Quote of the Day
I think the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be honorable, to be compassionate. It is, after all, to matter: to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all.
Leo C. Rosten
Political Potpourri
I want to discuss a couple of things I haven't heard or read other pundits mention: (1) the Tea Party momentum is experiencing a correction; will it rebound by election time next year?; (2) people need to be looking at next year's Presidential election from a federal standpoint, not popular vote matchups.
- Loss of Tea Party Momentum
There is the obvious case of NY-26, a second straight New York special election (after NY-23 as Obama, in a stroke of political genius, converted a safe Republican seat by getting John McHugh to accept a relatively modest post as Secretary of the Army--and amazingly stuck in the middle of last fall's GOP tsunami) where the Tea Party was counterproductive.
This brings up the strange candidacy of Jack Davis, a so-called Tea Party candidate whom served as a spoiler. However, he was not a spoiler in the normal sense of a political spoiler: he has been a registered Republican over most of his adult life, but during the past decade, he had a falling out with VP Dick Cheney over the administration's free trade policies and unsuccessfully ran as the Democratic candidate against Republican Tom Reynolds in the 2004 and 2006 elections; he failed to win the Democratic nomination for the 2008 election. He re-registered as a Republican in 2010, by allying himself with new Congressman Chris Lee, and when Chris "Too Sexy For My Shirt" Lee resigned earlier this year, Davis tried to secure the GOP nomination. The local GOP leadership decided to pass because of his suspect party loyalty and his strong stands against immigration and free trade. Do you need to ask what a 3-time failed candidate for the seat would do when he didn't get the GOP nod? Consider Doug Hoffman of NY-23 when the local GOP leadership declined to name him... This was somewhat different in the sense the Conservative Party did not offer Davis their nomination, but Davis is a wealthy businessman and had other political allies.
This leads to the discussion of what I consider the strange political alliance behind the Tea Party movement: I prefer to view it as the media conservative attempts to latch onto, co-opt or hijack the original libertarian outrage over Big Government Run Amok. Recall Rick Santelli's clarion call was in reaction to the government subsidizing (even more) home mortgage payments of irresponsible people whom bought more house than they could afford. Why stop with health care and mortgages? The growth of government, which by necessity as at the expense of individual liberty, surpasses economic growth and also undermines self-reliance and other traditional American values.
Economic liberty involves a number of things including minimizing government interference in my attempts to run and grow my business. If I find the best-quality, competitively-priced gizmo to build my widget is overseas, I don't want artificial trade restrictions holding my business hostage. Similarly if I find local labor at a price point I need for my widgets to be competitive insufficient, I don't want government unduly restricting my access to other willing laborers. From a philosophical basis, it's clear that Tea Party principles are logically consistent with pro-immigration, free trade policies and totally incompatible with protectionist, anti-immigrant policies--the kinds of things that Jack Davis was running on.
Before going further, I've been critical of sanctuary cities and also Obama Administration border enforcement policies; tactically I see the Obama Administration picking and choosing enforcement for crony political advantage and/or playing misleading numbers games by deferring or expediting the return of unauthorized foreign visitors. I think any long-term solutions must look at a more effective approach to the border issue by addressing, among other things, the drug problem (see the next segment) and/or a more viable temporary foreign worker program.
So as Jack Davis support began to retreat, we saw almost all of his support go not to GOP candidate Corwin, but to Democrat Kathy Hochul instead of Republican Jane Corwin. Why is that? Let me take a wild guess: first, a lot of Jack Davis' support could have come from his Democratic supporters from 3 prior runs for the House seat. Second, there are a number of pro-union Democrats whom espouse protectionist and anti-immigrant policies (immigrants are perceived as threats to maintaining high labor prices).
If you are a principled Tea Party supporter, like myself, it's hard to be encouraged. In order to keep status quo tax brackets for job creators, we ended up giving up much more in additional spending; we gave up a relative 2% payroll tax on income, which hardly helped the solvency of these programs. Not exactly we believe that the federal government should be in these entitlement businesses in the first place. We are appalled that Paul Ryan, even for modest reform, has to reassure people within several years of retirement, never mind current retirees, that the Medicare reform wouldn't impact any of them--no sacrifices whatsoever in helping shore up massively underfunded liabilities. In addition, we've seen the Republican House get snookered into a budget issue that failed to make any significant cuts short of a rounding error as the White House preposterously defends six-figure compensation packages for ineffectual bureaucrats as an economic "stimulus"--talk about putting lipstick on a pig. We have Obama, Geithner, and Biden running around Capitol Hill like Chicken Little, signaling dire economic consequences for failing to raise the debt ceiling--but unwilling to move an inch towards responsible deficit reduction, only willing to consider gimmicks. While local and state governments are slashing programs, operating hours and personnel, the federal government seems to go on, business as usual.
