament four to eight years with a flexible patrician or a choose a arduous intellectual battle on behalf of a consistent and ardent libertarian.  If the GOP wants change, I'd suggest they put their helmets on and run with Ron.