Posted on 06/04/2011 1:34:11 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
When Sarah Palin came out against government subsidies in general, including ethanol subsidies, which are reputedly inviolable among voters in grain producing states like Iowa, the beltway archons pronounced this a very grave problem for her in the "first in the nation" Iowa caucuses this February 6. Since she is expected to win here, a loss in Iowa would finish her campaign early, so they tell us. As a stopped clock, is this one of the two times for the beltway "wise men" are correct? No, it is not. Palin's position against government subsidies in general is good fiscal and pro-free-market policy. But, as is frequently the case, it is good politics as well.
I am not at all convinced that her position against ethanol subsidies costs Palin Iowa. My reasons are twofold. Opposing ethanol subsidies separates her from the panderers, and her rejoinder to any attack on this front is at once principled and practical: that is, she opposes subsidies because they are anti-Free Market (principle) and because we can’t afford them any more (practical). What is the use of promising a subsidy, she might ask, if the federal government is too broke to make good on it? With a $14 trillion debt, that argument has real resonance. The ethanol subsides are a threat to other programs which would be relatively more unjust to cut, like Medicare for seniors, who have actually paid into a system and thus should prime those who are merely being subsidized gratuitously. This argument would apply to Iowa seniors as well, and would have real political "legs", since Iowa just happens to be the fourth oldest state in the Union (just behind Florida, Pennsylvania and West Virginia according to the 2000 Census, with 14.9% of its population over the age of 65).
She can frame these latter day "Corn Laws" by referring to the Corn Laws of the 19th Century. The 19th Century Corn Laws were a protective tariff (or tax) designed to shield the British grain market from cheaper foreign imports. In their operation, however, they punished the British consumer (who ultimately paid the tax through higher prices) and not only protected the domestic grain industry but restrained Free trade and withdrew capital from free market commerce, with a net negative effect on wealth creation. In contrast, the ethanol subsides are not a direct tax but, rather, an indirect one, which ultimately falls on the American taxpayer and is financed--in the near term-- by money borrowed from foreign countries. To continue these subsides under the current circumstances is not just bad policy, but sheer madness. When their toxic effect is properly explained by someone who really believes it, the electorate, even in Iowa, will not only understand but will embrace the anti-subsidy position.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that I am wrong and that her stand on ethanol, coupled with the presence of the TEA party stalking horse(s) in Iowa allows Romney or Pawlenty to gain a plurality. Is that the end of the game for Sarah Palin? Not by a long shot. Remember 1976. Gerald Ford, a sitting President, won the first six caucus/primaries in a row (Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Florida and Illinois), stretching from January 27 until March 23, a two month string of defeats before Reagan finally broke through to upset Ford in North Carolina. Reagan then went on a tear of victories through the south and the west that left him only a few delegates short of a first ballot victory. (Students of Reagan remember that his campaign’s failure to file a full slate of delegates in some states--most prominently Pennsylvania-- likely cost him the 1976 nomination.)
Let’s say she loses Iowa and then loses New Hampshire, as Reagan did in 1976. Where do the primaries go next? South to South Carolina and to the socially conservative (and delegate rich) states in Dixie. And to the equally delegate rich and libertarian-conservative west. And what of the field? It will be thinner by then. Mitt Romney, if he has eked out victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, will cause the bile to rise in southern and western throats and will be the subject of a "stop-Romney" campaign. Cain and Bachmann will NOT win Iowa and thus will have run out of money and probably dropped out long before the primaries go south. Even should they persist, however, if their voters have provided the margin to defeat Palin in the first two primaries, Cain and Bachmann will be seen (at least operationally) as Romney allies. They will thus be marginalized and will lose any viability as stalking horses either in Dixie or in the West. As the Panama Canal was Reagan’s issue, Romneycare will be hers. Stripped of his blockers, Romney will be a ripe and easy target for Palin everywhere south of Mason/Dixon and west of the Mississippi.
But, her detractors will argue, 2012 is not 1976. Granted. The political landscape is far friendlier to a Reagan style, TEA party conservative in 2012 than it was in 1976 when the Gipper came within a eyelash of denying a sitting President the nomination. Unlike Gerald Ford, however, Mitt Romney is not President of the United States and thus has no institutional claim on the nomination, as Ford did. And the delegate map is not the same either. Roughly the same number of delegates is needed to nominate now as then: 1130 delegates in 1976; 1212 delegates in 2012. But the relative size of the state delegations has changed dramatically. The population shifts and voting patterns of the last 35 years have seen the delegate totals in the South and Mountain West come to dwarf those in the Northeast, which is the only even arguable Romney stronghold. For example, with a combined population of 9.6 million, staunchly conservative Alabama and Louisiana, because of their fealty to the GOP cause, have the same number of delegates (95) as New York, which has more than twice the population (19.6 million). To illustrate this trend, in 1976, New York had a whopping 154 delegates, while Alabama and Louisiana had a combined total of approximately 70 delegates. Relatively tiny GOP strongholds South Carolina and Mississippi have roughly half the population of blue Pennsylvania (approximately 7 million to 13 million), but they have a combined 87 delegates to the Keystone state's 72. (Pennsylvania had 88 delegates in 1976; South Carolina and Mississippi had about 60) In the west, tiny Idaho and Wyoming (combined population: 2 million) have a total of 61 delegates, 20% more than New Jersey (population: 8.7 million), which only has 50.
