 Can you “just go by the ratings”?12:56 AM, Feb 23, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
During tonight’s GOP debate, Ron Paul took exception to Rick Santorum’s claim that Paul had finished “in the bottom half of Republicans this year” in ratings published by the American Conservative Union (ACU). Santorum made the comment immediately after having highlighted that the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) scored Santorum as one of the most fiscally conservative senators across his 12 years in the Senate. Santorum’s overall NTU grade point average (GPA) placed him 5th out of 50 senators who served throughout his tenure — and all four senators who beat him represented more conservative-leaning states. In fact, considering the state that he was representing, Santorum may well have been the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure.
Paul replied that the ACU ratings that Santorum had referenced (in regard to Paul) aren’t an accurate reflection of Paul’s spending record. He said that “some of the conservative ratings — you have to realize sometimes conservatives want to spend money, too.” Paul concluded that “if you’re a strict fiscal conservative and a constitutionalist…you can’t just go by the ratings.”
Paul is right as far as the ACU ratings go. Those ratings don’t focus exclusively on votes related to spending or deficits. Instead, they focus on a wide variety of conservative issues, many of which have little or nothing to do with fiscal matters.
NTU’s ratings, however, are different. They’re based entirely on the perceived effects of members’ votes on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Not surprisingly, Paul’s career GPA from NTU reflects his unsurpassed reputation for fiscal conservatism — it’s a perfect 4.00.
Yet Santorum’s 3.66 GPA from NTU isn’t too far behind, especially considering that NTU’s average GPA for senators who served throughout Santorum’s tenure was just 1.69 — and considering that Paul has had the luxury of representing a congressional district that has been, on average, 38 points to the right of Pennsylvania over the past three presidential elections. In this light, it seems rather silly for Paul — or Mitt Romney (who got a C from the Cato Institute on spending as governor) — to claim that Santorum isn’t a fiscal conservative.
 11:40 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By MICHAEL WARREN
During Wednesday night’s debate in Arizona, Rick Santorum had a chance to answer a recent barrage of criticisms from Mitt Romney on Santorum's record on earmarks. While Santorum may have won the analytical arguments, his opponents may have won the dramatic exchanges.
Moderator John King challenged Santorum to defend his past support for earmarks, an issue Romney has raised often in the past few weeks. Santorum mentioned that many earmarks in the past have been “good,” including the one that led to the development of V-22 Osprey military aircraft. Santorum continued:
Congress has a role to play when it comes to appropriating money, and sometimes the president and the administration doesn't get it right. What happened was an abuse of the process.
When that abuse occurred, I stepped forward, as Jim DeMint did, who, by the way, was an earmarker, as almost everybody else in Congress was. Why? Because Congress has a role of allocating resources when they think the administration has it wrong.
I defended that at the time. I'm proud I defended it at the time, because I think they did make mistakes. I do believe there was abuse, and I said we should stop it, and as president I would oppose earmarks.
It was an admirable defense of Congress’s role as an appropriator and one Santorum has deployed before. Furthermore, Santorum also noted that Romney wasn’t always against earmarks. “He's out there on television ads right now, unfortunately, attacking me for saying that I'm this great earmarker,” Santorum said, “when he not only asked for earmarks for the Salt Lake Olympics in the order of tens of millions of dollars, sought those earmarks and used them, and he did as the governor of Massachusetts, $300 million or $400 million. He said, ‘I would be foolish if I didn't go out and try to get federal dollars.’”
Romney response defended his Olympic earmarks while going after those Santorum voted for in the Senate. “But while I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the Bridge to Nowhere,” Romney said. Not a bad debate line.
Romney called the earmark process “broken” and argued for a more straightforward approach to appropriations. “If Congress wants to vote in favor of a bill, they should take that bill, bring it forward with committees, have people vote it up or down on the floor of the House or the Senate, have the president say yes or no, and move forward,” he said.