The Tea Party support had its hands full just fending off a Wisconsin progressive attempt to sabotage the reelection of a respected state Supreme Court judge whom won over half the open primary votes, roughly twice the runner-up. A recent poll shows former US Senator Feingold with a 10-point lead over former GOP Governor Tommy Thompson. Three polls in Florida show Senator Nelson (D), defending his seat next year, up by a formidable 20 points or more (although below 50%). Have the Republicans overplayed their hand? Are they experiencing a backlash due to unrealistic expectations of a GOP-controlled House? Will the economy rebound enough to sweep the Dems back into control like the last Congress?
I am not a political strategist, and I am not running the RNC. I will make the following points: (1) the Republicans need to be assertive and not defensive, e.g., Ryan's point about people not realizing there are no short-term costs to Medicare reform under his plan; (2) the Republicans cannot afford to let Obama and the Congressional Democrats define them, and they must not be predictable; (3) the Republicans and Tea Party in selecting candidates for the 2012 general elections must avoid the Senate race mistakes last year and nominate candidates whom are not polarizing, are flexible or pragmatic versus ideological; they need to deliver on the message that Obama has failed to deliver on: authentic bipartisanship; (4) it is extraordinarily important, in running against Obama, that they stick to indisputable facts and not attack him personally: they need in particular to address his failure of leadership in entitlement reform, energy independence and fiscal discipline, his overly partisan dealings with the Congress; his inability to cope with the great recession, his indecisiveness and convoluted foreign policy, and inability to deliver on his promises; (5) it is important that the House does something productive in this term; to use a baseball analogy, instead of swinging for the fences, go for batting average. Maybe it's a reform agenda involving sunshine policies, auditing the Fed, divesting companies, streamlining government operations, eliminating government subsidies, etc: dare the President to veto a reform measure.
With the Hochul victory and early Senate Democratic leads, do the Dems have a chance to recapture the House or retain the Senate or the Presidency? Not a chance--if the GOP plays it right. In fact, if the GOP nominates the right candidates, it can increase its House majority and retake the Senate in an impressive fashion. I think the Republicans in NY-26 were sending the GOP a message: the 2010 election was NOT a referendum on Medicare; focus like a laser beam on economic and job growth; get spending under control; cut regulations and high business taxes.
To regain NY-26, all the GOP has to do is switch a handful of votes a year from this fall. The Hochul victory is a one-off, not a pattern. All Hochul had to do to win is defend the status quo on Medicare. The status quo is not sustainable; that's an inconvenient truth. If you are going to do anything about entitlements, you have to deal with the political facts on the ground: a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House. That means going to the bipartisan deficit reduction committee recommendations; notice that the Democrats aren't pushing it, but it's a low-risk strategy for Republicans: they can box in the President. If the Republicans can bounce back from the Ryan failure and show the message was received, they should be in good shape. If the economy is struggling in the fall of 2012, the President and Senate Democratic majority are done, no matter whom the GOP serves up.
- Obama, the GOP and Next Year's Presidential Election
The Gallup Presidential job approval poll continues to oscillate near the 50% approval rating for Obama. The PPP shows only one Republican, Romney, within single digits of Obama. The only thing you can guarantee is that the following existing or potential candidates don't have a realistic shot against Obama: Sarah Palin; Michele Bachmann; Newt Gingrich; Ron Paul; Gary Johnson; Rick Santorum and Herman Cain. Stick a fork in any of them: they're done. I guarantee all these people have strong supporters whom will disagree with me, but they all have high negatives or are seen as unelectable (e.g., Paul and Johnson) or inexperienced (Cain). Keep in mind we are talking about independents and moderates. Almost any Republican can retain the McCain states; the issue is whom can take swing states from Obama, e.g., Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Indiana and/or Florida. Maybe, and this would be a big blow to Obama--even Illinois. (Take into account that Governor Quinn barely held on against a largely unknown GOP challenger, and Republican Mark Kirk took Obama's old Senate seat.)
I seriously have to laugh at those pundits whom are relying on head-to-head polls to conclude the 2012 election is Obama's to lose and he has no credible challengers. There are very few McCain states that Obama can take away from the GOP challenger: maybe Missouri, which McCain just barely held. I think you have to look at the race from a federal/electoral standpoint; in many of the swing states, GOP candidates won key gubernatorial and/or Senate seats. Even with Obama's approval at or above 50%, he's beating generic GOP challengers in the mid-40's by one or 2 points. I don't think many independents or moderates know candidates like Romney or Pawlenty. But they are very competent, experienced governors, and they will match up very well against Obama. Some will say Pawlenty is boring, ask the average independent or moderate voter how his vote for a charismatic Obama has worked for him.