In a word, Mitt Romney is going to be in big trouble when the primaries head south and west in March, regardless of the outcome of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Let me say a word about California here, as I am quite sure Palin will compete vigorously in the California primary, which is currently scheduled to be a winner take all primary for 172 delegates. Most of the chattering class would currently write off Palin's chances in California, because it is now a Democratic state. However, the grass roots of the GOP in California are far more conservative than the electorate at large, as witness the 2010 GOP Senate primary in which Palin endorsee, pro-life Carly Fiorina won with 56.5%, while staunchly conservative Chuck Devore snagged a very respectable 19%. If 75% of the GOP primary voters in California voted for a Palin endorsed candidate and one who was arguably even more conservative, her chances in the California primary seem to me to be very good indeed. Also, when discussing California electoral proclivities, GOP primary voters seem to have an affinity for candidates with "star power" stretching back to George Murphy in the 1960s, and including both Reagan and Schwarzenegger. In other words, the contrast between Palin's charisma and and Romney's stiffness will be starker in California than..say... in Kansas. And, I predict, so will the electoral consequences.
But overall, one begins to get the picture. When the nomination race turns south and west, Palin will be in a position to recover from any early slips. Indeed, even if she loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, as did Reagan in 1976, she will be far better positioned for a comeback than was Reagan that year. Of course, should she win Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney will be toast. He will not be staging any comebacks in the Deep South or in the Rocky Mountain West.
Having said all this, I still predict she will win Iowa. She will not fail to take it seriously, as Reagan did both in 1976 and 1980. That was his campaign's error there both times, not any particular issue position he took. But if she doesn’t win Iowa, she will still be the nominee. Unlike Romney and the rest, she has multiple paths to the nomination, a friendlier electoral map than Reagan in 1976 and the tenacity of a ... Mama Grizzly.
Born February 11, 1964 in Sandpoint, ID (Meets the Jus Soli Requirement)
Parents were
Charles R Heath, born in ID
Sarah Sheeran, born in WI
Both parents were US Citizens at the time of her birth (Meets the Jus Sanguinis Requirement)
Sarah Palin is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama isn't!
67:12
The woman says she is not running, are you calling her a lier? ???
If all primary’s were held the same day, ALL Americans would have a chpoice,instead of having to take the left-overs from the early primary’s
States like the liberal New Hampshire, which lets Democrats vote for Republicans in the primary and Iowa who is more worried about their subsidies than in what is good for America.
Early primary’s lead to America having for the better of two evils ,instead of having their vote really count in the primary.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why Iowa runs the Primaries. In their dreams, perhaps, they are important, but ‘Who says?’ and ‘What if they are wrong?’ are two very good queries to start with here.
Ping!
It looks like the day drinker has already hit your thread.
Or even "primaries".
left-overs from the early primary’s
And "primaries" too!
The woman - Sarah Palin- has stated, many times, that she has not decided whether she'll run or not. Most recently (on the Friday night Sean Hannity show) Palin said that a decision is "weeks away". Get your facts straight - and learn how to spell.
“It looks like the day drinker has already hit your thread.”
He has been AWOL lately. Someone must have emailed his masters at Mitt Central and threatened to cut off his juice.
Governor Sarah Palin says the following:
I’ve said before that George Washington is my favorite Founding Father because he was reluctant to serve, and yet he rose to the great challenges before him. I can certainly see why he dreaded leaving his home on the Potomac. His servant's heart is an inspiration to us all.
When I first visited Gettysburg years ago, I was overwhelmed with the sense of sacrifice made to secure our union, but my most recent visit this morning was even more significant as subsequent visits allow reflection on the state of our union today. Striking to me is how ready and willing troops and civilians were in 1863 to lay their lives on the line. Are we as ready and willing to accept the call for sacrifice today in order to keep our union secure?
Palin has said that she will continue her tour, including Iowa and South Carolina. Granted, she said that not being a declared candidate was liberating, but I am convinced both both by that and by other statements she made that she is not currently running as an official candidate, and that she will declare and run at a later date unless an electable conservative emerges as the front runner for the GOP nomination. I have read literally every word she has released, and she has never contradicted (or even said anything that failed to support) my belief.
You need to address that question to the person that programmed the droid, while you are doing that ask them why everytime I type droid, it changes it to druid.
Iowa can take their ethanol and go straight to hell!
"When I first visited Gettysburg years ago, I was overwhelmed with the sense of sacrifice made to secure our union, but my most recent visit this morning was even more significant as subsequent visits allow reflection on the state of our union today. Striking to me is how ready and willing troops and civilians were in 1863 to lay their lives on the line. Are we as ready and willing to accept the call for sacrifice today in order to keep our union secure?"
Gov. Palin is often accused of lacking "intelligence".
Yet that single statement is deeper and more profound than anything I've heard a politician (or a talking head) -- left or right -- say for at least 23 years.
Were that all our leaders thought in these terms!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.