I'm in the Huntsman-did-it camp.

I worked my way through the weeds over on Facebook (in a thread John started), so read this, including material linked from there.

Whatever you think of the word analysis — H's propensity to say "malign," etc. etc. — the form of his "denial" is the key. I didn't think he would lie, and he didn't. That's why he said: "Anything sent out by me would have carried my name. An early political lesson I learned: never send an anonymous op-ed." The NYT op-ed writer did send it out under his own name. The NYT knows the name. It was just published anonymously.

Show me where he denies writing the piece, and I'll relent.

When Jon Huntsman said "to say that you can't secure the border I think is pretty much a treasonous comment."

I'm motivated to dredge up that old quote by this front-page display at HuffPo:



The link goes to "Trump’s Russia Ambassador Is Having A Very Bad Week/Jon Huntsman has spent decades cultivating a reputation as a pragmatic Republican. Now some of his allies are urging him to ditch the Trump administration."

I'm not recommending that you read that article. I'm just showing you what's out there — the idea that a person with a great reputation must abandon Trump. The target of such a message is buttered up — what a great reputation you have — for the purpose of delivering the message that he's going to lose it if he doesn't quit his job. The reader isn't supposed to think about whether the author ever admired the target or would give a damn about him if he abandoned Trump. One suspects that if Huntsman quit at this point, the new message wouldn't be anything positive about Huntsman, but gloating about how no one wants to be associated with Trump and Trump is so despicable that he's nearly entirely isolated now and ought to resign or be impeached.

But I just want to show you what Jon Huntsman said in the GOP debate on September 12, 2011. This is something I ran across yesterday as I was surveying the use of the word "treason" in public discourse over the last 13 years (searching my own archive). The moderator, Wolf Blitzer, had already already asked Governor Rick Perry if he'd stand by something he'd said about the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. Perry — who'd said that it was "almost treacherous – or treasonous" to do quantitative easing in the run-up to the election — answered, "if you are allowing the Federal Reserve to be used for political purposes, that it would be almost treasonous." So the word "treason" was already in the discourse of the debate.

Blitzer then got the audience to boo by making Perry affirm that he has supported in-state college tuition for people in the country illegally. Blitzer then brought in Huntsman, reminding him that he'd supported "driving privileges to illegal immigrants." Huntsman answered:

Well, first of all, let me say for Rick to say that you can't secure the border I think is pretty much a treasonous comment.

Perry hadn't said we can't secure the border. He'd only said that building a wall across the southern border was "just not reality." Perry said the answer was more law enforcement personnel but Huntsman jumped at the opportunity to make Perry look as though he didn't believe the border could be secured, and then, later in the debate, when the question was how to treat people who'd made it across the border, Huntsman returned to the issue of Perry and border security and lobbed the word "treasonous."

Treason talk.

Let's look back before this week, to "treason" as it has appeared within the lifetime of this blog. In chronological order:

April 27, 2005: Discussing the "blood" metaphor in constitutional law, I quoted Article III: "The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

May 28, 2006: I wrote about the protest singer Phil Ochs declaring the Vietnam War over:

So do your duty, boys, and join with pride
Serve your country in her suicide
Find the flags so you can wave goodbye
But just before the end even treason might be worth a try
This country is too young to die
I declare the war is over
It's over, it's over

July 1, 2006: "The editors of The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times explain how they decide when to publish a secret... Baquet and Keller have written a lengthy defense of their behavior, behavior that they know has been severely criticized, even called 'treason.'"

September 20, 2006: "To me, that's treason. I call it treason against rock-and-roll, because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics," said Alice Cooper, indicting rock stars who were telling people to vote for John Kerry.

August 3, 2007: Markos Moulitsas says that in 2002, "Dissent against the president was considered treason."

August 11, 2007: A 9/11 truther criticizes me for declining to debate him, which he took to mean that I know I'm "complicit in covering up mass murder and high treason."

May 12, 2008: A scholar assures us that the Muslim world would view Obama, the son of a Muslim father, as guilty of apostasy, which has "connotations of rebellion and treason," which is considered "worse than murder."

September 12, 2011: I'm live-blogging a debate in which "treason" is thrown around casually: "Perry stands by his 'almost treasonous' remark, referring to the use of the Federal Reserve for political purposes... Huntsman accuses Perry of treason for saying we can't secure the border."

May 8, 2012: "Isn't it funny, this 'treason' incident?" Mitt Romney, running for President, failed to chide a woman who asked whether Obama should be tried for treason. I brought up (as I did today), the 1964 book "None Dare Call It Treason." I also quoted the casual use of "treason" by Chief Justice John Marshall  Cohens v. Virginia to refer to doing something unconstitutional. ("We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.") And a commenter brought up an even more venerable use of the word, Patrick Henry's "If this be treason, make the most of it." That made me say: "The country was founded on treason. We celebrate the treason we like."