Thursday Gallup published its first poll following the Trump/Huckabee/Daniels withdrawals. Romney leads Palin by a small advantage; CNN put Giuliani into the mix and Giuliani, a previously unlisted name, barely tops Romney, with Palin slightly behind.
Just an observation here: I think that Romney's lead is understated, and let me tell you why: it's not just Morris' poll has him at about 30%. There are a lot of undecided's, and Romney will get a number of those. Palin has repeatedly oscillated around the mid-teens, even though she has had massive publicity and highest favorable ratings among Republicans. She has no hope of overcoming the fact she quit as governor, the fact she participated in the 2008 election loss to Obama, her thin qualifications, and her high unfavorable ratings among moderates and independents. If and when she gets into the race, she is going to face a negative campaign (I myself would volunteer to run it for free) like she's never experienced. Why? It's politics. She's not going to be able to run a big-boys-are-hitting-little-girls-with-glasses campaign. She's going to have to debate people like Mitt Romney with two Harvard graduate degrees, whom knows how to turn around failing companies, looks the part of a President, and is more articulate than either Palin or Obama. Palin doesn't seem to remember what happened to Quayle, whom initially entered the race for the 2000 GOP nomination. Palin as an outsider exerts far more influence than as a candidate. If and when she loses badly in the primaries, she becomes just another failed candidate and becomes irrelevant. (If she was smart, she would bide her time and run for the Senate against Begich. Don't think about Arizona: Jeff Flake has paid his dues.)
I should say that Romney is sorely testing my patience and support. His rebuke of Pawlenty's call for the elimination of ethanol subsidies is intolerable: it's bad enough he has failed to distance himself enough away from RomneyCare (to me, it's a no-brainer: if you veto parts and the legislature overrides your veto, Governor Patrick has mismanaged the reform and/or the Massachusetts resident finds to hard to identify a doctor or schedule an appointment, you don't take credit for the bad things: you come up with a lessons learned for federal health care policy). The only thing I can figure is that Romney is trying to distance himself away from Pawlenty in Iowa for political reasons: the idea that the federal government should be "investing" in ethanol production, is just another too-much-like-Obama industrial policy/crony capitalism. Does Romney understand he is running against Obama and wants to clearly distinguish between Obama and himself?
The rumored potential new candidates into the GOP are interesting. Former "America's Mayor" Giuliani has a strong appeal to the centrist Republican base and his 2008 race largely collapsed because he was competing with McCain for the same voters. Governor Rick Perry (TX) brings a long tenure as perhaps America's biggest economically successful state over the past decade, attracting residents and businesses, medical malpractice tort reform, etc.; amazingly, he ran an anti-incumbent campaign for reelection last fall.
One thing is for sure: the Obama reelection team has already signaled a negative campaign for 2012. Maybe it worked for an unpopular Blagojevich running for election in 2006, but Obama found in the fall/winter 2009 and 2010 elections his partisan voter appeals didn't get anywhere. It's a risky double-edged sword because his personal appeal runs ahead of his policies, and a nasty campaign will hurt his brand image, and even if the economy improves, it will likely be viewed as too little, too late.
Should Drugs Be Legalized?
Let me make myself clear: I have one major problem which is shared by many Americans: I'm obese. Unfortunately, we need to eat, and losing weight is complicated: it's not just a matter of cutting calories: metabolism can slow in a starvation defense, meaning you might not lose weight even if you cut down your calories. Furthermore, you often lose muscle, not just fat, and muscle helps you burn calories. That being said, I would not be happy if Dietitian in Chief Michelle Obama decided to dictate my diet and exercise regimen. I do realize the correlation between excess weight and health problems. But ultimately it is my responsibility to diet and exercise responsibly. (I have a separate nutrition blog, and I mention that I don't keep sugary desserts or junk food.)
I don't believe in (and have never used) illegal drugs, and I disapprove of prostitution on moral grounds. I've never smoked and almost never drink alcohol. I'm not saying that to be morally self-superior. I do understand the very real risks of alcoholism and drug addiction.
After hearing Johnson on Hannity's Presidential candidate interview series talk about the issue of legalization (by the way, Hannity didn't challenge Johnson's assertion, but Johnson's claim to being the only advocate on this issue is manifestly false: Ron Paul is a former Libertarian candidate for President and has the same views and perspective), I decided to flesh out the views.
I don't like the idea of making mind-altering substances more affordable from the standpoint of supply and demand: the cheaper the price, the more demand for a good or service. I think there are increased public safety risks (e.g., driving privileges), young people with still developing brains will somehow gain access because of parental negligence, and there will be an inevitably higher number of addicts.
