CROWLEY: “I want to read for our viewers something that Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate, who said, ‘We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do it.’”

LEW: “He’s not saying that they shouldn’t pass a budget. But we also need to be honest. You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless… unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.”

This is patently false.

You can’t filibuster the budget. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 stipulates that debate is automatically cut off after 50 hours of debate. At that point, a budget can be passed by a simple majority, 51 votes. Democrats currently hold 53 seats in the Senate. They can pass a budget on a simple party-line vote.

Lew, a former director of the Office of Management and Budget, surely knows this. While the Obama Administration has regularly plumbed the depths of managerial incompetence, even they can’t be this incompetent.

That Lew prefaced this whopper with the tell-tale “let’s be honest” canard only highlights the cynical political maneuvering that is at the heart of the Administration.

So, let’s really be honest here. The latest Obama budget contains what virtually every proposed Democrat budget has for the past few decades; tax hikes, increased spending now and illusory budget “savings” some time in the ill-defined future. The Senate could pass Obama’s proposed budget within a couple weeks. The White House’s real problem is that Democrats don’t want to vote on his proposed budget.

CPAC should have been a triumphal moment for Rick Santorum. His sweep of election contests this week put a gale-force wind in his campaign’s sails. At this week’s “Wednesday Meeting” of center-right organizations and activists, hosted by Grover Norquist, there was palpable excitement about the results and Santorum’s prospects. CPAC attendees are a natural base for Santorum, who overall the other nominees has the more consistent, traditional conservative record. Talking to attendees, it was clear they wanted to believe in Santorum. Their hearts were with him, even if their minds were nagged by questions of his electability. Today’s speech was a tailor-made opportunity to put these fears to rest. He whiffed.

To be sure, Santorum’s CPAC speech was better than his normal stump speech, which tends to get bogged down in legislative and policy minutia. He attempted to provide an over-arching vision or narrative for his candidacy. But, his performance was rather lackluster. He received a warm reception from the crowd, but not the stirring response he was primed to receive.

His biggest missed opportunity, though, was dispelling doubts about his electability. His speech contained just a tinge too much of the kind of whining that plagues underdog campaigns. Complaining about “pundits” or the “establishment” or bemoaning one’s lack of financial resources only reinforces the belief that one’s campaign is a long-shot. Coming off three solid victories in a week, this was a mistake. Santorum has won four of the first 8 contests. Speaking to a crowd with a potential strong base of support, he should have assumed the mantle of frontrunner. Instead, he crowned himself the conservative base’s favorite remaining nominee who can’t win the nomination.

Of course, when the #Occupy movement first arose, Pelosi and and other members of the Leftist Elite gushed with enthusiasm about the protests:

House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she supports the growing nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement, which began on the streets of downtown New York City in mid-September.

“I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen,” said Pelosi in an exclusive interview with ABC News “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour. “We cannot continue in a way this is not relevant to their lives.”

For good measure, President Obama added:

The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side.

So, what happened?

Well, the rapes probably had something to do with it. Oh, and the crime, assaults, abandoned babies, rats, and the growing realization that the incoherent mess was over-populated with pampered, privileged kids who had simply taken out too much student loan debt to get degrees in art history or gender studies.

Down twinkles!

Or, maybe the news that the #Occupy kids had illegally taken over the home of a struggling single dad for their own use proved too much for Dame Pelosi. It’s a nice attempt at a pivot, but make no mistake, the Dems own the #Occupy movement. Even if the establishment GOP, like John Tillman at Illinois Policy Institute, don’t quite get it yet, we will continue to remind the public of this.

Don’t get me wrong; there is much to dislike about him. His method of ‘community organizing’ preys on people’s fears and anxieties. They exacerbate and prolong racial tensions. And, his ultimate aim is a utopian marxist state. All that said, he is very good at what he does and understands progressive movements and how to create and maintain them better than just about anyone.

So, I was curious to read his recent take on the Occupy Movement:

Nonetheless, listening closely to the whole meeting, it was hard to escape the conclusion that as committed as many were, they were groping for a plan for the future. There was no consensus on that question, and really very little debate or discussion. Several people raised the issue during the “soapbox” session, which allows open mic griping that everyone can easily ignore. In fact most people left the room during that section to visit elsewhere in the coffeehouse.

