Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Puerto Rican Statehood: The Real Challenges

by Brian Witt



The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been in the news quite a bit lately, due to it having just held its presidential primary election.  While Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the U.S. presidential election, both Republicans and Democrats allow residents of the island to elect delegates to their national conventions.  Mitt Romney won the primary with an overwhelming 83% of the vote, but most of the media attention was caused by Rick Santorum's contention that Puerto Rican statehood was undesirable, because English is not the official language of the island and would create linguistic conflicts with the mainland. This comment cost Santorum dearly, as the vast majority of those who identify with the GOP on Puerto Rico are members of the New Progressive Party, which advocates strongly for admittance as the 51st state.

While Santorum was widely (and correctly) criticized for his remarks, what would the impact of Puerto Rican statehood be, both for the island and the rest of the United States?  To understand this issue, we must first examine Puerto Rico's current, unique status within the United States.  Since 1917, Puerto Ricans have been full citizens of the United States, and any who move off the island to the mainland have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other U.S. citizen.  Since 1952, Puerto Rico has been known as a "Free Associated State," a status in-between full statehood and independence, which is similar (though not identical) to the statuses of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Under the FAS, Puerto Ricans have most of the rights of mainland citizens, such as constitutional protections and liberties, full use of the U.S. federal court system, protection of the military and federal agencies, and representation abroad through the Department of State. The major differences between Puerto Rico and any state are political representation and taxation. Puerto Ricans (who have their own fully functional commonwealth legislature and governor) cannot vote in presidential elections, and instead of electing congressmen and senators, can send one non-voting delegate to Congress. However, Puerto Ricans are also exempt from federal income taxes.  Corporations doing business with entities other than the U.S. government are also exempt from a variety of federal taxes and regulations. At the same time, Puerto Ricans are not eligible for a variety of social welfare programs; for instance, Medicaid spending is capped at 15% of what it would be if Puerto Rico was a full state.

Thus the implications for Puerto Rican statehood would be largely two-fold:  firstly, what effect would it have upon federal elections and political processes; and secondly, what would the effects be on federal tax revenue and expenditures?  It is challenging to predict how Puerto Rico would vote in elections since it has its own vibrant two-and-a-half party system, with supporters of statehood largely backing the mainland GOP, continuing the FAS backing Democrats, and the remainder of independence supporters largely ignoring mainland politics.  On the whole the statehood and GOP supporting NPP has been more successful lately, which should give Republicans hope. In addition, Puerto Ricans tend to be extremely anti-abortion and socially conservative in general, which would align them more with the GOP.  On the other hand, Puerto Ricans in the U.S. tend to vote Democratic, either strongly so (New York) or slightly (Florida) depending on the state they live in.  Additionally, the increasingly hardline stance taken by Republicans in the South and Southwest towards Hispanic immigrants would probably not endear the party to Puerto Ricans, even if immigration issues are much less salient than among Mexican-Americans.

Puerto Ricans would probably benefit from statehood, even if the U.S. Treasury would not.  While Puerto Rican residents would now be liable for federal income taxes, the low levels of per-capita income would leave most Puerto Ricans with no income tax liability whatsoever.  In 2009, the per capita income in Puerto Rico was about $19,000, extremely high for Latin America, but well below that of the poorest US state Mississippi ($36,000.) A study by the Heritage Foundation concluded that just making Puerto Ricans eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (of which 59% would be eligible upon statehood) would cost taxpayers more than the total remitted by Puerto Ricans to the Treasury. In addition, Puerto Rico would be eligible for full Medicaid and Medicare spending, instead of just 15%, as well as all other federal social welfare programs.  Ironically, Puerto Rican statehood is far more popular on the mainland than in Puerto Rico, even though the island would quickly become per capita the largest beneficiary of social spending in the U.S.

How about one issue that would not arise with Puerto Rican statehood? You guessed it, Santorum's linguistic fears. Contrary to his statement, English is one of the two official languages of the island and a required subject in all Puerto Rican schools. Almost all islanders have some English proficiency, and over a third are fully fluent in English, a number considerably higher than Louisiana and New Mexico when they were admitted to the Union.  In the end, though it is difficult to conclude on whether Puerto Rican statehood is a certainty in the near future, the case for its admission as our nation’s 51st state is one that gains strength with each generation.