Also on May 8, 2012: "Obama supporters who express outrage over the use of the word 'treason' seem to think the word means nothing but to the crime defined in law — as if the woman Romney talked to wanted Obama tried and executed. It's as if people who say 'property is theft' are freakishly insisting that property owners be prosecuted for larceny. Think of all the words we use that have more specific legal meanings that do not apply: This job is murder... The rape of the land... Slave to love..."

June 17, 2013: Edward Snowden explains why he left the country: " [T]he US Government... immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it."

July 26, 2013: From a post about the death penalty: "Here's the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, which found the death penalty for rape (even rape of a child) to be unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. No one has been executed in the U.S. for a crime other than murder since the 1960s, though the Kennedy case leaves open the possibility of capital punishment 'for other non-homicide crimes, ranging from drug-trafficking to treason.'"

April 22, 2014 : Above the Law had hyperventilated, "Justice Scalia Literally Encourages People To Commit Treason," and I punctured it, saying Scalia was just giving his usual speech about the Constitution, which is always subject to the right of revolution explained in the Declaration of Independence. I bring up Patrick Henry's "If this be treason, make the most of it."

February 23, 2015: "'Edward Snowden couldn't be here for some treason,' said Neil Patrick Harris, the Oscars host, when the documentary about him won an award." I said: "I liked the joke, because of its language precision and because it seemed at least a tad risky in the context of Hollywood celebrating itself."

February 29, 2016: Trump hesitated to "unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election" after Duke it would be "treason to your heritage" for a white person not to vote for Trump.

October 14, 2016: "Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree," said Ezra Pound, who was charged with treason in WWII. He was disaffected after WWI, moved to Italy, felt inspired by Mussolini, and went on the radio criticizing the U.S., FDR, and the Jews.

December 21, 2016: I quoted the official course description for "The Problem of Whiteness," a course offered in the African Cultural Studies department of my university, the University of Wisconsin–Madison: "In this class, we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke, and consider the journal Race Traitor’s motto, 'treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.'"

January 16, 2017: I quote someone talking about Chelsea Manning: "He is a member of the military who knowingly committed treason. His, or her, gender status has nothing to do with his conviction for treason."

February 10, 2017: I quoted Trump (before his election) talking about Edward Snowden: "I think he's a total traitor and I would deal with him harshly," "And if I were president, Putin would give him over," and "Snowden is a spy who should be executed." I wondered: "But maybe you think Trump will end up looking good forefronting the iniquity of treason."

February 7, 2018: Trump had used the word "treasonous" to describe the Democrats who didn't applaud during his State of the Union Address. Yeah, it was a joke, but: "He's President and in the position of enforcing the law, and from that position punching down. He really should not be joking about treason. And I get that he's punching back, and that's his style. But people aren't just idiots if they feel afraid of a President who isn't continually assuring us that he's aware of his profound responsibilities."

April 17, 2018: I quoted Neil Gorsuch, concurring — and voting with the liberals ‚ in a case about immigration: "Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolu­tion, the crime of treason in English law was so capa­ciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of 'pretended' crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of Independence ¶21."

May 4, 2018: A conservative commentator sarcastically said he was "waiting for the Left to scream treason" over John Kerry's "quiet play to save Iran deal with foreign leaders."

July 17, 2017: I quoted Byron York: "Would it have been appropriate for the Trump campaign to try to find the [Clinton] emails?... What if an intelligence operative from a friendly country got them and offered them? And what about an unfriendly country? Would there be a scale, from standard oppo research on one end to treason on the other, depending on how the emails were acquired?"

Which prominent Republicans are signing a Supreme Court brief supporting same-sex marriage?

"The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions."

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 [a ban on same-sex marriage] when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress....

Actually, this isn't such an impressive list of names. It seems pretty pathetic to me.

[T]he presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

Or it suggests Republican governors of New Jersey and Massachusetts aren't that conservative.

But then there's Huntsman:

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed. Last week, Mr. Huntsman announced his new position in an article titled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” a sign that the 2016 Republican presidential candidates could be divided on the issue for the first time.

This is the first reference I've seen to Huntsman's article, and I'm constantly scanning the web for news stories, especially on the subject of same-sex marriage, especially with the Supreme Court decision pending. Why isn't Huntsman more influential? It's uncanny that this man, a former governor, very nice looking, doesn't get more play among conservatives. Here he is trying to tell conservatives what's conservative, and I don't have to read his article or any response to it to know that conservatives will reject what he's saying out of hand, designating him not a conservative.

But how about not rejecting it out of hand? Put aside your Huntsmanophobia for a moment. He connects marriage equality to free market capitalism:

Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.

This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.

Adam Smith was not only an architect of the modern world of extraordinary economic opportunity, he was a moralist whose first book was The Theory of Moral Sentiments. The foundation of his thought was his insight that free markets and open commerce strengthened our moral fiber by reinforcing the community of shared and reciprocal economic interests. Government, he thought, had to be limited lest it be captured and corrupted by special business interests who wanted protection from competition and the reciprocal requirements of community.

We are at a crossroads. I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game—because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty.