As an organizer, I would venture to predict that there is a hard debate coming between occupants committed to a program and plan going forward and occupants committed to the process and trusting that something will emerge. Logically one would think that this sort of thing simply works itself out, but after listening to a 45 minute debate of sorts as they struggled to decide where to meet again twixt and tween the Plaza and our Fair Grinds Common Space, I wondered if that was possible or the group would simply split into various Occupy this and that’s without being able to sustain the Occupy core.

It’s possible to chalk this up to sour-grapes, criticizing a movement he didn’t help create. However, as someone who has spent a great deal of time reading the minutes of OccupyWallSt’s meeting minutes, I think Rathke is exactly right. There is no there, there beyond a slick focus-group tested marketing slogan. And you can’t build a real movement on a slogan.

If the Occupy crowd is starting to lose hard-core believers like Rathke, the rest of the democrat-media industrial complex can’t be far behind.

Caucuses are very different animals than primaries. Having participated in one years ago, I can say there is much to recommend about them. But the demands of the caucus mean that relatively few people will participate and those who do participate are very different than other voters. To participate, voters assemble at a set time–tonight’s is 7pm CST. They hear speeches from other voters arguing for each individual candidate and then voting begins. The entire process can take up to two hours. If you’re sick, working, don’t have child-care or simply look upon a two hour voting process with dread, you can’t take part–only around a quarter of the active, registered Republicans will likely vote tonight.

Only the most dedicated and motivated voters, whether for a candidate or an issue, will participate. Moreover, Democrat and Independent voters can show up and register as a Republican on the spot and cast a ballot. This can skew the results; just ask famous caucus losers John McCain, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Mike Dukakis or Ronald Reagan, among others.

The key to performing well in Iowa is to either become the chosen candidate of highly motivated issue voters or have a very strong field organization to turn out your supporters. Remember, only about 150,000 voters will take part tonight, so a strong ground game is critical.

The final Des Moines Register poll, released Saturday, provides the last, best snapshot of the state of the field: Romney 24%, Paul 22%, Santorum 15%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Perry 11% and Bachmann 7%. So, what to expect tonight?

Essentially, Romney and Paul are tied for first, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry are tied for third. I don’t expect Bachmann to be much of a factor, other than shaving a bit of support from Santorum and Perry. Historically, conventional wisdom held that there were three tickets out of the Iowa caucuses. I think this year there are four and, if the margins are very slim, possibly five tickets out. (McCain came in 4th in 2008, but by a very slim 0.4% margin.) Keep in mind, almost as important as how the candidates performed is how, tomorrow, people think they performed. To the candidates:

Mitt Romney

Romney has defined this primary campaign, but not in a way ultimately favorable for him. The race’s volatility, with candidates rising and falling is succession, is due to the simple fact that an overwhelming majority of GOP voters don’t want him as the nominee.  Romney has rarely ever inched above 25% in any national poll. He ran a very competitive campaign in 2008, so he is well known to the rank and file. They know him and three-quarters of them don’t want him to be the GOP candidate. Fortunately for Romney there have been enough both credible and, at the same time, flawed other candidates to prevent the 75% from coalescing around the Anti-Romney.

I believe a large part of his support is simply resigned to it, rather than fervently supportive. But, he has a well-funded and organized ground game to get these supporters to the caucus. He may hold onto the lead, but I expect he will under perform tonight.

Ron Paul

I expect Ron Paul will do well tonight and has a very good chance of winning. He has highly motivated supporters and a very good ground operation, the two critical things needed to prevail in Iowa. Paul’s supporters are not going to miss the caucus. His economic views are much more aligned with the electorate than they were in 2008 and his foreign policy views seem less dangerous than they were when the Iraq and Afghan wars were still engaged. Mind you, these foreign policy views will keep him from the nomination, but, in a six candidate field, its less of a liability.

Rick Santorum

It almost defies belief, but some conservatives have decided that Rick Santorum is this week’s chosen Anti-Romney. In a race that has been dominated by debate performance, he was, at best, uneven. But, he staked his entire campaign on Iowa and has centered it on social issues. Evangelicals make up the largest block of caucus goers and he has received the endorsement of well-known social conservatives in the state. Also, his surge has come too late for the other campaigns to fully vet his record. That will begin in earnest tomorrow if he does as well as expected. Preview: in 2004 he vigorously campaigned for Arlen Specter against Pat Tommey in the GOP primary for Senate.