Friday, March 16, 2012

The Fallacy of a Brokered Convention: A Pitt College Republicans Special


by Casey Rankin

Over the past few months, pundits in the media have openly fantasized about a scenario where no Republican presidential candidate earns the 1,144 delegates needed to win a first ballot nomination. This would plunge Republicans into what is known as a “brokered convention”, where all 2,286 delegates are free to vote however they please. It would also mean that the Republican nominee would not be chosen until August 30th, which most political experts regard as being catastrophically late.


If you are a Republican and the above paragraph frightens you, worry not, the media is full of dramatic amateurs, who are ignorant of party rules, state by state polling,basic arithmetic, and intellectual honesty. Based on those factors, it is clear that Governor Mitt Romney will clinch the 1,144 delegates needed for nomination prior to the convention. Here we will go through each state, and based on party rules and available polling, attempt to make a realistic delegate allocation projection.

Current Delegate Count (As of March 14th)
Romney: 496
Santroum: 236
Gingrich: 141
Paul: 67


March 17th
Missouri Caucus: 52 Delegates Non-Binding Caucus (Proportional)

In the Missouri beauty contest vote held in early February, Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney 55%-25%. Newt Gingrich was not on the ballot however, and he will be for the caucus. So if we assume that
Gingrich peels 15% off of Santorum's total, we are left with results similar to what we saw in neighboring Kansas, with Santorum winning 40%-25%-15%. So taking the most negative possible projection for Romney, we can predict the delegates to be proportioned as something like, Santorum 35, Romney 12, Gingrich 5.

New Delegate Count
Romney: 508
Santorum: 271
Gingrich: 146

March 18th
Puerto Rico Caucus: 23 Delegates Winner Take All

Given that Romney has won commanding majorities among Hispanics in every state or territory with a measurable sample, and has the endorsement of popular Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno, he should win a lopsided victory here.

New Delegate Count
Romney: 531
Santorum: 271
Gingrich: 146

March 20th
Illinois Primary: 69 Delegates Proportional by Congressional District
The most recent poll taken in Illinois shows Romney with a 35-31 lead over Santorum. Gingrich and Paul poll 12 and 7 percent respectively. Romney recently went on the air with a $1 million TV purchase, something Santorum won't be able to match. Given Romney's propensity for closing strong in Midwestern states, it is impossible for me to imagine Santorum winning here, and my bet is he loses by a number in the high single digits. In projecting the delegates, we can look to Michigan, while projecting it to go slightly more in Romney's favor, so something like 41-28 in Romney's favor, again trying to be cautious.

New Delegate Count
Romney: 572
Santorum: 299
Gingrich: 146

March 24th
Louisiana Primary: 46 Delegates, Proptional

Most recently, polling showed a tight three way race: Santorum 25, Romney 21, Gingrich 20. I would expect the final results to be similar to Mississippi, where they finished 33-31-30, except for shifting some of Gingrich's support to Santorum based on momentum, for a delegate total of something like Santorum 21, Romney 15, Gingrich 10.

New Delegate Count
Romney 587
Santorum 320
Gingrich 156

April 3rd
Wisconsin Primary: 42 Delegates, Winner Take All
Maryland Primary: 37 Delegates, Winner Take All
Washington D.C: 19 Delegates, Winner Take All

These three winner take all contests provide major opportunity for delegate pickups. Rick Santorum failed to qualify for the ballot in D.C, meaning those 19 delegates should easily go to Romney. Based on Maryland's ideology and demographics, which closely resemble New England, where Romney has yet to lose, it is tough to envision it going to Santorum, making those 37 delegates likely to go to Romney. Wisconsin is a bit tougher to project, but since the two closest states to them geographically and demographically, Ohio and Michigan, went to Romney narrowly, we will predict it to follow. This day looks likely to deliver a big prize for Romney, as he garners 99 delegates, while his opponents combine for zero.