Santorum fired back. “It’s really interesting, Governor, because the process you just described of an open process where members of Congress put forth their suggestions on how to spend money, have them voted on individually, is exactly how the process worked,” he said. “So what you just suggested as to how earmarks should work in the future is exactly how they worked in the past. So I suspect you would have supported earmarks if you were in the United States Senate.” Read more... 10:42 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Here's a transcript of tonight's Republican presidential primary debate in Arizona, courtesy of CNN:
JOHN KING, DEBATE MODERATOR, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thank you.
Our thanks to the Arizona State University Symphonic Chorale. That was fabulous.
Gentlemen, I want to ask you to take your seats. I'll take a moment now to explain to you how our debate will work.
I'll question the candidates, as well as we'll also take some questions from members of our audience. I'll follow up and guide tonight's discussion.
Candidates, we're going to try to make sure each of you get your fair amount of questions. And you'll have a minute to answer and 30 seconds for rebuttal and follow-ups. And if you're singled out for a particular criticism, I'll make sure you get a chance to respond.
Now we're going to have each of the candidates introduce themselves. And so we have more time to debate tonight, we're going to ask them to keep it short.
Here's an example. I'm John King from CNN. I'm honored to be your moderator tonight and I'm thrilled to be in a state that reminds us baseball season is just around the corner.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Congressman Paul, we begin with you, sir.
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Congressman Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas.
I am the defender of the Constitution. I'm the champion of liberty. This shows the roadmap to peace and prosperity.
(APPLAUSE)
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Rick Santorum.
And we have a lot of troubles around the world, as you see, the Middle East in flames, and what's going on in this country with gas prices and the economy. And I'm here to talk about a positive solutions that confront this country that include everybody from the bottom up.
(APPLAUSE)
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Mitt Romney.
And there was a time in this country when you knew that if you worked hard and went to school, and if you learned the values of America in your home, that you could count on having a secure future and a prosperous life. That was an American promise and it's been broken by this president.
I want to restore America's promise, and I'm going to do that --
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: That's good enough. As George Costanza would say, when they're applauding, stop. Right?
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, R-GA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Newt Gingrich.
And I've developed a program for American energy so no future president will ever bow to a Saudi king again and so every American can look forward to $2.50 a gallon gasoline.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Gentlemen, it's good to see you again.
Let's get started on the important issues with a question from our audience.
Sir, please tell us who you are and state your question.
(UNKNOWN): My name is Gilbert Fidler (ph) from Gilbert, Arizona, and I'd like to ask this question to all the candidates if I could.
Since the first time in 65 years our national debt exceeds our gross national product, what are you going to do to bring down the debt?
KING: Thank you, sir.
Senator Santorum, let's begin with you.
SANTORUM: Thank you, Gilbert. Read more...  4:45 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By VICTORINO MATUS
When the late Sidney Frank created Grey Goose vodka in 1997, he was clear that this spirit must stand above the rest. Not only would it be made in France (giving it that sophisticated European aura), it would also come in a tall, frosted glass bottle with a long neck—easy to spot on the shelf and easy for bartenders to handle. Little did Frank know it could also substitute for a billyclub as was the case when someone at a Manhattan nightclub struck another guest on the back with a Grey Goose bottle, leading to a brawl involving the prince of Monaco.
As reported by the New York Post,
The restaurateur [Adam Hock] has been charged with attacking Prince Pierre Casiraghi—the 24-year-old grandson of Grace Kelly—and three of his heir-head pals in a scrum at club Double Seven early Saturday morning.
Hock, 47, said he was just defending himself and the bevy of models seated at his table after Casiraghi, Paris Hilton ex Stavros Niarchos and scenesters Vladimir Restoin Roitfeld and Diego Marroquin became “belligerent” and “aggressive” because he was at a better table than them.
Hock, who sprained his shoulder after being bashed with a vodka bottle in the fight, had his arm in a sling yesterday and said he’s weighing pressing charges against the four.
A witness quoted a badly bloodied Casiraghi—third in line to the Monaco throne—as saying, “My jaw is broken,” after he, Niarchos, Roitfeld and Marroquin were allegedly decked by Hock.