Why would I start to reconsider my position, even though I lack respect for people whom use? For one thing, it's almost impossible to enforce the ban of dysfunctional human behavior (or know where to draw the line); in essence, we know that a high price for a certain good doesn't discourage the underlying motive for the transaction; thus, people may seek alternate, cheaper and/or readily available or makable substitutes (say, inhalant abuse or whatever). Often the effects of these substitute goods themselves may be potentially even more toxic. There are some things you can do with a certain degree of regulation: for instance, you can verify the sexual health of a prostitute, you can ensure a standard dose/quality/purity of a substance. You eliminate the high margins currently attracting criminal enterprises, unintended consequences of these activities (say, drive-by shootings), or criminal behavior by addicts to support their habits. Drugs lords can't afford the enormous investments in digging tunnels under the US border or delivering drugs by submarines if they couldn't pass along the costs to their customers. Most importantly, we wouldn't have a disproportionate number of criminals relative to other countries, clogging our justice system and overcrowding our prison systems, not to mention innocent crime victims, all in a misguided attempt to keep people from being held responsible for their health-threatening behavior.
There are a number of reasons I've started to gravitate to this point of view: first, I've seen the TSA throw more and more resources at airline safety, which can largely negated by simple breakdowns in communication (i.e., the underwear bomber), overly tired air traffic controllers, poor airplane maintenance or drunk pilots. Second, there was this week's Supreme Court decision backing the order to downsize the number of California state prisoners to 137% capacity--meaning tens of thousands of convicts potentially released; it is highly likely the drug war is a significant factor driving up prison populations. Third, the US has an unusually higher proportion of homicides, once again perhaps reflecting the drug war. This is what Friedman is talking about in terms of the moral aspects related to drug criminalization (besides, say, a large percentage of young black men living with a related criminal record which to me seems tragic).
The following interviews involve economists I greatly respect. I'm not endorsing their perspective here; I'm a researcher and scientist by nature and need to review the data, not the hype, but I'm providing information that the reader may find relevant in making his own decision.
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
This is a reminder that I am reducing my updates to three per week starting on Mondays, every other day.
Political Humor
"One of Sarah Palin's supporters is about to release a documentary about her called 'The Undefeated.' That's like a documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger called 'The Faithful.'" –Jimmy Fallon
[There's also the ongoing drama documentary on the 2008 supporters of Barack Obama called 'The Lemmings'.]
"New video has surfaced of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1991 saying the housekeeper does a 'great job.' One clue might have been that he then added, 'And she's also a great housekeeper.'" –Conan O'Brien
[Conan, you have it all wrong: Arnold's mistress was complaining that he treated her like the maid.]
Review of Killebrew Memorial: Some Excerpts
Craig Swalboski, "At Killebrew memorial, we didn't mind hearing it all again"
- "We didn’t mind hearing again the quote from Harmon’s father, when his mother complained that young Harmon and his brothers were wearing out the lawn: 'We’re not raising grass, we’re raising boys.'" [What a tribute to any father to have raised such an outstanding young man! They know how to raise them good and strong in Idaho!]
- "We didn’t mind hearing again about his generosity in helping countless charities, including $9 million toward cancer research and treatment through a golf tournament he’s sponsored for 34 years in honor of former Twins teammate Danny Thompson, a leukemia victim."
- "We didn’t mind hearing again about his professionalism. Torii Hunter, Michael Cuddyer and Justin Morneau all told similar stories of Killebrew chiding them for illegible autographs. In each case, the younger player took to heart Killebrew’s suggestion that “you want people to always know who you are” years after signing your name."
- “'He knew; when he hit it, he’d take a couple of slow steps, toss the bat and then go into a brisk trot (around the bases) so as not to show up the pitcher,' his teammate of 14 years, [pitcher] Jim Kaat, said. "
Former Pitching Teammate Fulfills Killebrew Family Request:
Jim 'Mudcat' Grant's Eloquent Interpretation
of a Killebrew Personal Favorite Song Request
Channeling my inner American Idol judge: "Mad props to Mudcat! Dude, that's HOT! Louis Armstrong would be proud!" This is one of the best performances I've ever heard of this song, a personal favorite, by any singer, professional or amateur; I pride myself as a tenor being able to interpret a song, and I don't think I could ever improve on Jim's meaningful staccato delivery.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "Baby, What a Big Surprise". Cetera once again proves himself a pop music songwriting genius and outstanding vocalist with the group's last top 5 hit of the 1970's. He would go on to write the band's second #1 song and two more top 5 hits before turning solo in the mid 1980's.