New Delegate Count
Romney 686
Santorum 320
Gingrich 156

April 24th
Pennsylvania Primary: 72 Delegates, Congressional District
New York Primary: 95 Delegates, Proportional, Winner Take All if someone reaches 50%
Connecticut Primary: 28 Delegates, Proptional, Winner Take All if someone reaches 50%
Rhode Island Primary: 19 Delegates, Proportional
Delaware Primary: 17 Delegates, Winner Take All

On the surface, April 24th should be an outstanding day for Mitt Romney. To start with the small states, Romney will certainly win Delaware, giving him all of their 17 delegates. He will likely win Rhode Island with a percentage well over 50%, and where Ron Paul will likely finish in second, so being generous to Paul, we project a 13-6 split. I expect this case to also hold true in Connecticut, except that it becomes winner take all if someone is over 50%, which I would expect Romney to reach, giving him all 28 of their delegates. While no polling is available in these three states, Romney has yet to lose in a single New England state, and his margins have generally grown throughout the campaign. New York is also likely to give him a big boost. While the most recent poll shows Romney up only 38-31 over Santorum, the substantial number of undecideds figure to break Romney's way, especially when one consider that Romney and McCain combined for about 75% of the New York Primary vote in 2008. This may be an optimistic hedge, but Romney seems likely to edge 50% of the vote, giving him the big delegate prize of the night with 95 delegates. In Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania, Santorum currently leads by 18 points, a margin I would expect to tighten. However, to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt, lets project that margin holds, and he wins 45 of the 72 delegates, with the other 27 going for Romney. That gives us a nightly total of Romney 180, Santorum 45, Paul 6.

New Delegate Count
Romney 866
Santorum 365
Gingrich 156
Paul 73

May 8
North Carolina Primary: 55 Delegates, Proportional
Indiana Primary: 46 Delegates , Congressional District
West Virginia: 31 Delegates, Congressional District

After a brutal month, Santorum returns to more friendly territory. Given its proximity to Pennsylvania, its ultra conservative and impoverished demographic, I expect Santorum to sweep West Virginia, with Gingrich and Romney perhaps earning a few delegates, so project that as Santorum 25, Gingrich 4, Romney 2. Indiana should follow the pattern of most Midwestern states, which have gone for Romney by narrow margins. Also consider the fact that Santorum has gone through a brutal month, where he has only won one primary. So figure those delegates split in half, with each winning 23. North Carolina should be the most favorable for Romney, as its demographic has begun to look more like Florida than the other Southern states. I would still expect it to be close, but with Romney winning a delegate victory of about 25-20-10 (Romney-Santorum-Gingrich). Overall, it looks like Santorum has the advantage for the night, but not by much, with the following tally: Santorum 58, Romney 50, Gingrich 14.

New Delegate Count
Romney 916
Santorum 423
Gingrich 170

May 15
Nebraska Primary: 35 Delegates
Oregon Primary: 28 Delegates, Proportional

Nebraska is very typical of the states Santorum has done well in, and I would expect him to win a percentage near 50, making it likely he will carry virtually all of the states 35 delegates. Oregon figures to follow Washington, which was a close contest between Romney and Paul. It is also purely proportional, so Santorum might pull out a delegate or two. That one I would project something like 14-12-2 (Romney-Paul-Santorum). May 15th ends with a tally of, Santorum 37, Romney 14, Paul 12.

New Delegate Count
Romney 930
Santorum 460
Gingrich 170
Paul 85

May 22nd
Kentucky Primary: 45 Delegates, Proportional
Arkansas Primary: 36 Delegates, Proportional

While this landscape is favorable to Santorum, the proportional rules make it unlikely he will amass a significant delegate advantage. Kentucky seems to fall into Santorum's region of strength, so I think he will get something like a 25-12-8 advantage from it (Santorum-Gingrich-Romney). Arkansas figures to be a bit more Gingrich friendly, resulting in a closer three way race with the delegates being split 13-12-11 (Santorum-Gingrich-Romney). This gives us a tally of Santorum 38, Gingrich 24, Romney 19.