Another witness described the dashing son of Princess Caroline as being “disfigured” by the blow, and sources confirmed that his jaw was indeed broken.
It still isn't clear who started the brawl. But one detail is not disputed—the use of Grey Goose as a weapon. "[Hock] said he now has 'a huge, round bruise on my back' in 'the shape of a bottle.'"
4:01 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL
Berlin
In the past week, competing analyses have appeared in the German daily Die Welt and the New York Times, supporting vastly different conclusions about how much the Israeli military might be able to set back Iran’s nuclear drive.
On Monday, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller took a grim view the Israeli military might be able to set back Iran’s nuclear drive. Quoting former U.S. military officials that in light of the distance between Israel and Iran, and Iran’s dispersal of nuclear facilities across its territory, she wondered whether the Israeli air force would be able to accomplish the task
“[S]ome analysts question whether Israel even has the military capacity to carry it off. One fear is that the United States would be sucked into finishing the job — a task that even with America’s far larger arsenal of aircraft and munitions could still take many weeks, defense analysts said. Another fear is of Iranian retaliation,” Bumiller wrote.
An Israeli mission to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could require 100 fighter jets to make the 1,000-mile trip into Iranian airspace and return to Israel, she contended.
In reading the Times’s take, the Jerusalem Post military correspondent Yaakov Katz responded that “the Americans seem to be taking a new approach – trying to undermine Israel’s confidence in its military capabilities.”
Interestingly, in his own analysis in Die Welt, Hans Rühle, who directed the planning department of the German Defense Ministry from 1982 to 1988, expressed almost supreme confidence that Israel’s air force could decimate Iran’s principal nuclear installations.
Rühle argued that a comprehensive Israeli bombing campaign could set back Iran’s nuclear program by a decade or more. To do that, Israel would need to destroy only six of the 25 to 30 facilities the Iranians are thought to use for their nuclear program: the nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, the heavy water reactor at Arak, the weapons and munitions sites in Parchin, the deep underground enrichment facility in Fordo, and the operational nuclear plant at Bushehr.
Rühle argues that with only 25 of its 87 F-15 fighter planes and a smaller deployment of F-16s equipped with GBU-28 bunker busters and additional bombs, Israel could wipe out most of Iran’s primary nuclear complexes.
Bumiller writes, “Israel would have to use airborne refueling planes, called tankers, but Israel is not thought to have enough.” Rühle, however, notes that the Israeli air force has expertise in the “buddy refueling” process that allows F-15s and F-16s outfitted as tankers to serve in midair refueling capacities. Israeli jets might also make a temporary landing to refuel in Turkey or Iraq. Read more...  3:54 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Virginia governor Bob McDonnell issued the following statement this afternoon:
"I am pro-life. I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have. Over the course of my 20-year career in elected office, I have been glad to play a leading role in putting in place common-sense policies that protect and defend innocent human life in the Commonwealth. One of those bills was Virginia's informed consent statute, of which I was the chief patron in the House of Delegates, finally seeing its passage in 2001. This session, the General Assembly is now considering amending this informed consent statute to include a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound in order to establish the gestational age for appropriate medical purposes, and to offer a woman the opportunity to voluntarily review that ultrasound prior to giving her legal informed consent to abortion.
Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bill's stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.
Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.
For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision.
I have requested other amendments that help clarify the purposes of the bill and reflect a better understanding of prevailing medical practices. It is my hope that the members of the General Assembly will act favorably upon these recommendations from our office. We will await their action prior to making any further comments on this matter."
Read more... 3:06 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Rasmussen:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters think health insurance companies should be required by law to cover the morning after pill without co-payments or other charges to the patient. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose this requirement. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.
Note that voters were not asked specifically whether religious institutions should be required to pay for these "morning-after pills" but whether insurers should generally pay for them. Opposition would likely be even higher if voters had been informed that Obamacare also mandates that a "week-after" pill that can cause abortions be offered "free of charge."
