Senator John McCain should have opposed the TARP bailout:

What was McCain’s bold step? He lined up behind President George W. Bush and was perceived as part of the problem on Capitol Hill while he joined his Democratic opponent in the massive spending spree. Is there any wonder why independents and many conservatives concluded that a vote for John McCain was the same as a vote for Barack Obama? If the GOP wishes to regain the majority, it must offer voters more than a distinction without a difference.

and

The GOP must renounce the Bush Doctrine of “…preemptive war and an interventionist foreign policy…” 

Nothing has shaken voters’ trust in the GOP like the lack of justification for the war. While I make the case in my book, “Nothing for the Nation,” that the Senate Democratic leadership in 2002 was just as culpable in authorizing the invasion of Iraq as the House Republican leadership, most Americans see the Iraq war as a Republican creation. If Republicans would renounce the Bush Doctrine by rejecting pre-emptive war and an interventionist foreign policy, they could put the issue of Iraq in the proper current context.

 I quote from his column in Politico of March 24, 2009.  (Hostettler joined Ron Paul and four other GOP representatives in voting against the war in Iraq.)

I think Hostettler is absolutely right.  If McCain had at least offered some opposition to the TARP bailout and stood with the House Republicans (The House voted initially against the TARP bailout) he’d at least given himself a fighting chance.  How many conservatives stayed home (I did not by the way, I proudly voted for the war hero McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin) or voted for a third party due to the TARP bailout. 

I also think that the war in Iraq was at the very least mishandled.  it was turned into an invasion for democracy rather than a coup to overthrow Hussein (if that was necessary) and secure any weapons.  We are still in Iraq several years later and the American people rightly turned against the GOP.

There were other reasons:  Arrogance (read Terri Schiavo – unconstitutional federal legislation to benefit one case), corruption and personal moral failure, and a failure to adequately control spending. 

But Hostettler is right. 

Should libertarians support Hostettler?  I like what I am reading:  A social conservative who is a RP libertarian, too.  I would note that some Campaign for Liberty/Ron Paul supporters are helping him and there is even some evidence Paul himself is supporting him.  The American Spectator reported Hostettler being only three points behind Bayh.  Put me down as leaning toward him.

Paul captured 31% of the activists (and I wasn’t even there to help!) at CPAC, beating Romney by 9 points and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin by 24 points (she got 7%).  This is an amazing turnout.  The conservative activists had mixed feelings about the results.

Pro:

With participants naming “reducing the size of federal government” as their top issue, the 74-year old libertarian hero captured 31 percent of the 2,400 votes cast in the annual contest, usually seen as a barometer of how the GOP’s conservative wing regards their potential presidential candidates.

Con:

The announcement of Paul’s win, a surprise victory unlikely to have a major impact on the 2012 presidential contest, drew a volley of loud boos from the CPAC audience.

That discontent could be seen in the poll results: A majority of participants said they wished the Republican Party had a better field of candidates to choose from.

But I disagree with CNN’s analysis:  I think this WILL have an impact on the 2012 race.  The better test is the CPAC poll for next year.  I would think that Lord willing Paul will win again going away.  Paul does not change his views and has been a paragon of integrity in Congress.  He is also a social conservative.  Young activists realize we are running out of time to change the course of our country.

But the CPAC straw poll is out and there are two surprises:  In a solid second place, just six points behind former Governor Mitt Romney is Bobby Jindal.  That’s right.  Governor Jindal had 14 percent.  This is more surprising when you consider that Romney is unofficially campaigning for President and Jindal has disavowed any interest in the White House. 

The other surprise is that Cong. Ron Paul came in fourth, right behind former Gov. Sarah Palin.  He had 13% of the straw poll votes.  This shows that Paul has made inroads into the conservative activists who frequent CPAC and related events. 

Next year’s straw poll will be critical:  I have indicated my interest in being a credentialed blogger for CPAC and if selected, I’ll live blog from there.  Can I cast half a vote for Jindal and half for Paul?  In the meantime, read my friend Tom White’s blog!

In all due respect for the Presidency, my humble criticism.  Let’s start here:

Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight.

I am not going there on the “Should President Obama have won?” question.  When an American President wins the Peace Prize it is an historic event.  But note some significant omissions among the four laureates cited:   The 1983 winner: Lech Walesa.  The 1989 winner: The 14th Dalai Lama.  The 1975 winner:  Andrei Sakharov.  Even the 1990 winner:  Mikhail Gorbachev.  All of who fought against communism or tried to give it a human face.  I think this was not an omission; I’ll demonstrate below:

Now, check out this passage:

The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. 

So far, so good.  Cong. Ron Paul has said pretty much the same thing on the floor of Congress.  But we then have this defense of unnecessary intervention from the President:

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

There was no business for us to attack Serbia in 1999.  No national interest required it.  I do not condone what either the Serbs did or the Albanians but it was not worth ONE American Soldier’s life.  It was a feel good war.  It was not declared as required by the Constitution.  I want to repeat again what we did in Serbia:  We attacked another sovereign nation that had not nor was about to attack the United States.  This must never happen again.

The President says this about less violent intervention:

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

I contrast this to a former President who might have well won a Nobel Peace Prize if there were one in 1828:  John Quincy Adams:  “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”  I believe as a follower of Christ, we may have a duty to act as private citizens, but our government needs to mind its own business and take care primarily of our own people and institutions.  We have unfed children.  We have bad schools.  We have infrastructure needs.  We have mountains of debt that is no being used by foreign nations to try to influence our domestic policy.  We do not need to seek monsters to destroy abroad. 