New Delegate Count
Romney 949
Santorum 498
Gingrich 194
Paul 85

May 29th
Texas Primary, 155 Delegates, Proportional

The most recent Texas polling has Romney leading Santorum 32-30, with Gingrich at 19. If these numbers don't shift dramatically, then the delegates will be split heavily, with Romney winning around 65 , Santorum about 60 and maybe 30 for Gingrich. At this point Romney is in range of the delegates needed to win the nomination prior to the convention.

New Delegate Count
Romney 1,014
Santorum 558
Gingrich 224
Paul 85

June 5th
California Primary: 172 Delegates, Winner Take All by Congressional District
New Jersey Primary: 50 Delegates, Winner Take All
South Dakota Primary: 28 Delegates, Proportional
Montana Primary: 26 Delegates, Proportional
New Mexico: 23 Delegates, Proportional

If the delegate estimates I have made to this point are even in the ball park, Romney is certain to lock up the nomination by June 5th. He leads in California by over 20 points. With a lead that large it seems impossible that Santorum leads in any district. To be as fair and conservative as possible, I will just posit that he wins 4 of the states 53 districts for a delegate total of around 15, leaving Romney with 157, putting him over 1,144 and making him the 2012 Republican Nominee for President of the United States. New Jersey is a guaranteed Romney win, giving him all fifty of their delegates. South Dakota and Montana are both likely to go to Santorum by insubstantial margins, perhaps by a combined 28-22-2-2 (Santorum-Romney-Gingrich-Paul). New Mexico is likely to go overwhelmingly to Romney so give him about 17 delegates to 5 for Santorum. That puts our nightly total at :Romney 246, Santorum 48, Gingrich 2, Paul 2.

New Delegate Count
Romney 1,260, Republican Nominee
Santorum 606
Gingrich 226
Paul 87

June 26th
Utah Primary: 40 Delegates, Winner Take All

Romney will win the Mormon State by over 90% of the vote. He will easily capture all 40 of the state's delegates.

Final Delegate Count
Romney 1,300, Republican Nominee
Santorum 606
Gingrich 226
Paul 87

In closing, while he is unlikely to do it before June, Romney should easily clear the 1,144 delegates necessary to be nominated on the first ballot of the convention. I project him finishing 156 delegates above the threshold, meaning that unless I made a massive mistake somewhere, he will be above what is needed to avoid any complaints about rules, procedure etc. at the convention. What is demonstrated even more clearly is that Santorum, and Gingrich, are unable to reach the threshold, and that all they can do is hope to throw the contest to a brokered convention, something that is unbelievably deleterious to the party's goal of defeating Barack Obama.  

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Warren G. Harding: America's Most Underrated President


by Casey Rankin

“Warren Harding was our worst president.” The previous declaration is one that egghead academics have uttered countless times over the course of the past 90 years, and one that is patently false, and intellectually lazy. When one takes the time to look at the entire record of the Harding Administration, they will find it filled with monumental achievements. The president's policies served as a modernizing and transformative force for America during the early 1920's.

“We need to cut spending,” is a refrain heard from presidential candidates in every election since the dawn of our republic. Unlike virtually everyone who has said this, President Harding actually did cut spending, and cut it dramatically, from $6.3 billion in 1920, to $3.3 billion in 1922. This was in large part due to his signing of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the Bureau of the Budget ( he precursor to the Office of Management and Budget). Additionally, President Harding also signed legislation in 1922 that included some of the sharpest across the board tax cuts in American history, lowering the top marginal income rate from 73% to 25%. Harding also signed the Revenue Act in 1921, which cut the corporate tax rate from 65% to 50%. These supply side cuts actually resulted in an increase of tax revenue, and helped to cut the national debt by one third.

In addition to cutting taxes and spending, Harding helped modernize the American economy with significant investment in infrastructure, when he signed the Highway Act in 1921, helping to establish some of the first modern roads. He was also the first president to invest in preventive medicine, by signing the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act in 1921, which required doctors to regularly examine healthy pregnant women and children to keep them from getting sick.