I'd say that's a bit under-theorized. There's so much padding at the beginning of the article — Republicans need to win over the younger generation and so forth. The ending is a mishmash — a mere hint of an idea that might make sense. What does he say other than equality is good and free market capitalism is also good? There's this odd concession that law doesn't matter, because this is something that people are going to understand emotionally. Rather than make an "abstract" legal argument — why is law only abstract? — he appeals to emotion. You should be for equality because equality is the right principle. First of all, that's abstract. Secondly, the go-with-your-heart, emotion-is-the-answer approach is what leads so many people to oppose same-sex marriage.

The other argument seems to be that the economic issues are what's really important, so let's get this pesky marriage issue behind us so we can move on. People will "vote for free markets" if there are conditions of equality. That suggests that marriage equality is the kind of equality in the marketplace that Adam Smith was talking about. Is it? Maybe, but Huntsman doesn't even attempt to connect that all up. As I said: under-theorized. That's my abstract legalistic view and my from-the-heart emotional view.

Huntsman dropping out.

Endorsing Romney.

CNN loves Huntsman! Huntsman! Huntsman!

I'm sitting in a hotel lobby where — beyond my control — CNN has been playing. I've been here for over an hour, and I'm reading and writing, trying not to be distracted by CNN, which is mostly covering the New Hampshire primary.

So the post title is just an impression.

Get ready for another debate... and hang out here, while I live-blog.

In 15 minutes, "the Republican presidential candidates will convene for the 13th televised debate of the 2012 cycle, the fourth from Fox News." They're in Sioux City, Iowa, on Fox News.

8:15: Rick Perry is the Tim Tebow.

8:20: Ron Paul identifies 2 factions in Congress: those who are for welfare and those who are for warfare. (He's against both.)

8:22: Listening to Huntsman, I blurt out: "He'd be a great candidate if only he hadn't worked in the Obama administration." He just can't get any respect. It's kind of sad! He was reelected governor with 80% of the vote. He's used to being immensely popular, so it must be bewildering not to get any traction. And yet, he knows exactly what his problem is. Too bad... perhaps for all of us.

8:25: The first commercial break. I go over to read what my son John is live-blogging:

9:07 - Rick Santorum is asked why he's doing so badly when he's spent more time in Iowa than any of the other candidates. "I'm counting on the people of Iowa to catch fire for me." He says he presents a "clear contrast" with the others because he's been a consistent conservative. If that's so clear, yet he's going nowhere, doesn't that imply that hardcore conservatism isn't the voters' top priority?

(John is in the Eastern Time Zone.)

8:35: Ron Paul goes after Gingrich on government-sponsored enterprises. They're not private business. Gingrich, given a chance to defend himself, says some government-sponsored enterprises do a lot of good. Then Bachmann gets to pile on: Gingrich stands for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and "they need to be shut down."

8:45: Rick Perry seems to be trying to get in on that Ron Paul small-government magic. Perry's new thing: "Part-time Congress."

9:01: Megyn Kelly invites them to trash those terrible judges, the legislators in black robes. At one point, she insists that they all name their favorite Supreme Court Justice. Rick Perry says: "Alito, Thomas, or Roberts — pick one!" What about Scalia! Man! What happened? Scalia used to be the favorite. Next, it's Romney, and he recites: "Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia," then almost giggles, as if to say: I did it, I named all the conservative Justices!

9:02: Gingrich agrees about those 4 Justices, then chooses Scalia, because he's "the most intellectual." Hmmm, maybe that's why Scalia didn't rate with Perry.

9:03: Ron Paul says: "All of them are good and all of them are bad." And Bachmann puts Scalia at the top of her list, then adds the other 3: Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Huntsman gives a little homily about the rule of law... then picks Roberts and Alito.

9:10: "A foreign policy based on 'pretty please,' you've got to be kidding." Romney mocks Obama's request that Iran return our drone.

9:21: "I'm very concerned about trying not to be zany," says Gingrich, in a reference to something Romney said the other day.

9:48: I'd like to see all of them with false eyelashes.

9:51: Gingrich would like to "eliminate abortions as a choice... defund Planned Parenthood and shift the money to pay for adoption services to give young women a choice of life rather than death." Why not eliminate the word "choice" then?

9:52: What happened to the Ronald Reagan commandment "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican?" That's the new question.

9:53: "There's an NFL player. His name doesn't come to mind, but he said if you don't get your tail kicked every now and then, you're not playing at a high enough level." Hey! That's the second time Perry dragged in football. Gratuitously. And ineptly reminding us of the way he can't remember stuff. And he wants to give "all you all" credit for letting him play at a high enough level. So he dragged in football again, quite unnecessarily, and got stuck not remembering something again.

9:54: Romney these attacks don't matter. Obama's the real opponent. Gingrich agrees: everyone on the stage is his "friend" and would be better than Barack Obama.

9:55: "I kind of like Huntsman. I think it's a shame he ruined himself by working for Obama," say I. Meade says, "I don't like him at all he's..." "Smarmy?" I volunteer. "Yeah, smarmy," says Meade. "He's a smarmdog."

