Hennessy's View

Ed Martin Jr. of St. Louis has redirected his fire to the Attorney General race, and this is great news for everyone except Chris Koster.

Back when Ed Martin was talking about running for the Republican nod to take on Claire McCaskill, I had another thought.  Well, a bunch of people had another thought: Ed would make an outstanding Attorney General.

*********UPDATE*********

HUGE list of endorsements on Ed’s official press release. 

******************************

I guess I was right.

I wasn’t disappointed that Ed chose to run for Todd Akin’s US House seat. Ed would make a great conservative legislator.  And as I said before, so will Ann Wagner, who can now focus on  . . . whichever Democrat decides to give a concession speech at 7:01 pm on November 6.

But, at this pivotal moment in history, as Attorney General, Ed Martin will be Missouri’s general in the war on Washington abuse.  Here’s why.

First, Ed has used his law license for the good of society, to protect life, to defend the wrongly accused, and to advance his—our—conservative principles.  He’s not a lawyer who’s in it for the money.  I’ve met some of the people he’s helped, and I’ve heard their stories.

In these battles, including a nationally covered battle against Illinois’s criminal Governor Rod Blagojevich, Ed Martin was tenacious, principled, and victorious.

Missouri needs an AG who will fight for the right things. 

Second, Ed understands that the battle for liberty over the next 12 years will be fought between the states and Washington. The states—and only the states—have the Constitutional power and the economic leverage fight Washington and win. 

The Several States vs. US Government will be ugly,long, and painful. [Insert your analogy here.]  Most people will lose their stomach before it’s over. People—even good conservatives—will want to throw in the towel and heel to the Washington monster.

Ed won’t.  He understands that Congress, with its entrenched establishment and elitist snobbery, is as close to a lost cause as you’ll find.  He wants to be one of 50 state attorneys general who, with their governors and secretaries of state, beat Congress into submission.(I said “ugly.”) 

Ed Martin has a clear path to take on turncoat Democrat Koster in November.  That fight begins today. When Ed prevails in November, Missouri will have an Attorney General who actually has read and understands the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution—and a man who’s smart to know it matters.

Previously on Hennessy’s View about Ed Martin:

Give Me 5 Minutes, And I’ll Give You a New Friend

Name the One Tea Partier in the Race

11 Minutes of Exactly What We’re Talking About

Popularity: 2% [?]

It depends on how you score.

I see three scoring scenarios:

1. Best conservative performance
2. Best electability performance
3. Best positional performance

Conservative performance is pretty clear: whose answers appeal to conservatives?  (Does not mean conservatives believed the candidate meant what he said.) This is not Tea Party scoring, either. I’m not limiting my evaluation to the 3 core Tea Party principles of Constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.  This is broader conservatism.

Electability performance means the candidate appealed to general election voters. This doesn’t meant centrist—it means not scaring the crap out of people who aren’t politics wonks. (That’s most voters, by the way.)

Positional performance means the candidate did what what he had to do based one his current standings in he nomination process.

On conservative performance, I have to go with:

1. Santorum
2. Perry
3. Gingrich / Romney

Electability

1. Santorum
2. Gingrich
3. Romney

Positional

1. Romney
2. Santorum
3. Gingrich

If we give 3 points for first place, 2 for second, and 1 for third, we get this composite ranking:

1. Santorum: 8 points
2. Gingrich:  6 points
3. Romney:  5 points

What does it all mean? 

Santorum should move up a bit in the polls before the New Hampshire primary, but not enough to win.  He needed Romney to finish out of the top 3 in this debate. 

Gingrich needed to pull Romney out of the top 3 and get closer to Santorum than he did.  This hurt Newt.

Romney improved his chances, but he didn’t close the deal.  The longer he lets Santorum and Gingrich stay in the game, the more vulnerable his lead becomes.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The middle of the road is fine until you have to get somewhere.

I voted for Bob Dole in 1996. Yet his nomination drove me away from political activism for years.

I got out of the Navy in the fall of 1994. I watched the GOP reclaim the House with my nephew, Scott.  I expected the Republicans to nominate a solid conservative who deliver a knock-out blow to the Clinton era two years later.

Instead, they nominated Bob Dole.

I quit. Gave up.  Surrendered.

“If the Republicans want to nominated a ‘me too’ Republican,” I told friends, “there’s no point in my wasting time.”

Yeah, it was a bit petulant of me. Then, again, I’d been through a lot personally. Maybe I needed a break.

But Bob Dole?

In 1996, Bob Dole was the symbol of the GOP establishment. To Reaganites, he was a living reminder of the low-point of the Gipper’s two terms: the 1982 tax increase. As a politician, he was the worst of both worlds: an acerbic, sarcastic humor that turned off moderates and moderate deal-making politics that turned off everybody else.

I caucused, that year, for Pat Buchanan.

Buchanan had and has many flaws.  But he’d have wiped up the stage with Clinton at debates. Even if he’d lost to Clinton, he’d have forced Bill to move ten steps to the right.  Dole, on the other hand, brought a record that closely followed Clinton’s.