Along with his economic achievements, Harding was the most pro-civil rights president since Abraham Lincoln. He was the first 20th Century President to advocate political, educational, and economic equality for African Americans, and followed up on that ideal by appointing several to federal positions. Harding also spoke in favor of anti-lynching legislation, pledging to sign the Dyer Bill, which would have increased penalties on those convicted of lynching. The bill met defeat in the Senate due to a Democratic filibuster.

Most famously, Harding signed legislation establishing the Veteran's Bureau, which eventually evolved into the Department of Veteran's Affairs. This legislation modernized America's approach to taking care of its returning soldiers, allowing 300,000 World War I veterans to receive needed medical care, and helped to open up educational opportunities for them.

Finally, Harding provided leadership on another important front: our freedom to party. Harding openly defied the Volstead Act during Prohibition, by drinking whiskey during his poker games and serving wine to White House guests at formal dinners. This act of leadership helped embolden Americans to ignore one of the most unpatriotic and un-American laws in our nation's history and contributed to the “Roaring Twenties” atmosphere of the decade.

To conclude, Harding's two years in office were filled with more accomplishments than most presidents achieve in eight. His supply side economic agenda helped stimulate one of the most robust periods of growth in American history. His policies helped cut the federal budget in half, and reduced our debt by a third. He was one of the first presidents to invest heavily in infrastructure, which helped modernize the American economy. His advocacy for Veteran's Affairs helped many returning soldiers receive the care they needed. He had the patriotic audacity to personally reject the absurdity and insanity that was Prohibition, and encouraged his countryman to do the same. With all of these facts taken into account, only a foolish stooge could call Harding a failed president, despite the corruption of a handful of his subordinates. Harding's low standing amongst historians is due to intellectual laziness, and nothing more. He was enormously popular in his time, winning the election with over 60% of the popular vote, and was seen as a shoo-in for reelection before his death, as his contemporaries saw the direct benefit from his leadership. If we could elect a president in 2012 who was able to cut the federal budget in half, reduce our national debt by a third, and stimulate a decade of robust economic growth, we would leap for joy, and probably ignore any corruption with gleeful ignorance. In other words, America could use another Warren G. Harding.

Monday, March 12, 2012

The Cult of the Presidency

by Sean Drummond



There has been a tremendous debate throughout our country’s history on how the Office of the Presidency should function, and in particular just how much power should be given to the President.   This was one of the central issues that faced our Founding Fathers, and even today is a topic of debate among various scholars.  I agree with Gene Healy of the Cato Institute that America has been consumed by a “Cult of the Presidency”.  This term is used to describe the issue of expanding Presidential powers that our country has witnessed over the last few decades. With the growing influence that the President has gained, many American citizens have become enamored with the office, and look towards the Commander-in-Chief in times of peril and flourish.  I think that the general public certainly desires (and somewhat expects) the President to solve problems on a wide range of scales, both large and small.
With the growing influence of the office come more responsibilities.  In recent years especially, we have seen the President take on issues of a massive variety and wide scale.  A prominent example comes to mind when former President George Bush was expected to acknowledge the issue that former Vice President Al Gore made very public:  global warming.  Not only did Bush need to make the decisions to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but he also had to decide the best strategy to pursue with the conflict in Iraq.  This exemplifies the wide change in dynamics that the American people expect the President to deal with.
When the public thinks of politics, it focuses mainly on the President.  The public does not understand, or I think care enough, to learn a great deal about the House or the Senate, important parts of the political puzzle.  I would go as far as to contend that the average American citizen knows more about the President’s personal life then can even name five members of Congress!  A large part of this “Cult of the Presidency” is the idea that most citizens put blame on the President for failure to get legislation passed, and don’t consider the difficulties that Presidents face when negotiating with Congress.  Sometimes this underestimation of Congress can even be traced back to Presidents themselves.  During an interview with President Truman during his last night in office, he indicated that Eisenhower would expect the Presidency to work just like the military, where those at the top would give orders and expect compliance.  Truman concluded the interview by saying, “Poor Ike, he’ll find it very frustrating. He will give orders and nothing will happen.” Part of this problem is the media and the attention that they give to the president.  They almost treat him as a celebrity.  They stress coverage on the wrong items, very little on legislation and a lot on their personal life.  An example can be found with how much press was given to the dog that the Obama family received upon moving into the White House, or how women across the country kept close watch on the fashion sense of Jackie Kennedy.