 I promised you that the omission of Walesa, et al, was not unintentional.  Here is what he said about another President who desered but did not get the Nobel:  Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.

Mr. President, with all due respect, are you kidding me?  Reagan was clear that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” (This was from the 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL; William Safire in his book “Lend Me Your Ears” cited Henry Steele Commager as saying this was the worst Presidential speech ever.  Reagan should consider that a compliment!) and Reagan was clear from his 1987 Berlin speech what must be done: 

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

It is to General Secretary Gorbachev’s credit that he did tear down this wall.  But Reagan did not help liberate Eastern and Central Europe by embracing arms control and perestroika; he did by arming Europe with missiles, fighting the “nuclear freeze” movement, and embracing SDI.  Gorbachev showed his hand when he proposed in Iceland in 1986 deep cuts in nuclear weapons if SDI stayed in the lab.  Reagan also, with the assistance of US labor leaders, helped Solidarity in Poland when that nation was under martial law.  He worked with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to keep the flame of liberty burning.  Now, prise be to God, Eastern Europe is freer than it ever has been!

I am afraid President Obama does not get it.  Here’s what he said about Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II:

Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.

The Pope engaged with Poland?  He was Polish!  This was poor wording at best.  It demonstrates a weak understanding of the great victory the West won against communism.  it was a miracle of God.  Whitaker Chambers wrote in the great book that is a great read, Witness, that when he defected from the communist underground in 1937 he was leaving the winning world for the losing world.  It may seem that way some times, but Jesus will come again and make all things right! 

Let’s congratulate President Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize.  But let’s realize that this speech, while masterfully written and executed, contains several serious flaws.

 (I thank Reagan 2020 for research help on Reagan.)

The campaign of the seeming front-runner in 2012, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has now sprung a serious leak.  Believe me, this gives me no joy.  I believe that Gov. Huckabee tends toward mercy and he may have allowed several to be released when they did not deserve. 

With no national buzz for former Massachusetts Mitt Romney and many party leaders frightened about the nomination of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the party leaders may have to decide who to support.  That may well be Jindal. 

Besides, if the Saints have an undefeated season and win the Super Bowl, that ought to be reason enough to support the visionary governor!

Hoffman has been endorsed not only by the Assistant Blogger but by other conservatives such as former Senator Fred Thompson, former Governors Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty and Congressman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota.  Hoffman has been endorsed by the newspaper Alexander Hamilton founded, the New York Post, the Club for Growth, and former Reagan administration official Gary Bauer.

UPDATE:  Here is Doug Hoffman’s web site.  GO DOUG GO!

This is a bit of a surprise.  I thought Romney and Palin would be strong but not behind Huckabee.  Jindal did not place in this poll but many believe he will not run in 2012 and the Louisiana governor has not been in the public eye.

Palin’s book is about to come out and that will increase the visibility of the former VP candidate in 2008.  Speaking of visibility, it appears that Palin is not campaigning in either NJ or VA.  Governor Jindal has a book coming out soon, too – sometime next year.

1.  Actively running in all but name;

2.  Probably running but may decide not to;

3.  Possibly running but probbaly will not do so;

4.  Definitely not running.

Let’s start with who is running:

Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota is clearly running for President.  He spoke in Virginia for my soon to be (Lord willing) favorite governor of Virginia:  Bob McDonnell.  He’s been speaking around the country in various fora on issues.  Pawlenty brings several positives to the race:  He’s is a staunch social conservative and good governor in a blue state.  He is an attorney and served in the Minnesota legislature, being the majority leader in the state house before ascending to the governorship (Thank the McLaughlin Group for that brief bio).  Pawlenty speaks of working people and wnats to woo the so called “Sam’s club” voters into the party. 

Former Gov. Romney of Massachusetts is also clearly running.  His people think he will run.  He too is speaking and is raising funds through his PAC:  Free and Strong America.  While I think he might be better served renouncing 2012 and seeking the vacant Senate seat he once ran for (in 1994), there appears to be no chance of that.  Romney will have the same questions he had before.  He does have personal integrity and his Mormonism can be an asset in that most people tend to admire the individual Mormons they know due to their upright family-oriented positions.  But, he also has the star power that a leading presidential candidate has. 

Former Gov. Palin of Alaska is clearly running, too.  Barring a scandal, she will run and do very well.  She has her own PAC that will help candidates throughout the nation.  Those IOUs will be paid back in endorsements.  Palin has a national following that Pawlenty and Romney can only dream of.  She also has a opportunity to connect with people and prove she is smart and savvy.  Yes, I am aware of her negatives, but the negative press may help her if ordinary people decide she is one of them.  She comes from a middle class background and has a compelling story both personally and politically.  Let’s admit it:  Palin’s attractive charisma also is an asset to her campaign.

Cong. Paul of Texas does not want to run for President but when you are a cult icon in politics, you’ll have to run if your health allows it.  He will be about 77 when he runs but Konrad Adenauer was Chancellor of West Germany well into his eighties.  It can be done.  He will have strong grass roots support and his ideas have been adopted at least in part by mainstream conservatives.  Paul has no charisma in the classic sense but his ideas and incorruptibility appeal to many more voters than in 2008.  he will have the GOP netroots down pat and can raise huge sums of cash.  It was reported for example that Romney’s PAC raised nearly two million dollars in the first half of 2009 while SarahPAC raised nearly $750,000.   Those are great numbers but they dwarf what Paul can come up with.  Ron Paul raised $18,000,000 in the fourth quarter of 2007.  That makes him a “contendar” where I come from.