 2:42 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
The Obama administration’s recent decree — that, under Obamacare, Americans would no longer be free to offer or to choose new health plans that don’t include complimentary coverage of birth control, morning-after pills and the abortion drug ella — would likely lead a great many people to switch to much costlier birth control, according to a new piece published by Kaiser Health News.
In addition to banning people who want to choose cheaper plans from doing so and requiring many people to offer such plans or enroll in them against their moral convictions, two inevitable results would transpire from this decree: Income would be redistributed, as Americans who don’t use these preferred products would have the costs transferred to them for those who do; and overall American health costs would rise. Less freedom, politicized medicine, and higher costs — that pretty much sums up this decree as well as Obamacare as a whole.
The Kaiser piece, entitled “Insurance Coverage Might Steer Women to Costlier — But More Effective — Birth Control,” says,
“In the heated debate over [the Obamacare decree], no one has talked much about what methods are available to women who want to prevent pregnancy and how their choices might change if cost were removed from the equation….
“With prices ranging from about $1 for a condom to more than $800 for an intrauterine device (IUD), some…women, maybe a lot of them, might switch methods if they could afford to.
“That’s exactly what many women’s health advocates hope….
“These longer-acting methods, however, carry a hefty upfront price tag of between $500 and $1,000 for the device itself and its insertion….
“In 2007, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis began to enroll 10,000 women in that region, offering them free contraceptives of any type for three years….
“Seventy-five percent chose IUDs or implants, a much higher proportion than the 5.5 percent in the general population.”
Fortunately, the Obama administration has decided that Americans as a whole won’t mind picking up the tab for this.
For all of the talk about Rick Santorum, it’s clear that it’s really the Obama administration that’s obsessed with birth control. And it’s also clear that the remedy for that obsession is repeal.
 1:09 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Whatever the press corps may think the upcoming election will be about, one thing remains clear: Americans overwhelmingly support the repeal of President Obama’s centerpiece legislation. According to the latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters, Americans support the repeal of Obamacare by a margin of 15 percentage points — 53 to 38 percent. This marks the 27th consecutive Rasmussen poll, spanning nine months’ time, that shows double-digit support for repeal.
The poll also shows that by a margin of 50 to 32 percent, Americans think it is at least “somewhat likely” that Obamacare will be repealed. Given that Obamacare can’t be repealed while Obama remains in office, such a response would not seem to bode particularly well for Obama’s reelection prospects.
In a way, this isn’t surprising. If a president spends the bulk of his efforts during a 4-year term securing passage of legislation that the American people not only don’t want but overwhelmingly want to have repealed, it seems unlikely that they’d give him another term as a reward for his efforts. And it seems even more unlikely that they’d do so if that meant allowing him to block their desire for repeal.
 12:01 PM, Feb 22, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
President Obama is cutting future defense spending. It is both a conscious choice to divert funds elsewhere, away from the military, and a consequence of last year’s congressional budget agreement, which alone will likely result in an automatic sequestration of at least $500 billion from future military budgets. Regardless, the decision has serious consequences.
In a report today released by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), former brass from all five U.S. military branches detail what these cuts might mean.
“It will be difficult for the Army to perform the missions indicated if some of the numbers that are being bantered about to achieve the $500 billion reduction become fact,” retired Army Gen. Louis Wagner writes. “If sequestration for another $500 billion becomes a reality, it will be devastating for the Army and the national security of the country.”
Wagner warns: “Instability in the Middle East, the Arab Spring activities, the Iranian nuclear weapons threat, the threat of a nuclear capable North Korea, and instability of our neighbors in Central and South America are all strong indicators that the world is not going to be peaceful in the foreseeable future. Ground forces are very likely to again be involved in a large-scale irregular war or even a conventional conflict. The capability to execute robust full spectrum land operations remains absolutely essential if the United States is to remain a preeminent world power.”
“We will be forced to accept greater risk as a nation,” Major General Sid Shachnow (retired) says. Shachnow goes on to—optimistically—note that this might be fine “[s]ince we have no peer competitors.” But concedes he is not able to determine what this might mean for “achieving victory” in the future.