We're just not that efficient, Ike...

I believe that these exaltations of the President started relatively recently. One of the first recent Presidents to have an entire nation looking upon them in a time of need was Franklin Roosevelt.  He was a very charismatic public speaker who was adored by many within the nation for his Great Depression relief programs he put into place, collectively known as the “New Deal”. His New Deal legislation greatly expanded the government and connected with people on an emotional level, since many of their futures were now in the hands of Roosevelt.  His great popularity and trust from the American people to guide the nation through crises like the Great Depression and World War II, led him to be the only president to be elected to 4 terms in office, which before that time and even today is unheard of. 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Super Tuesday - About Last Night... (notes)


by Rick Hill

Tonight is a huge night for the Republican Presidential candidates.  The results could mean a potential pulling-away for Mitt Romney, a key closing of the gap for Rick Santorum, or a last-ditch effort for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich to remain relevant in the race.  As most of Super Tuesday comes to a close, I took the liberty to comment on a few pieces of Fox News’ coverage of the ten primaries at stake:
·         Like two weeks ago, I started putting comments together way too late.  It’s currently 10:30, and it appears that most of the states are wrapped up.  A majority of the cases are no-brainers (Romney in Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia, Santorum in Oklahoma and Tennessee, Gingrich in Georgia), but what’s striking are some of the margins of victory:  Santorum took Tennessee by far more than I expected, and Gingrich wasn’t even close in that key Southern state.  Gingrich needs to hang it up.  Paul should have hung it up a while ago.
·         They should never allow two Fox News talking heads to use whiteboards at the same time.  The numbers and makeshift charts are way too confusing between Rove and the Gingrich advisor.  It’s like a really bad episode of Around the Horn.
·         As of 10:40, they still can’t call Ohio.  Santorum appears to be up by 1%, and with only 80% reporting, it’s still too close to call.  In all seriousness, that race was the real toss-up for the night:  older reports gave the state to Santorum, but Romney has been surging as of late.  I wish I could look more closely at the precincts with extra sets of eyes, but I sadly do not have a working knowledge of voting behavior in Ohio.  All I know about the state politically is its knack for predicting Presidents:

·         Ohio’s counties are messy like Pennsylvania’s, like a fun jigsaw puzzle for those 8 and up… a great deal uglier than the neat make-up of Iowa counties, for sure.
·         Exit polling:  So you’re going to ask Ohio Republicans whether they think we should choose a background in business or in government?    Gee whiz… anyways, Santorum’s appeal to voters under 30 is interesting.  Romney’s low polling numbers among the same group is a far cry from our chapter’s feelings on the race thus far.  In other numbers, Santorum also wins the populist battle once again, winning the question of who understands the problems of average Americans better.  Even this guy, however, finds that a question bizarrely framed:  what exactly is an “average” American (let alone an Ohio Republican’s perception of that)?  In addition, how do you properly encapsulate the problems they face?
·         85% reporting - RAZOR THIN!  Santorum by roughly 2,000.  Seeing as some of the bigger counties (Franklin, for example) are under 75% reporting, there’s a very good chance Romney could leapfrog here in the next ten minutes.
·         One of the big things that the talking heads continue to juggle is Romney’s inability to lock up specific kinds of voters with whom Santorum does very well. These groups include blue-collar workers and evangelicals.  As the front-runner in 2012, Romney has got to figure these groups out, and I must admit these groups’ stubbornness against the former governor concerns me.  I think he’s the best choice to beat the President, but he has to find a way to make other voters feel that way.  It’s his best case against candidates who align more to the right of him.
·         Santorum chose Steubenville for his Ohio campaign HQ.  Shocker.