Christine Todd Whitman encourages Jon Huntsman to run as a 3rd party candidate — but wouldn't it hurt Obama?

Although Huntsman and Whitman are nominally Republicans, I can't read this without assuming their agenda is to help President Obama win reelection. If you're with me this far, then, consider whether they've got a good strategy. Would Huntsman, running as a 3d party candidate, draw more voters away from the Republican (presumably Romney) or from Obama? I'm picturing dissatisfied Democrats going for Huntsman in protest... people who feel that Obama has abandoned their segment of the "Obama Coalition." It's harder to picture voters who'd be thinking of voting for Romney who'd get the idea of switching to Huntsman. Why would anyone do that?

"Bush would be regarded as a lefty today."

From Crack Skull Bob, documenting this morning's talking heads:



Brilliant, as always. I love the Jon Huntsman:



See and read the whole thing.

"It gets a little lonely over here in Siberia from time to time" was the wry whine from the under-included Jon Huntsman at the debate last night.

But does he have serious cause for complaint? Personally, I would love to hear from Thaddeus McCotter. Remember him? He was kept out of the debates entirely because he didn't hit a point in the polls — 1% — that was within the margin of error. Huntsman, benefited by inclusion in multiple debates, still hasn't worked his percentage up above the 1% mark.

It makes sense for the moderators to apportion the time with some regard to the polls! One-percenters are lucky to be included in the debate at all, especially this late in the game, when they've proven, over the weeks, that they are not gaining ground. Huntsman's poll numbers are flatlining.

This was a prime-time network debate. It wasn't wrong, at this point, to use some approach other than egalitarianism. They had equality of opportunity at the start of what has been a long series of debates. At some point, meritocracy kicks in. The people have shown they're most interested in comparing a set of 4 or 5 of the candidates to each other, and those on the outs should be grateful that they're given a shot at all.

The question isn't why is Huntsman getting so many fewer questions than Romney/Cain/Perry/Gingrich. The question is why is he getting so many more questions than Thaddeus McCotter?

And here's a news report revealing that CBS consciously chose poll-based proportionality. The Bachmann campaign got its hands on some internal CBS email:

In the email string, CBS News’ political analyst John Dickerson said that Bachmann was “not going to get many questions during the debate and she’s nearly off the charts,” a reference to the Minnesota congresswoman’s low standing in the polls....

“There’s nothing that can be done now. The debate’s over,” [Bachmann spokeswoman Alice] Stewart said. “They assured us prior to debate that it was going to be a fair and level playing field and it certainly wasn’t. We didn’t want to have to get the word out but they made it clear to us that it was going to be fair and it wasn’t.”

It's a level playing field if you view the game as beginning months ago! You had equal opportunity at the outset, but you've been doing poorly, and it's a meritocracy. Playing the "fairness" card now makes you sound like a liberal arguing for affirmative action... in a situation where there was no deprivation of opportunity at the outset.

Paul’s spokesman Jesse Benton accused CBS of “disgraceful” actions that stemmed from an “arrogance” in thinking that “they can choose the next president.”

“Ron Paul consistently polls among the top three in the key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire,” Benton said in a statement. “He is polling in double digits in most respected polls. 

Now, Paul does deserve attention, for the reason stated. But I think he got some great openings last night. He had the chance to distinguish himself as strongly opposed to all torture (defined unstingily) and to all undeclared wars. But he only had 90 seconds total, and so something beyond poll-based proportionality infused CBS's decisionmaking.

After the moderator Scott Pelley defended CBS's choices:

“I’ll tell you that the time for all of the candidates was limited. We had an hour and a half. We had eight candidates... I’ll also tell you we spent an enormous amount of time, several weeks, counting all of the questions of all the candidates, making sure everyone had a fair shot. Gov. Huntsman, who is polling around 1 percent at this point, made a point of coming up to me on stage and said, ‘I really appreciate how much you talked to the candidates who are not polling very high in numbers.’ So I think the candidates felt they were well treated.”

Oh, is Huntsman gunning for a network job? He's clever. Sucking up like that.

IN THE COMMENTS: Irene said:

A clever politician like Huntsman should know better than to joke about Siberia.

What if he had said "Nazi camp" instead?

"Yes, nothing goes better with a brutal political attack than acoustic guitars and whistling."

That's sarcasm, but I actually think incongruously lighthearted music is captivating.



Can you think of some examples of incongruously lighthearted music accompanying a brutal attack? The "Singin' in the Rain" scene in "Clockwork Orange" comes to mind.

But come on, Jon Huntsman on Mitt Romney is a far cry from ultraviolence.

AND: As for whistling and violence... don't forget "M"!

How sincere was Jon Huntsman when he gave the speech nominating Sarah Palin at the 2008 GOP convention?

He was confronted today on "Meet the Press, for saying "We are looking for a beacon of light to show us the way.... We are looking for Sarah!"

