Is the GOP Field Set?
Posted in Elections by Robinson O'Brien-Bours
Ron Paul has
surged to first place in Iowa, and will probably maintain his position or at least a strong second by the very nature of the caucuses and Paul's enthusiastic supporters. It is important to note that Iowa is generally unimportant when it comes to setting the final nominee, but it can have an effect on donations and momentum. New Hampshire's libertarian bent, combined with a victory in Iowa, could give Paul a boost there, and Jon Huntsman is finally beginning to see his own numbers rise in the Granite State. A close victory for Romney over Gingrich in New Hampshire with Paul and Huntsman on their heels could do away with any "momentum" candidates hope to achieve going into South Carolina, where Gingrich is trumping Romney, and where Paul and Bachmann are both maintaining steady support that could swing up. Gingrich recently won the Tea Party poll--only barely beating out Bachmann. Florida is still up for grabs, and the latest
Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal by its popular former governor are leading some to say the field is not set. Is it possible that someone can jump in to swoop up fresh-faced momentum before the major state primaries and their many delegates are up for grabs? If no one else jumps in, I would add that a Paul surge is probably very good for Mr. Romney.
8:19 PM / December 19, 2011
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Quit worrying about the GOP Field and let's us worry about what the clueless moron in the White House will do between now and the time he leaves - whether it be January, 2013 or sooner (due to possible impeachment - at least Holder will be gone by then).
Anyone, repeat anyone including Ron Paul, would be better than the complete utter disaster that is now occupying the White House.
I have been looking for comment on NLT regarding Gingrich's recent statements about the federal judiciary. Perhaps I have missed something. How can constitutional conservatives be silent about these alarming attacks from the candidate whom Peter Schramm rightly called the "least conservative" of them all?
Maybe they're not commenting on Gingrich because they're too busy writing their posts on the threats that NDAA and SOPA pose?
(Just kidding!)
Because the federal judiciary engages in routinized misfeasance and the institutional arrangements in Article III are no longer congruent with free and popular government. We do not have a judiciary which respects contitutional provisions. We have a judiciary deferential to the cultural biases of the bourgeois milieux in which they were schooled, work, and socialize. 'Constitutionalists' who do not have their head up their ass understand this.
AD:
"We have a judiciary deferential to the cultural biases of the bourgeois milieux in which they were schooled, work, and socialize."
Robert Bork:
"The Bourgeois class, which sustained and benefited from these societal arrangements, was therefore, oppressive. It followed that the bourgeois morality and standards of excellence were part of the apparatus that supported the status quo and repressed the individual. Destruction was, therefore, the only legitimate response.
That is what I did not understand as I stood over the smoldering books outside Yale law school."
But there's nothing so bourgeous as trying not to be bourgeois. The Yale students in question were quite bourgeois.
Our erstwhile colleague Steve Hayward had some thoughts on this subject over at Powerline:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/newt-for-scotus.php