He will not be the nominee. He has no organization outside of Iowa and hasn’t faced any real scrutiny. His appeals on social issues won’t play as well in other states. I also don’t think he will win tonight. In 2008, when Mike Huckabee shook up the race with a surprise win, he was the single pick for evangelicals. This year, while a large number may be breaking towards Santorum, their support is still split with Perry and Bachmann. And, his rise and its attendant surge in donations came too late to build the robust ground game the caucus demands. Unless evangelicals defect wholesale from Perry and Bachmann, Santorum will likely fall short of winning.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich has sustained withering fire from the other campaigns and it has had a dramatic affect on his support. He is fading at exactly the wrong moment. His support was premised on his ability to defeat Romney. He doesn’t look like that candidate any longer. He also doesn’t have a ground game and isn’t the obvious choice of any issue-motivated voters. I expect he will under perform tonight. The only question is whether he finishes fourth or fifth. If he places fifth, this campaign will probably continue to fade.

Rick Perry

Perry is perhaps the unluckiest candidate in recent memory. Over the past several weeks he has retooled his campaign and become a much more effective candidate. He has built up a very strong ground operation and heavily courted Evangelicals with millions in advertising. Newt’s fade created the perfect opening for Perry to reemerge as a front runner. And, then…Rick Santorum.

That said, I think Perry will over perform tonight. The central question is whether he beats Gingrich. If Perry comes in fourth, his campaign is in good shape. I suspect, though, his ground organization gives him a good shot at a surprising third place finish. Were that to happen, he would again have a turn at being the Anti-Romney.

Michele Bachmann

Bachmann is a very good member of Congress. Her state chair’s betrayal of her should be long remembered by Iowa voters when he runs for reelection.

Final

It is important to remember that this is the beginning of the nomination process, not the end. This year, delegates in Iowa are awarded proportionally, so all top finishers will have a similar number of delegates. The race is very volatile and still unfolding. I can’t over stress the importance of the pre-voting speeches from each campaign. If the campaign’s have effective surrogates, these speeches can shift voters. This is why a good ground organization is so critical and why, if I had to wager, I’d put my money on the best ground games. Paul, Romney and Perry to Win, Place and Show.

It is just the beginning, but it has begun.

In her day job, Leader Pelosi spends a lot of time worrying about ‘income inequality.’ She was one of the first national Democrat leaders to embrace the increasingly embarrassing “Occupy” movement:

We have work to do. We think that important to that is enhanced by what’s happening in the Occupy [movement], which is the 99 and one. They really emblazoned that in the minds of the American people. That’s what we dedicated our lives to, but they gave it that clarity. People say they didn’t have a message. They may not have a message, but they have a statement. And the statement is the status quo is unacceptable — 99 and one.

I believe Leader Pelosi on this. I think she really has dedicated her life to the 99% and 1%. Its just that her focus has been on using advocacy for the 99% to get into the 1%. And it seems to be working. In 2010, her last year as Speaker, her net worth exploded by 62%:

Pelosi’s drastic growth, from an initial $21.7 million in 2009, is attributed to recent stock gains and smart investments. Her husband reported raking in $1 million to $5 million last year from a sale of Apple stocks.

Funny how so many of these politicians make so many “smart investments.”

Its not surprising Leader Pelosi’s daughter thinks she wants to leave Congress. I mean, now that she’s finally in the 1%, why continue to put up with the 99%?

Debates are worthwhile and performance in them tells us something about the candidates. But, it doesn’t tell us everything about the candidates. The rhetorical skills that make a great debater have almost zero intersection with the skills that make a great President. They are a poor filter for discovering the core convictions and principles which will guide a President’s decisions and indecisions. They provide sound-bites at a time we should be looking at essays.

In the end, one of these candidates is very likely to end up as President and will have to govern. With the exception of Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry is the only candidate with a successful record of governing. That and, more importantly, what he has accomplished in governing make him the clear choice for President.