The Republican Established told us in 96 that only a moderate could win. We needed to nominate someone who could reach across the aisle and do business with the Democrats. Someone who would appeal to the Generation Xers.

So they nominated deal-maker, aisle-crosser, tax-hiker Bob Dole.

In December of 1996, Clinton was smoking cigars in the Oval Office as Bob Dole was released into the wild.

To those who remember, who were in the trenches with the Buchanan Brigades in our fight against the GOP establishment, 2012 is looking  a lot like 1996.

Once again, we’re coming off historic wins in the off-year election.  Once again, we’re dealing with a GOP field of candidates that lacks a viable, solid conservative. Once again, the establishment wants us to vote for the echo candidate.

In 1996, the echo was Bob “It’s My Turn” Dole.  In 2012, it’s Mitt Romney.

Look, if Romney gets the nomination, I’ll vote for the guy.  I’ll work to help him defeat President Obama, because I believe that Romney would be better than Obama. The Supreme Court, alone, is reason to support any Republican over just about any Democrat.

But Romney won’t stir up the passions of the Tea Party base. He’ll remind older conservatives of Bob Dole, and he’ll remind Millennials of the guy who laid off their dad.

Bob Dole, like Mitt Romney, is too close to the middle of the road.

P.S. After I wrote this post, Bob Dole endorsed Mitt Romney.  Surprise!

Popularity: 1% [?]

A friend of mine told me this story.

He sat that there bragging about getting a tax cut for friends of his.

I said, ‘you do realize, don’t you, that you’re just like the Democrats, except you’re giving taxpayers money to a different special interest.’

He looked at me and said, ‘but our special interests do good with the money.’

My friend was talking about the second highest-ranking Republican in the Missouri House at the time.

That’s Establishment thinking. The idea that legislators can spend . . . I’m sorry, “invest” . . . your money better than you can.

Okay, so maybe I have a fixation with the Establishment.  Just maybe, though, my fixation is justified.

The Establishment does some good.  It has access to lots of money and media.  It has database and training programs to help candidates win.  It throws great parties in really cool hotels, allowing ordinary people to watch drunk Republicans skinny dipping with Dumbo-ear water wings. 

Most importantly, the worst, most corruptible, most cynical, most self-serving of the Republican Establishment is still better for America than the best of the Democrat Establishment.  (Don’t forget when when you’re vilifying a candidate between now and the primary.)

There’s still something wrong with the Establishment.  It’s purpose is to advance and perpetuate the Establishment. 

Our purpose is to advance and perpetuate a uniquely American freedom.

In 2010, our purposes happened to blend very well with the GOP’s. That led to harmony on the right and a big win for Republicans.

After the swearings-in, the Establishment did what the Establishment does: like any organism from a simple protozoan to an advanced primate the GOP started working on self-perpetuation. 

Like Obama, the Republican Establishment believes that people cannot run their own lives.  Instead, other super-people (called politicians and bureaucrats) must run our lives for us.

The GOP Establishment supports subsidies for corporations that should be able to stand on their own. It supports bailouts for company that should be allowed to die their own. It maintains regulations for matters that the market regulates better. It chooses winners and losers, from Government Motors to the failed Aerotropolis here in Missouri.

The Establishment demonstrates its mistrust of people and markets every day.

We utterly reject that notion.

The reason the Tea Party exists is not to end the Establishment.  As I wrote last week, that can’t really happen. 

Instead, we hope to mold the Establishment into a vessel of liberty and good government, not a tool for social engineering.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Some center-right people take their ball and go home. Guess who?

Since the 2010 election, we’ve heard from the Establishment (GOP, MSM, DNC) that Tea Partiers are too puritanical.

The elitist theory holds that Tea Partiers demand doctrinaire allegiance to some engraved-granite list of principles.  Stray from that list, and the Tea Party will hunt you down like a dog in the street and beat you with a Wiffle Ball bat until you pee blood for a week.

Guess what, though. It’s not the Tea Partiers who defect when their candidates lose.

A recent Rasmussen poll (subscription may be required) found that Establishment Republicans are far more likely to vote Democrat, third party, or not at all if their favored candidate loses a primary.

Interestingly, those outside the Tea Party are more committed to finding a candidate who shares their views–67% of Tea Party members take that approach compared to 75% of non-members. That data contradicts a common story line that Tea Party members are interested in ideological purity while others are more practical in their considerations.

But the divisions get even clearer when the questions get more specific:

Again, those in the Tea Party are more committed to the GOP field than other primary voters. Ninety-one percent (91%) of Tea Party members now plan to vote for the eventual GOP candidate even if their first choice isn’t the nominee, compared to 71% of non-members.

Kidding?  Non-Tea Party Republicans could see a 29 percent defection rate if their favorite candidate isn’t nominated?  Wow.

The next time someone tells you that the Tea Party is too puritanical, tell them, “Perhaps, but we’re not nearly as puritanical as the establishment Republicans.”

Popularity: 2% [?]