I find these attacks on the current non-Romney disingenuous.  For nearly every single Republican candidate (including Romney), you could compile a devastating list of past positions.  At the end of it you could wash your hands of the "profligate wastrel".  Who could survive such scrutiny?  What I find disingenuous is that it seems to always be applied the current non-Romney (Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum).  Why is this analysis so rarely applied to Romney?  And why do so few conservatives/Republicans dismiss Romney as a "profligate wastrel"?

As Caddell was ranting about Obama, I grew furious that people like him supported Obama in the 2008 election, which pitted a radical left-winger against a moderate Republican.  Many conservative commentators (especially Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh) were raising the alarm about how truly radical Obama was.  Obama is so radical that he makes a radical Alinskyite like Hillary Clinton appear moderate by comparison.  Obama was no Trojan horse; his radical past was there for everyone to see.  It's infuriating that Caddell wasn't ranting like this in 2008.

On the podcast Peter mentioned how much Stalin was personally liked by Truman and Churchill.  Let's not forget FDR.  From Paul Johnson's Modern Times (http://tinyurl.com/655ff4m),  FDR wrote to Churchill:

"He [Stalin] thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to do so . . .

I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

And this is the president liberals idolize.

I've always liked what William Manchester said on the subject:  "And, like every other ink-stained wretch, he [Winston Churchill] could never be certain of future income."

I've always been a bit suspicious of border fence enthusiasts.  The proponents presume that this is the most effective (and cost-effective) way to control the border.  But what do they know about controlling the border?  I certainly have no expertise.  But I would expect those who run border control to have a pretty good idea.  And perhaps there are think tank experts with well-researched ideas.  I'd expect experts to advocate a multi-faceted approach possibly including:

• making things more difficult for illegals once they get across
• harsher penalties for employers who hire illegals
• fences on some parts of the border
• other techniques on other parts of the border (cameras, patrol vehicles, planes, whatever)

I'm wary of non-experts fervently advocating a particular strategy with little consideration of its cost or effectiveness.

Anyone proposing a balanced budget amendment should look at how it works in practice.  In theory, California has a balanced budget, in practice, well, not so much.

I'm impressed with Pawlenty.  Very few politicians have the courage to go to Iowa and oppose ethanol subsidies.  I have new-found respect for him.  Should he became president, he'll have the mandate to work toward phasing out subsidies.

A relevant quote because I can't help myself:  "He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism." (Joseph Heller, Catch-22).

This all sounds like a call for the Ricochet editorial board (I assume there is one) to maintain a list of banned, hackneyed phrases ("to throw one under the bus" comes to mind).  These phrases are fun at first, but become tiresome from overuse.

I heartily agree.  It's conservatives like Rob Long and James Lileks who give conservatives a bad name with libertarians.  One of my complaints about libertarians is that they tend to treat Democrats and Republicans as equally bad; the parties both want to spend lots of money, just on different stuff.  On the podcast, Long and Lileks gave support to this belief.  They seemed to be fine with massive government spending so long as a good chunk of it was spent on cool NASA stuff they enjoy.  I realize they were being a tad flippant, but Peter Robinson sounded like the only adult there: he gave a rational explanation for why the space program once made sense but no longer does; and besides, we can no longer afford it.  Long and Likeks, by contrast, sounded like children whining about their lost hope for a mission to Mars.  It's no wonder that it's nearly impossible to cut spending in Washington.

Another point is that the mess in Sacramento doesn't affect citizens on a daily basis.  I go to work, I go home, and I do stuff with my family.  I almost never have to interact with a state employee. There's nearly $2 trillion of economic activity going on here, and the state government is playing around with $200 billion or so.  I'm not saying California doesn't have long-term fiscal problems, but I think it's important to distinguish all the private activity that goes on from the activities in the state capitol.