MR. HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I was asked to introduce her and nominate her because I think I was about the only person who actually knew her after John McCain had, had picked her as a running mate. I was chair of the Western Governors Association, I had worked to a limited extent with Sarah Palin. So when you're looking for somebody who can actually go up and nominate her, I was asked to do it, and I did as told.

I did as told!

[DAVID] GREGORY: So you mean you pumped up the case there? You didn't really believe... that the country was waiting for Sarah Palin?

MR. HUNTSMAN: I, I wanted to help my good friend John McCain. I wanted to help his ticket. I wanted to move the Republicans toward victory, and I stepped up and I did what I thought was right.

MR. GREGORY: You think she was capable of being vice president of the United States?

MR. HUNTSMAN: Oh, I think she would--I think absolutely she was capable of being vice president. She was elected as governor. She served a couple of years well, and I think she would have learned a lot on the job.

That was a good recovery. His first instinct was to disown her, but he remembered which party he is asking to nominate him.

Yesterday, we drove past the new "Occupy Madison" encampment...

... which you can see in the first 10 seconds of this 14-minute video...



... and you can hang out with Meade and me for the rest of the drive if you want. You'll see some more of Madison and the University of Wisconsin and eavesdrop on us. It's not all politics, I assure you, at 2 p.m. on a beautiful Saturday.

ADDED: A couple extra videos for reference. Here's the awesome song "United We Stand" by Brotherhood of Man:



And here's one of the wonderful "I'm a Pepper" commercials from the 1970s:



Of course, you must know the Herman Cain "smoking man" commercial, and here's the take-off by the Huntsman daughters.

AND: 2 more references. Donald Rumsfeld:



And Little Edie:

"We are shamelessly promoting our dad..."

Jon Huntsman's daughters:

The point in the debate when my doubts about Herman Cain suddenly spiked.

Julianna Goldman, the Bloomberg TV White House Correspondent, noting Cain's disapproval of Ben Bernanke, asked him "which Federal Reserve chairman over the last 40 years do you think has been most successful and might serve as a model for that appointment?"

Cain said Alan Greenspan. Goldman asked why, and Cain said:

Because that's when I served on the board of the Federal Reserve in the early 1990s. 

Huh? He's a model because he's the one you served with?

And the way Alan Greenspan oversaw the Fed and the way he coordinated with all of the Federal Reserve banks, I think that it worked fine back in the early 1990s.

So... Alan Greenspan, because you served with him and the way he did everything worked fine? Instead of backing that up with substance, he told us he has 2 candidates for Fed Chairman in mind, but he can't tell us who they are. Useless non-information.

Ron Paul got to speak next:

Spoken like a true insider... Alan Greenspan was a disaster....

Everybody in Washington -- liberals and conservatives -- said he kept interest rates too low, too long. Of course, the solution was, lower them even more, and they think that's going to solve our problem.
But if I had to name one person that did a little bit of good, that was Paul Volcker. He at least knew how to end -- or help, you know, end the inflation....

Paul goes on with details. I'm not saying I agree with Ron Paul, but the contrast between the 2 men was amazing at that point. Cain just did not seem forthcoming. I know he might seem straightforward when he keeps saying 9-9-9 is the answer. But it's also simplistic. And when called on for details, he won't tell you any.

Now, I thought it was a low blow when Huntsman, asked about 9-9-9, said "it's a catchy phrase.... I thought it was the price of a pizza when I first heard about it." My kneejerk reaction was: Huntsman is an elitist, sneering at a man who built a successful business. But look at the emptiness of Cain's defense of his 9-9-9:

... it is not the price of a pizza, because it has been well-studied and well-developed. 

It has? What's the proof of that? This is like approving of Alan Greenspan the way he did things worked well.

It starts with, unlike your proposals, throwing out the current tax code. Continuing to pivot off the current tax code is not going to boost this economy. This is why we developed 9-9-9, 9 percent corporate business flat tax, 9 percent personal income flat tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax. And it will pass, Senator, because the American people want it to pass.

What is why you developed it? There's no there there! And it will pass... why? Because people want it to pass?! The why I would like answered is: Why are people so impressed with Herman Cain?

At this point, Karen Tumulty — the WaPo correspondent — follows up. She wants to know what experts he's relying on. That was my question too when he said "we developed 9-9-9." He wants us to accept on faith that he's got this team that's worked it all out, so that now all he needs to do is say 9-9-9. Cain gives a vague answer:

My advisers come from the American people. Now, I will have some experts. 

What?! You will have some experts? But where did 9-9-9 come from? And what's with the strange expression "My advisers come from the American people." That sounds like he's saying the advisers are not experts. They're some of the people folk. Who knows who? But he will — future tense — have some experts. Is he admitting he doesn't have experts yet? If so, he immediately backtracks:

One of my experts that helped me to develop this is a gentleman by the name of Rich Lowery (ph) out of Cleveland, Ohio. He is an economist, and he has worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career.