The primary criticism from the former Air Force brass is the way the cuts are being made—without consideration to mission, only to the bottom-line of the budget.
“The budget for our national defense programs should be based on the amount of resources required to achieve national security objectives established through the usual processes,” writes Major General Robert D. Eaglet (retired), formerly of the Air Force. “Our national security is too important to constrain it to whatever might be achievable within some arbitrary reduced budget target.”
Lieutenant General Charles May (retired), also formerly of the Air Force, shares a similar criticism: “We all understand that strategy should come first but it is obvious that budget changes are being made first and some public pronouncements are being made to justify these changes. But coherence is lacking, preventing a thorough and in-depth analysis of the impact.”
And the Navy, too, will face severe consequences. Navy Rear Admiral Terence E. McKnight notes the shrinking save of the Navy and writes, “With the reductions in ships and manpower the Navy will be stretched to the limits and major mission areas and overseas commitments will have to be eliminated.” Read more...  11:24 AM, Feb 22, 2012 • By MICHAEL WARREN
Less than a week before the Michigan primary, the editorial board at the Detroit News has endorsed Mitt Romney, calling him the "best choice" for "leading this nation to prosperity and stability" and saying that he gives "the GOP a fighting chance of defeating President Barack Obama this fall." Here's more from the endorsement:
On leadership, the Michigan native and former Massachusetts governor has the strongest resume of the four remaining Republican candidates. He has not only successfully run a state, but also has deep experience in turning around private companies. America today is the ultimate turnaround project.
Romney has a refreshing free market vision for restoring the nation's prosperity. He sees a return to our entrepreneurial roots, freeing individuals to reach for their dreams, take risks and strive for gain with minimal government encumbrances.
He would reverse the rush toward a government-controlled economy and allow the free marketplace to do what it has always done — pull the nation back to its feet.
According to the RealClearPolitics average for polls of Michigan primary voters, Romney and Rick Santorum are stastically tied after a week with Santorum leading in most polls there. The Michigan and Arizona primaries will be held on February 28.
 11:11 AM, Feb 22, 2012 • By MICHAEL WARREN
Former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer is dropping out of the Republican presidential primary race, but will continue to run for president by seeking a third-party nomination. The Chicago Tribune reports:
The former Louisiana governor will make his plans official Thursday at a news conference in Santa Monica, within hours of another Republican debate that he's been excluded from.
It's that fact that is driving his decision. The party and the major television networks have "turned their backs on the democratic process" by excluding him, even though he's a former governor and congressman, he said in a statement.
Roemer has been waging a campaign based in part on ending the influence of special interests in American politics. He capped donations to his campaign at just $100, and raised about $340,000 from individual donors.
He says he will now run for the nomination of Americans Elect, an independent group seeking ballot access in all 50 states that plans to hold an Internet primary to choose a bipartisan ticket.
Elliot Ackerman of Americans Elect recently told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that his organization wants to break the "anticompetitive duopoly" of the two major parties by fielding a candidate who won't be forced "into the two narrow boxes that the two major parties have regarding policy positions." Could Roemer be the candidate to fit that mold? On the Americans Elect website, he currently has 413 supporters and rising.
10:41 AM, Feb 22, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Steve Hayes, with Mara Liasson and David Drucker, last night on Fox News:
Browse 15 Years of the Weekly Standard
|
- Conservative Intelligence
- Satirical Wit
- Foreign Policy Insight
- Sophisticated Perspective
-
-
-
Could one of them say a good word about our troops?
-
The AWOL Democratic Senate.
-
Thursday night's debate may have served to highlight two of Mitt's vulnerabilities.
-
Valerie Jarrett’s perfect record . . . for giving bad advice.
-
-
-
Is Lucretius the gateway to the modern world?
-
Ponzi at the European Central Bank.
 An attempt to rehabilitate Bill Clinton is in full bloom. Unsurprisingly, the would-be hagiographers leave a lot out.  The budget of a left-wing progressive.  The diminishing returns of the anti-tobacco campaign.
|
