McCain is not the answer

If you watched McCain's debate performance last night you can't help but be a little fearful of the man. Several people have noted to me that Senators are endorsing him just because they're scared of him and don't want to deal with him on the Senate floor after he loses.

But other than his temper, we need to be worried about the ideals he holds. Would he be an excellent defender of our national security? Probably. But what about liberty? Free enterprise? James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal points to some things that had me worried in last night's debate as well:

Two of McCain's comments--"I did it out of patriotism, not for profit" and "sometimes people lost their jobs"--lead us to think that McCain's problem with economics goes beyond mere indifference. He seems to view the making of money--that is to say, the production of goods and services that people want, and the act of supplying them through voluntary exchange in a free market--as a less than honorable pursuit.

Post-Florida, it is very easy for a lazy voter to pick McCain. The media loves him and will tell you everything you need to know about how wonderful he is (you saw this in the debate last night, with regular banners at the bottom of the page while McCain was speaking letting viewers know you can read more about his economic plan or his defense plan or his other plans at CNN.com - but they never highlighted this on any other candidate that I saw).

But he isn't the answer to the Republican's problems. He talks a good game on defense, and I believe him. He talks a good game on spending, and he probably means it but who knows if he'll act. He voted against the tax cuts that have, until recently, kept the economy afloat. He limited the rights of inviduals to give to candidates through McCain-Feingold. He is zealously trying to regulate carbon and add layers of taxation on Real People through McCain-Lieberman. And he's mean, as he showed last night.

McCain is not the answer.

The wife and I haven't been good about updating our wine blog, so I'm posting this interesting tidbit here: new research indicates that expensive wine really does taste better.

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology and Stanford's business school have directly seen that the sensation of pleasantness that people experience when tasting wine is linked directly to its price. And that's true even when, unbeknownst to the test subjects, it's exactly the same Cabernet Sauvignon with a dramatically different price tag.

I don't think this is going to have me shopping those dusty $90 bottles at the back of the wine store anytime soon - a little Fish Eye Pinot Grigio or Redwood Creek Cabernet Sauvignon suits me just fine, and for as little as $6 - but I will certainly keep this in mind next time someone else is picking up the tab.

Bill Richardson's out

CNN is reporting that Bill Richardson's dropping out of the presidential race. I think that's a shame. He's a likable moderate (in some ways) Democrat, but he really underperformed in the race this year. If he's at the top of his game, I think he could be a real threat in November.

But not, apparently, in January.

Of course, with his exceptional resume and skills, he's clearly at the top of the list in the Dem veepstakes. He'd be a great accompaniment for Hillary or Edwards - probably too many racial overtones for Obama to tap him, but, hey, why not go all out?

Delegate Count

Since presidential primary elections are usually over by Valentine's Day nowadays, it's easy to forget that what really matters is the number of delegates a candidate has, because it's the delegates who do the actual selecting of their party's presidential nominee.

This year, because the fields are so wide open and populated with so many qualified candidates, politicos are drooling over the idea that conventions could become relevant again, that no candidate will get a majority of delegates.

I'm one of them. I'd think it'd be neat.

Here's how things stand at the moment:

So Romney's "two silvers" haven't been particularly bad for him, and McCain's big win didn't do all that much for him on the delegate front - though of course prominent wins open the door for future prominent wins and more delegates, just as the inverse is true for losses.

Now, these totals, particularly the Democrat total, include some superdelegates, and I haven't dug in enough to understand exactly how those have already been pledged. You can look on CNN's delegate scorecard to see how these breakdown.

I highlight this just to once again say that, at this point, it's too early to annoint anyone, or to shove out folks like Romney and Edwards.

We don't need Mike Huckabee

Here's a new ad from the Club for Growth offering more reasons not to elect Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee for president.

Nominating Mike Huckabee would be an abomination for the Republican party. We do not need his brand of big-government conservative populism - from him or anyone. Rapid government growth is antithetical to the very foundation of the Republican party. Republicans over the past seven years have ignored that, and have severely damaged the party's brand. It's time for a leader who can once again articulate that government is the problem, not the solution.

Mike Huckabee doesn't believe in smaller government. State government grew 20% under his administration in Arkansas. I spent a few days in Arkansas back in 2005 conducting research on the political climate, and all the conservatives I talked to were embarrassed at what Huckabee had done to the state. That's not what we need in a president, and that's certainly not what we need representing the Republican party on the national stage.

I watched his speech last night as he accepted third place in New Hampshire, a shockingly high finish for him among the independent-minded voters there. He is charming and seems friendly, but at the end of the day he's just a snake oil salesman. We need a leader of substance, someone who can articulate a message of limited government (the way both Mitt Romney and John McCain did in their speeches last night). And that means we don't need Mike Huckabee.

Thank Goodness

Now that Ralph Wiggum is running for president, I have someone to vote for if the Republicans accidently give the nomination to Mike Huckabee. Whew.

Populism and the election

The biggest threat to America? Populism, according to David Strom in a new article on Townhall.

Government policies have proven time and again capable of slowing economic growth, but with few exceptions they have never proven capable of stimulating the economy in the long term. Even policies that economic conservatives think of as "pro-growth," such as deregulation, tax cuts and reducing trade barriers are more accurately thought of as the removal of government-created barriers to growth than actual government stimulants to economic activity.

"The economy," simply put, is not manageable like a machine. It is dynamic, driven by the choices, actions, and desires of over 300 million Americans, and ultimately the billions of people around the world. However frustrating it is to think that our fortunes are hostage to the actions of people across the globe, there is almost nothing positive the government can do to change that fact. We all live on the same planet and are tapping into the same resources to better our lives. It is the inventiveness of individuals and firms that shape those resources into useful products and services that truly make up the economy.

That's a great assessment. Real People make the economy go, not government. We forget that pretty easily - and candidates forget it real fast.