Random Stuff: Christie, Manent, Immigrants etc.

1. First off, I’ve been very negligent on the shameless self-promotion front. Today, at four, I’m going to present with Ralph Hancock and others on Pierre Manent—probably the greatest living “political philosopher” (so as to avoid the dumb discussion over who’s “really” a philosopher). NOT ONLY THAT, Manent himself is going to respond to our remarks. AND THEN Pierre returns at 7 for his very own big lecture. Place: The Honors College at Baylor University. Because of my negligence, no doubt, you missed a very thorough and elegant talk on Pierre last night by Dan Mahoney.

2. I can’t link where I am on a hotel computer, but today’s WALL STREET JOURNAL has a very sensible editorial defending Perry on immigration. Basically: Building the big fence isn’t that realistic, the real problem is that we don’t have legal immigration available for the workers we really need, and in-state tuition isn’t an entitlement for citizens and could reasonably be extended to children who are destined to be permanent and, it is to be expected, productive members of your state. They reduction in tuition is paid for by taxes. Given that Texas doesn’t have an income tax, we can say that any working person in the state makes plenty of contributions through sales taxes, property taxes, etc. And all the experts say that the so-called entitlement would be revenue neutral, the relatively minimal cost would be offset by the increased earning power of those who get the additonal education. I’m not all about defending Perry, but being an actual governor of a state with a large Hispanic population has caused him to know some stuff.

3. I agree with Pete that everything Herman Cain actually said in the debate was questionable or nonsense. Of course, rich guys won’t be deprived of any medical care they can buy even under Obamacare. The 9-9-9 plan surely wouldn’t sustain close examination, although the mixture of taxes might be a good intuition that deserves real thought. (The 9-9-9 plan might even be a joke, as the opposite, say, of a 6-6-6 plan.) Still, his straw victory is more than negative. People actually like and admire him, and he is a great talker. It goes without saying he shouldn’t and won’t be president, but he now can’t be ruled out as a contender.

4. The pressure is on CHRISTIE, and he might well succumb. Pete is right. He might (as Perry has) flunk he screen test for any number of reasons. Dan Mahoney (with the intensity of a convert) says he’s too fat to be president. But if he picks the boyish Rubio as his running make, nobody need worry about the fate of the country if he keels over. Christie has to run because there’s no plausible alternative, the thinking goes.

5. On the other hand, someone might say, Republicans should stop whining and be okay with Romney. I’m not sure that’s settling for low expectations. He might end up being the most competent Republican president since Eisenhower.