So, there's this guy in Cleveland... Who is he? He's "worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career." That's a fancy-schmancy way to say he's a businessman and, it seems, to avoid admitting that this man has no impressive credentials as an economist. I think Cain is conceding that, because the next thing he feels compelled to say is:

I also have a number of other well-recognized economists that helped me to develop this 9-9-9 plan. It didn't come off a pizza box, no. It was well-studied and well-developed, because it will replace the corporate income tax, the personal income tax, the capital gains tax, the death tax, and most importantly, the payroll tax.

See the empty assurance? It was well-studied and well-developed. Was it? Why should we believe that? The sentence continues with the word "because," which ought to lead to a reason why we should believe that 9-9-9 was well-constructed. But it doesn't! "Because" introduces another repetition of what 9-9-9 is. He keeps saying, essentially: We should destroy the existing system because we should destroy the existing system. Put on that abstract level, it's the same approach to future-planning we're hearing from the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Tumulty pursues him: "So -- so who are some of these economists?" And Cain's truly scary response is: "Rich Lowery (ph) out of Cleveland, Texas, is one of the economists that I have used. He's been my lead economist on helping to develop this."

Obviously, Tumulty meant: who other than the one economist he already named, which was "Rich Lowery (ph) out of Cleveland, Ohio." I mean, maybe there's another Rich Lowery — the one "out of Cleveland, Texas." Cleveland, Texas!

According to Politico, this "Rich Lowery" is Rich Lowrie, and he is "not a trained economist."

Instead, Lowrie — who’s the only economic adviser Cain has been willing to mention by name — is a wealth manager for a division of Wells Fargo and according to his LinkedIn page holds an accountancy degree from Case Western Reserve University. Lowrie also spent three years on the advisory board of the conservative third-party group Americans For Prosperity.

Come on, people. This infatuation with Herman Cain is embarrassing. Wake up!

Is Huntsman about to get McCottered?

He can't seem to hit the threshold — 2% in the polls — for inclusion in the next debate. That's what ended the candidacy of Thaddeus McCotter.

I get the feeling you might want to talk about Herman Cain.

He won the Florida straw poll. By a lot.

Cain's landslide victory, with 37 percent of the vote, exceeded the combined total for Perry and Mitt Romney, who only garnered 15 percent and 14 percent, respectively.

But it was a particularly stinging defeat for Perry, the front-runner in Florida and national polls. He had wooed the nearly 3,000 party faithful with fliers before the Presidency 5 weekend and a free breakfast Saturday.

Is this just a message to Perry and Romney or are we supposed to believe that a man who has never held political office could serve as the President of the United States?

ADDED: From the article:

Ana Navarro, of Miami-Dade and an adviser to candidate Jon Huntsman, said Perry is more show than substance.

"Rick Perry is a Texas stud, a real macho man who looks great in a cowboy hat and boots and was supposed to come galloping on his stallion to rescue Republicans and lead us to the promise land," Navarro said. "But it's become increasingly clear he can't perform. He has electile dysfunction."

Huntsman needs to rein in his quasi-spokespersons. Somebody thinks she's way wittier than she is, and sex jokes simply do not fit the presidential discourse. How is anyone supposed to respond? Take potshots at Huntsman's sexuality?!

Chris Matthews feels something "big" and "hard" and "bad" and it's Rick Perry.

Chris Matthews. I know. Why am I even listening? I didn't listen to the MSNBC commentary after the debate. (I immediately switched over to the Brewers game.) But I did turn on the recorded commentary this morning as I was making coffee, and I heard this overheated rant about Rick Perry. This is my transcription of Matthews chattering:

It's real: this man's absolute opposition to scientific information. The thought that this country would elect or seriously consider electing someone who stands out there and says I don't accept science on climate change and clearly doesn't want to study it any further. I think that's the big, hard, bad news for the Republican Party. Their front-runner, tonight, seemed to be anti-science and this country has to win the battle of science in the world against China and India and the other [something] countries. If we give up on science, if we get the image of being a yahoo country, a monkey-business country, we got a real problem in terms of our national identity and this fellow we're looking at right now is leading the charge, the luddite charge against modern technology and modern information. So I think that's the hard, bad news for the Republican party.

So Mr. Science there — the man whose leg felt a thrill when he heard Barack Obama — says "big, hard, bad" and "hard, bad" when he sees Rick Perry. I'd say Matthews is scared. He's spewing emotion. But he would like us to believe he's devoted to science! A burbling bundle of emotion attempts to embody seriousness about science. It's absurd.

What is a "monkey-business country"? Did some notion of the "monkey trial" flitter through his flickering brain? Perry said nothing about evolution, but whatever. He seemed "anti-science" to Matthews, and Matthews opened up his anti-science floodgate and "monkey-business country" popped out, along with "yahoo" and "luddite," which are also rattling around in the same word bin in the mind of Matthews.

Let's look at the transcript and try to inject a little reality into the Matthews word-mush. John Harris of Politico has just asked Jon Huntsman — Jon Meade Huntsman Jr. — which of his fellow Republicans has been "saying crazy or inane things." Huntsman demurs. Harris tries again: "You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti- science. Who on this stage is anti-science?" Huntsman says:

Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We've got to win voters.