Supporters of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have to face one inconvenient truth; they both failed when given the chance to govern. Gingrich rode an historic GOP wave into the Speakership in 1994 only to be ousted by his fellow Republicans just four years later. It was one of the more spectacular flame-outs in political history. Hastert and Pelosi lost the Speaker’s gavel when the voters rejected them and their parties. Newt lost his when his GOP colleagues rejected him. He was given an unprecedented opportunity to reform entitlements and reverse our nation’s fiscal rot and…he blinked. His subsequent “consulting” for Freddie Mac, support for the largest expansion of entitlements since LBJ, an individual health insurance mandate and TARP, among other things, only further disqualifies him. I’m not at all certain that he has the core conservative convictions or beliefs that could withstand the daily dramas of the Presidency.

Mitt Romney only served one-term as Governor of Massachusetts because he wasn’t going to win reelection. Keep in mind that Romney’s term followed twelve years of GOP rule on Beacon Hill. Massachusetts voters were in something of a habit, since 1990, of voting for Republicans for Governor. That streak ended with Mitt. And, there were fewer Republican state legislators when he left office than when he entered it.

Worse, though, is what he did in that one term; RomneyCare. I lobbied against RomneyCare. It is, fundamentally, the blueprint for much of ObamaCare. It is already far more expensive than lawmakers promised and is negatively effecting the health care market in Massachusetts. And, Romney is STILL proud of it.  His official portrait for Governor even features Romney sitting next to a copy of the bill! He continues to defend a state-level individual mandate and even promises to retain the “good parts” of ObamaCare. I, frankly, didn’t know there were “good parts”.

Its hard to judge Romney on the other issues, because he’s had every position on just about all of them over the years. I just don’t know which Romney is going to show up at the Oval Office every day; the Romney who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in the 90s or the Romney who now calls himself the “ideal” tea party candidate. I’m all for those “road to Damascus” moments on a particular issue, but on almost all of them? Its like a Damascus round-about.

There is also a fundamental political problem with either a Gingrich or Romney nomination. The GOP wouldn’t be able to campaign against the Wall Street bailouts nor the individual health mandate. They both supported these at one time or another. Does the party really want to remove those arrows from its quiver? Those two issues are a large reason why 60+% of Independents align themselves with the GOP now. I know people joke that the GOP is the “stupid party”, but really? They really don’t want to make those arguments against Obama? Aren’t these two issues the defining issues of the upcoming election?

This isn’t simply an endorsement against Gingrich and Romney; it is an endorsement FOR Rick Perry. Perry is the longest serving governor in Texas history, a state with a long-standing tradition of voting incumbents out of office. He has successfully managed budget shortfalls without taking the easy path of tax hikes. General Revenue spending, accounting for population and inflation, is lower now then when he took office. He has cut taxes by billions. He has rejected federal dollars when he thought the feds where overstepping their authority. And, perhaps more importantly, he spearheaded a landmark medical malpractice reform which reversed the exodus of doctors out of the state and is steadily improving the health care market in Texas.

Oh yeah, and the jobs. The GOP really doesn’t want to go into this election with the guy running the state creating the jobs during a recession? Obviously, Perry didn’t create these jobs, but he understands that tax and regulatory policies can be a drag on private sector growth. While most other states were busy adding new taxes and regulations, Texas didn’t. The result is an influx of citizens from other states and a thriving private sector job market. Isn’t this a narrative we want in 2012?

Perry has clearly been a good Governor. He has not, however, been a great candidate. His early campaign was too Texas-centric. We all know about his debate performances. He has positions I disagree with. And his campaign has made some steps I also disagree with. But, I believe he could be a great President. He understand the limits of government, the power of the private sector to create prosperity and the dangers government policies pose to that. And, I believe he understands these principles in a more fundamental way than the other candidates.

Over the next few years, America will face some existential questions. Will American exceptionalism endure or will we slip into a quasi-European welfare state in permanent decline? Our present trajectory is unsustainable. Even with a Republican House and, most likely, a Republican Senate after next year, the GOP in Washington doesn’t seem quite up to the task of reclaiming that “shining city on the hill.” They can’t quite get beyond repainting a house whose foundation has cracked. We will need a President who is a strong leader with very grounded conservative convictions to navigate our way back to prosperity. One who understand that Washington has already assumed too much power and that future economic growth and personal liberty requires rolling back much of that power.

Rick Perry is that man.

[Note: This is a personal endorsement and does not reflect the views of BigGovernment, its contributors or its publisher, Andrew Breitbart.]