·         And Romney just took the lead as of 11:06pm.  Most of the punditry suggested since polls closed that Romney would close the large early gap Santorum created, with rural counties calculating their results more quickly.   I suggest Romney probably has Ohio, and he’ll claim five out of the ten contests.  Though he will claim three or four, the situation for Santorum is dire:  if he wants to win anything in the near future, he’s got to kick Gingrich out of the race as the primaries move to Mississippi and Alabama.  Even though the South and the Midwest are not the entire country, they make up an important psychological base for an anti-Romney effort.  Santorum’s biggest draw is that he presents himself as a true right-of-right alternative to the more moderate, more businesslike Romney.
·         Romney’s opened up a 5,000+ voter lead as of 11:15.  Shouldn’t be long until this one gets called…
·         John Bolton is one of my favorites in contemporary politics.  As a foreign policy nut myself, I couldn’t agree more that views and approaches to foreign policy often serve as important surrogates to quality of leadership.  I’m not entirely sold on his denunciation of the President’s comments today related to Obama’s reaction to what GOP candidates have been saying about Iran, Israel and the like:  in all honesty, only the President has the advantage of sitting behind the Commander-in-Chief’s desk and truly understanding our strategic place in the world.  I may not agree with the President, but I respect his perspective.  Nevertheless, I think Bolton is spot-on with his evaluation of the implications of Iran’s potentiality of gaining a nuclear weapon.
·         It’s 11:40, and this thing still isn’t over.  Even if Romney took just five of the states, another positive point for the campaign is that he finished second in all of the others (except North Dakota, in which Ron Paul is still technically in second).  That confidence is important for Romney:  as long as the final numbers stay close, it means that he still has strong appeal in the states he didn’t win.  Those results are the key to a good base for the general election.
·         Right before midnight, and I’m really confused as to why Fox just cut to a brief excerpt from a Kucinich speech (apparently he’s losing something in the first week of March?).  Then again, this is certainly not the first time I find myself bewildered by Dennis Kucinich’s attempts to string together a complete thought…
·         I find it mind-numbing that Fox anchors have to introduce Sarah Palin as the former Governor of Alaska and former Vice Presidential candidate.  Her time on Fox News since the 2008 election suggests to me that most people who religiously follow Fox have a rough idea of who she is.  I still close my eyes and imagine Kitty from That 70’s Show is speaking... wow, she struggles with complex sentences.

And so I went to bed last night not posting any more.  But in the end, as we all know, Romney pulled it out. Before I turned off the television, I told myself I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, and now it seems that each side is claiming victory for various pieces of the race.  As the story develops more, the Pitt CR's will be sure to offer commentary, especially as the race advances and heads south.  Hope you enjoyed the notes!

      (By the way, if the memes are not as appealing as I perceive them to be, please just let me know.  I'll curb my behavior.)

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Andrew Breitbart: In Memoriam

Andrew Breitbart was a hero both philosophically and functionally to young conservatives across the country.  We may not have agreed with him on every issue, and it serves us well as a free society to have differences of opinion.  However, his spirit lives on in each one of us as we battle every day in the modern political scene.  This post is dedicated to him.


CPAC 2011 - Breitbart with Pitt CR's - Rest in peace, good sir...


Four of our esteemed members took the opportunity to reflect on fond memories meeting Mr. Breitbart:

Josh Guckert

         Andrew Breitbart never held public office. He never ran for president. He never made himself the center of attention. He always reserved that right for the issues at hand which he cared about so deeply. Born into a liberal family in Los Angeles, Breitbart had to decide for himself what his values and principles were at an early age. At some point during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ Senate confirmation hearings, he claimed to have had an ‘epiphany’ in which he realized he was a Reagan conservative. Little did the country know at that time just how big of an impact that revelation would have. He would go on to expose voter fraud by ACORN in 2009, force Shirley Sherrod to resign from the Department of Agriculture in 2010, and embarrass Anthony Weiner into resignation in 2011.