Odd that "We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy" and "We've got to win voters" followed the notion that "we can't run from science." Does he think it's difficult to be scientific and conservative? Anyway, Huntsman's main point is that if Republicans aren't scientific, it will "turn people off" and they won't win. That's about science, but not about the devotion to science. It's just a pragmatic statement about winning elections.

Harris turns to Rick Perry, even though Huntsman didn't name Perry (as Harris, obviously, had hoped). Harris doesn't pick up the evolution thread, but he asks Perry about "climate change": "You said that weekly and even daily, scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change. Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject?" Of course, Perry doesn't name any scientists. He says:

Well, I do agree that there is -- the science is -- is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at -- at -- at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just -- is nonsense. I mean, it -- I mean -- and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.

But the fact is, to put America's economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy.

Now, that's just not anti-science. Perry resists signing on to the opinion of the experts who portray themselves as the scientific consensus, but he didn't say he "clearly doesn't want to study [climate change] any further," which is the way Chris Matthews characterized his remarks. Perry said he wanted accurate science and more science — especially when it is the basis for proposals that would have a "monstrous economic impact."

Citing statistics showing success improving air quality in Texas, Perry says:

That's the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, "Here is what we think is happening out there." The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America's economics in jeopardy.

That's not anti-science. That is a practical man setting a high burden of proof about the degree to which science must be "settled" where the effect on the economy is severe. You may disagree on the question of how settled the science is, but that doesn't make him anti-science.

Matthews, brought on to analyze the debate, seems barely to have heard what Perry actually said. He simply unleashed a torrent of words around the subject of science and tried to scare people — if anyone was still watching — about this yahoo monkeyman Perry.

Live-blogging the Republican Debate.

Come on! Hang out in the comments. We're doing this!

3:32 minutes into the show — Live-stream here... as Rick Perry gets the first question and a chance to tell us about the success in Texas. "I'm proud of what we done in the state of Texas." [Yes: what we done...]

5:13 — As Perry talks, Romney looks on. He's taller. He's got those graying temples and slight sideburns. He's wearing a blue suit... and maybe they all are. Romney gets the next question: "If I'd spent all my life in politics..." That's his angle: experience in the private sector. He's asked if life in government is a "disqualification," which he brushes off, even as he wants us to think it is. Romney looks calm and Perry a tad nervous. Romney is hot! And tan! Perry looks wrinkly and pasty. Romney stresses how hard it was to succeed in Massachusetts compared to Texas.

10:41 — Great interplay between Romney and Perry and Romney clearly won it. He needed to. Let's see if Perry comes back. Now, it's Santorum and then Cain. We're less interested in these characters. Sorry.

13:08 — Asked of Huntsman: "What does Romney not get about China?" "We are the most blue-sky, optimistic people on earth." And Utah beats Texas and Massachusetts.

14:37 — Michele Bachmann's hair is getting bigger and bigger. She says Obamacare is keeping businesses from creating jobs. It's killing jobs.

18:00 — Ron Paul is stressing out about regulations. We don't need the federal government to tell us if cars are safe. The consumer is smart enough to figure it out!

21:42 — On "Day 1," Romney will grant all the states a waiver from Obamacare.

23:05 — Perry is settling in, getting comfortable. Huntsman is coming alive too.

26:54 — Bachmann presents herself as the one who understands the legislative process: An executive order is not enough. And she's the one who will (somehow) be able to lead Congress to deliver up the anti-Obamacare legislation that is needed.

27:33 — Gingrich gets testy: "I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other." Everyone on the stage knows "Obamacare is a disaster... it can't be implemented, it's killing the economy... Every person up here agrees with that." Nicely slammed. The media is going to try to get Republicans fighting each other, and he's calling their bluff. The Republicans are united: "a team." Well done!

32:00 — Rick Santorum believes "in the dignity of every person"... and he's not talking about abortion. He's talking about getting people off welfare and into work.

32:43 — What will Rick Perry do about the fact that white people are so much richer than black people? "Create an environment" where people who risk their capital will get a return on their investment. (He shrugs off the prompt to talk about race. He's not interested in that!)

 35:23 — Green jobs?! Let's have real jobs, says Romney.

37:52 — Ron Paul: "Mandates! That's what the whole society is about!" It's not just Obamacare. It's also Medicare. "We don't need the government running our lives." He can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime! (Because a silver dime is worth $3.50... or something.)

40:28 — Hey, John Althouse Cohen is live-blogging. "Perry takes a gratuitous swipe at Ron Paul for quibbling with then-President Reagan. This is a transparent gambit on Perry's part to give more time to Paul and take time away from the stronger candidates."

47:21 — Nancy Reagan embracing Ronald Reagan's casket. Tears. It's the Reagan remembrance interlude. Ah! She's there. Hi, Nancy!

