Parcells should be in, so should at least one of the three receivers: Carter, Reed, and Tim Brown.

My pick would be Brown, though it's a really tough call among all three.

Life doesn't come with guarantees.

If you think Newt is a far better choice, fine.

People who disagree with you aren't behaving like sheep. They just disagree with you.

Do liberals really love inefficiency this much?

If you are asking them, you may as well write in Esperanto, Greg.

The only plan I can think of that might have a hope of working is to ask Turkey to accept as many refugees as necessary--with our financial help if needed--and for Turkey publicly to flood arms over the border in the hope that this breaks the Assad forces' will and prompts massive defections.

Sounds about right to me, Claire.

But if we're willing to bother shouldn't we also press (and offer financial support to) Jordan & Iraq? If not, why?

We're broke. We can't pay for our own obligations, let alone this. We will probably lose support in the region if we engage.

Yet, to help people in dire need and potentially give Iran a couple of black eyes through a third party or three...  that is worthwhile.

BTW, it's good to see you posting here again, Tristan.

Yes.

I'd couch the messaging in terms like this: That's encouraging, but...  followed by a laundry list of problems, preferably seasoned by a swing-state specific issue and finish with a succinct proposal.

As WC notes, many people aren't "feeling" this recovery. I have a hard time seeing it in the upper Midwest.

I think it's a mistake to concede a great economy for four reasons:

1. Not so horrid isn't great.

2. It is a pointless gift to a relatively unpopular administration.

3. It begs for a third party populist demagogue to gain more traction than otherwise (unlikely, I know, but both parties telling everyone how wonderful the economy is seems like a recipe for it) and we can't be sure from whom the votes will be siphoned.

4. There are several industrial (and tourist driven as well) swing states that are generally hurting worse than the nation. Put Obama on defense in MI, WI, PA, NV and he'll have an awfully hard time winning OH, FL, VA, let alone IN and NC.

I couldn't care less for Starbucks.

Instead I'd like to focus on the Starbucks, which are spectacular.

Dang. Now I even write like Romney...

BSG rules!

I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.

If I was Matt Drudge:

 Ginsburg Opposes Rule of Law, May Favor Carjackings

Okay, but Bubba was an obscure governor at that point, not the President.

He was still working on his messaging regarding rickets.

I have no desire to leave the poor in the current system.

I also have no desire to make federal policy regarding the poor a staple of this presidential campaign.

Stuart noted in comment #49:

As I mentioned, I live in California.  Our Governor proposes the State spend $10.7 billion dollars on prisons, with local governments spending another $1.8 billion.  That's 7.8 percent of our entire State budget (which has been out of whack for a decade or more).

Here's the thing: Stuart's state sucks. My state (MI) sucks so hard that it causes the wind to blow in Canada.

We should fix our own messes regarding the welfare state(s) on a more localized basis. That is the politically & practically better approach.

At the federal level, Newt & co. improved policy in the 90's. Probably we should revisit that someday, but not today. 

Today we should focus like a laser on the concerns that mostly transcend party: job growth, health care, entitlement obligations.

Levin aside (I haven't heard it, so I have no take) I agree. It's a flub, and a particularly bad one.

Ben, my notes are different :

It indicates, as Charles Krauthammer notes, that Romney has no ability to defend conservative arguments when it comes to poor Americans. Plugging the holes in the nationwide safety net with taxpayer money is his solution, just as subsidies and Medicaid expansion was his solution in Massachusetts.

Or it indicates that he has no desire to do so. Neither do I.

Conservative arguments for federal policy regarding the poor are #901 on my to-do list. Insert platitude, move on.

Do you expect him to revise welfare reform?

My state, Utah, has the lowest approval rating, 28.6.

Well done Utah.

Here are all of Barry's ratings over time, per Rasmussen.

Chris, I chose the poll that lumped indies in because it isn't cluttered by a third line. Visually it's much better, and the trending over time is visible. The points I made about the Dem Party ID edge in 2000 & 2004 are true regardless of indies' inclusion.

I went back to it in the poll you linked to point out some ambiguity in your evidence, not because I am unwilling or unable to look at your evidence.

Here are all the Gallup party ID poll results since 2004.

A couple of things I found interesting:

Highest ID: GOP 39, GOP w/leaners 52, Dems 40, Dems w/leaners 56

Lowest ID: GOP 21, GOP w/leaners 34, Dems 26, Dems w/leaners 42

Also the averages for strict party 2010 and 2011 are:

GOP 28.73 (2010) and 27.05 (2011)

Dems 31.18 (2010) and 30.6 (2011)

I was surprised by it's occasional volatility, it made a good case for averages.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that we are in much, much better shape than we were in 2008, and at least in comparably good shape to 2000 and 2004. 

You've cherry-picked the numbers to make your case.

First, the Jan 2012 numbers are a year fresher than the Jan 2011 numbers you originally used, even if they were collected over the previous year.  Strict party ID looked better for the GOP in 2010 than 2011, so the older stats look inaccurately optimistic.

I don't cherry pick numbers. Ever.

I used the most recent figures in #29 and re-posted them in #33.

All this hand-waving that turnout will be "just fine" looks to me like an exercise in wishful thinking on your part.  You do not even seem to see or acknowledge the real frustrations and disillusionment that many of us conservatives feel.

Fair enough. But all this "the base needs some lovin'" business seems like nonsense to me. Each base votes. I'm sure some folks won't. But generally, the claim that the base won't show strikes me as nothing more than a vanity project: Oh, he'll never win without me.

Here's the thing Chris, I am a Romney supporter. But I wasn't until I saw the field. I was in the ABR camp fifteen-twenty months ago. Until it was clear that Daniels was out and Pawlenty had quit, it hadn't even occurred to me that I might support Romney. The last time I was a touch excited was when Perry entered, but then he spoke... aloud.

I understand why plenty of conservatives have reservations about Mitt.

But I don't do "wishful thinking." If I did, Santorum would be my guy, since I'm closest to him on policy.

First, it isn't a recent poll:

These results are based on more than 20,000 interviews conducted in 20 separate Gallup polls in 2011.

It is an average of many polls over the year. Consequently, it's mostly useless. Who cares what the results were the day after Bin Laden was wasted?

Second, if you scroll down a bit you'll see that if you compare apples to apples the GOP is gaining relative to 2010.

Last year, Dems had a one-point edge including leaners. Now, the parties are tied, according to that poll:

Despite the Democratic advantage in party identification, proportionately more American independents lean to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party. Thus, when independents' party leanings are taken into account and combined with the party's core identifiers, the parties end up tied.

Here is a recent poll.

Jan 2010: GOP 32.3% Dems 35.4%

Jan 2011: GOP 35.4% Dems 35.0%

Jan 2012: GOP  35.9% Dems 32.5%

Welcome to civilization.