         At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., I was part of a group who was approached by this very average-looking man. His hair was long and uncombed, and it looked like he hadn’t shaved in a few days. However, when I got to shake his hand and talk to him briefly, I realized that this was the epitome of what he stood for. He wasn’t there to put on a show and try to be something he was not, like so many politicians. He was there to work with his fellow conservatives in achieving the goals that he felt so passionately about. He didn’t have the luxury of lip service. His efficacy was judged purely on results. And on that front, not many can or ever will compare to Andrew Breitbart.

Elizabeth Matenkoski

            I, like a few other of my fellow Pitt CRs, met Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2011. After having heard him speak, we randomly ran into him and who must have been his assistant.  Andrew was kind enough to stop and take a few photos with us including a formal one, and another one where he jumped in front of the group, got down on one knee and his arms spread out, true to his witty personality.

Breitbart was a strong personality in the conservative world and will be remembered for shedding light on the Anthony Weiner scandal, and for almost singlehandedly bringing down ACORN.  He was an incredible asset for all conservatives and will be strongly missed.

Steve Bosela


          Breitbart was the first person who I heard speak at CPAC. While I wasn't able to follow along with some of what he was talking about, I knew that I had witnessed some serious fire power in the conservative movement's arsenal. It was clear to me Breitbart enjoyed what he did and was not in it for himself. My favorite part of his speech was when he talked about taunting ACORN members on roller blades outside of a meeting in Southern California, doing nothing more than asking them questions about why they were there. The lack of response by the protestors, instead deferring questions to an official spokesperson, showed to me that he had really gotten to them and exposed their phoniness. What he was doing seemed so simple to outsiders, but required a lot of planning and assumed a lot of personal risk.

          After the speech, I had the opportunity to meet Andrew. He told a small group of us why he switched from a liberal viewpoint to a conservative viewpoint. Growing up in Los Angeles, he was certainly well versed in liberal thinking. He became fully vested in the conservative cause, not thinking about himself in doing so, as it cost him many close friends, although he was still friends with some on the left (keeping your enemies closer?). Andrew also made himself available for photographs with both individuals and groups in the lobby area of the hotel where the convention was at. The man who was seemingly always awake, either traveling, giving a speech, producing a video, or keeping up on current events on his Blackberry took the time to meet with individuals and talk to them, even if just for a few minutes. He was genuinely excited about the number of young people attending the convention.

          People have talked about an appropriate way to remember Andrew. To me, nothing would make him more proud than to continue to expose and defeat the institutional left despite the fact that he is no longer with us. One of his favorite things to do was retweet hate messages he got on Twitter, constantly reminding us of the hate filled message of the left. Like him or hate him, he changed the political world. May he rest in peace.

Brian Witt


          Like most of his fans, I was shocked and saddened by the news that Andrew Breitbart had died last night while walking near his home in Brentwood, CA. Only 43 years old, Breitbart had gone from an entertainment insider working for the E! Network to probably the biggest force in conservative "gonzo" news reporting. Equal parts provocateur and serious journalist, he was responsible for breaking or publicizing some of the biggest and most controversial stories of the last few years, from the Anthony Weiner's penchant for sending out pictures of his groin to ACORN's enthusiastic involvement with child prostitution. He was also willing to defy social conservatives by welcoming the gay center-right group GOPROUD to events and promoting tolerance within the conservative movement. He will be sorely missed by all those of whatever political persuasion who value honest reporting un-beholden to political correctness and the conventional wisdom.


          I had the pleasure of meeting Breitbart at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. For any readers who are not familiar with this event, it is probably the biggest annual gathering of conservative students, activists, policy makers, and politicians in the United States. Speakers from Sarah Palin to Herman Cain come to excite the crowd with barn-burning speeches and sell books, while journalists from around the world come to pick up the right-of-center zeitgeist for the coming year. Most of these conservative celebrities move around the conference like minor royalty, flanked by flunkies and bodyguards to keep any of the regular attendees from asking for autographs and photos.

          Except for Breitbart.

          Despite being one of the most lionized figures in conservative media for his recent take-down of ACORN and NPR, Breitbart was more than happy to talk with the Pitt CRs and pose for multiple pictures with them. He truly was a happy warrior, eager to share his beliefs and talents with the world.

RIP Andrew Breitbart

1969-2012