48:13 — "Karl Rove is over the top," says Rick Perry, referring to Rove's insinuation that Perry is too extreme in, for example, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." Perry says he's "not responsible" for Karl Rove. Everyone knows Social Security is "a lie." Does that mean if we vote for him, we're giving up our demand that government meet its promise to us, based on which it skimmed off our wages for our entire working lives? We shouldn't concede that.

51:03 — Romney is asked how we can have a "candid conversation" about Social Security without "scaring seniors." Scaring seniors! Why don't younger people have a basis for demanding that the money they paid in be paid out when they are old? The premise of the question outrages me. Romney says Social Security is "not working" but the GOP nominee must be someone who will save Social Security, not abolish it. "We gotta do that as a party."

53:51 — Ron Paul is invited to attack Rick Perry. Paul lights into Perry for an executive order — as governor — forcing HPV vaccines on 12-year-old girls.  Bachmann follows on. (She's not getting much of a chance to show her stuff tonight.)

57:14 — "I will always err on the side of saving lives," Perry says emphatically, referring specifically to his order to vaccinate young girls against HPV, a sexually transmitted virus. He concedes the executive order might have been a mistake, but he's also kind of not sorry.

58:44 — After Santorum attacks Perry, Romney takes a conciliatory tone. Perry's "heart is in the right place." Let's attack Obama! He "doesn't have a clue!"

1:23:54 — Romney, are you in the Tea Party? He believes in "a lot" of it.

1:26:25 — Huntsman wants to pledge: "no pledges."

1:27:30 — Huntsman would bring the troops home from Afghanistan (and do the "nation-building" at home).

1:28:53 — Romney says we need a President who "loves America" (unlike Obama). Then Perry decides to go out of his way to give Obama some credit: He killed bin Laden... "and he's proven once and for all that government spending will not create one job.... and he kept Gitmo open."

1:35:35 —  Are you Republicans a bunch of crazy cranks? Which of these people on the stage are crazy? That's the question! To Huntsman. This gets back to what riled up Gingrich, at 27:33: The moderators want to turn the Republicans on each other.

1:38:30 — Perry uses the word "monstrous" a lot!

My overall impression? The moderators tried to provoke a war amongst Republicans, and Gingrich was the hero of the evening by calling them out. I thought Huntsman did himself some good, and Bachmann for some reason didn't find a way to stand out. The main focus was on Perry and Romney — in part because the moderators made that happen. And I think Romney looked better than Perry. As they say, he seemed presidential. He had a lot of poise and he made plenty of sense. Perry seemed rough, but it was his first go round.

Jon Huntsman has an "anti-GOP" approach, crafted by his chief strategist, John Weaver.

According to Paul Gigot.

Mr. Weaver has long been at war with the GOP mainstream, and his candidates typically end up running against some element of the Republican base. That was his strategy in 2000 with John McCain, who won New Hampshire but lost in South Carolina after attacking fellow Republicans....

The trouble with the strategy is that while it draws huzzahs from the media, attacking Republicans rarely appeals to enough . . . Republicans. This year in particular it's hard to see much room for Mr. Huntsman running to the left of Mr. Romney. The GOP as "anti-science" was a main Democratic theme in the past decade but also isn't likely to move many Republicans now. Perhaps Mr. Huntsman thinks this will carve out ideological space to be the "moderate" choice as vice president, which on present course is his only chance of getting on the ticket.

The trouble with the strategy is that... it draws huzzahs from the media! The media lures Republicans into embracing the most liberal candidate, but they will turn on him as soon as he gets the nomination. That's what happened with John McCain, who, once nominated, wasn't liberal enough for liberals or conservative enough for conservatives. There's some idea that the moderates are left to throng to this liberalish Republican. (I just typo'd "Republicant" and before deleting the "t," considered, as an alternative, inserting an apostrophe.)

I don't know if I'm the typical moderate, but I am a moderate, and I specifically had a problem with McCain's lack of conservatism. This was written on October 8, 2008, the morning after a debate, the day I abandoned my "cruel neutrality" perspective on the election and decided to vote against McCain:

McCain offered no defense of his party, only assertions that he had tried to get [financial] regulations passed. So, there he was, embedded in failure. He didn't stand by the principles of conservatism...

Look at how McCain failed to promote conservatism. McCain brought up Ronald Reagan 3 times: once to say he opposed him about sending troops to Lebanon and the other 2 times to say it was wonderful the way he worked with the liberal Tip O'Neill.

McCain never presented the conservative alternative to Obama. He never even called himself a conservative last night. He was wandering all over that red carpet, microphone in hand, and I have the feeling, in retrospect, that he was truly bewildered, mouthing old phrases, trying to slip by. But one old phrase that was missing was "I'm a proud conservative." Remember when he used to say that?

In the end, summing up my 4 reasons for rejecting McCain, I said "He never defined himself as a principled conservative."

So, speaking as a moderate, I'd like to say that I want the Republican candidate to define himself in conservative terms and defend that conservative vision. That doesn't mean I want everything that ordinarily gets packaged as "conservative." I don't. But I want someone who makes sense as the leader of the Republican Party, not a... maverick who's about looking like he doesn't buy into their ideology.