Miscellany: 1/15/12

Quote of the Day

Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil; 
our great hope lies in developing what is good.
Calvin Coolidge

New Blogroll on the Blog

In the upper right corner of  display, you will see that I've added a blogroll. I may add other blogs or websites in the future. I often reference MJ Perry's Carpe Diem blog, so regular readers understand that listing. I want to draw your attention to the other blog listed: The Constitution Club (NB: there's another similarly named website; the blog I'm referencing does not include "the" in the URL.)

To date, I have relied on word of mouth to build my blog readership. I have a distinctive writing style and perspective, and I've kept a low profile with respect other conservative blogs, in part to maintain a fresh, independent point of view. (I've read about major rock stars whom do a similar thing to avoid being influenced by the efforts of other recording artists.) I don't recall how I came across the website; I probably clicked on the link of a post through a web search and subsequently went to the home page.

What impressed me about the website is an interesting variety of new bloggers and topics that go beyond the same old same old. The website also proudly posts a number of derogatory comments by progressives. (One of my favorite Einstein quotes is: "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds.") I think a sign of true maturity of perspective is when one manages to overcome a pervasive, oppressive progressive groupthink characteristic of most universities.

I encourage my readers to visit Conclub (link above or in my blogroll).  I'm also happy to point out that my blog has now been added to the website's blogroll.

A Barton Hinkle/Reason.com, 
"A Modest Proposal: Let’s Ban All Sports!":
Thumbs UP!


I particularly like this sarcastic jab by one of my favorite libertarian columnists at the trite progressive talking point about about inappropriate emergency room use (Obama and Romney, take note) (my edit):

According to the National Center for Sports Safety, more than 3.5 million children receive medical treatment for sports injuries every year. The CDC reports that “more than 10,000 people receive treatment in the nation’s emergency departments (ED) each day for injuries sustained in” sports, recreational, and exercise activities. “At least one of every five ED visits for an injury results from participation in sports or recreation.” Obviously, this imposes huge costs on society. Those injured players who are insured drive up premiums for everybody. Those who are not insured receive charity care, which drives up hospital rates. People who play sports are engaging in risky behavior that hurts us all, for their own selfish enjoyment. Somebody needs to put a stop to this.

In fact, one of my own brothers-in-law (who works in a medical profession) had to have knee surgery after an injury playing amateur soccer (as an adult).

Then, of course, Nanny-in-Chief New York Mayor Micheal Bloomberg effectively said to the Soup Nazi, "No soup for you!" by reducing or banning taste from soup:

Not long ago Scientific American reported, “In just the past few months researchers have published seemingly contradictory studies showing that excess sodium in the diet leads to heart attacks, reduces your blood pressure or has no effect at all.”

(Note the end of the Seinfeld clip got it wrong. It wasn't because a rival stole the Soup Nazi's recipes that led him to go out of business: it was the New York health department got a hold of the recipes and modified them to comply with regulations. The Soup Nazi would rather go out of business than serve a bland soup...)



Political Potpourri

Late-breaking reports indicate Jim Huntsman will leave the GOP Presidential race tomorrow and will endorse Mitt Romney. I expected both moves, although I did not post them. In part, I was waiting to see the South Carolina polls over the weekend. Huntsman got no real boost from his New Hampshire finish; in every single general GOP Presidential poll and South Carolina, Huntsman is dead last among the 6 candidates, with at best a 5% showing. There was one poll last Thursday where he, with 7%, had a 2-point lead over Perry. Huntsman was aiming more at moderates and independents, whom are part of Romney's constituency, so it's not surprising that he would endorse his fellow Mormon.

Barring any unexpected development before Saturday's primary, Perry is done and will drop out soon thereafter. The next lowest candidate is drawing twice as much support. Florida is more purple with South Carolina, generally considered a more conservative-friendly state.

The momentum is now clearly with Romney. The Gallup daily tracking poll has Romney with 37%--with his next closest challenger, Santorum, at 14%. Holding the undecided's constant, Romney is now polling better than Santorum and Gingrich combined. Friday's CNN poll also showed Romney edging the combined percentages of Santorum and Gingrich. In plain English: it looks like the non-Romney bracket is imploding.

Romney sought to lower expectations last week I think quite deliberately--Insider Advantage had him with a 2-point lead over Gingrich in South Carolina. It's technically possible for undecided's to break out away from Romney, but it looks as though the polls are breaking out in favor of Romney both nationally and South Carolina. The last Florida poll I've seen (from Rasmussen) shows Romney at 41%, again more than Gingrich and Santorum combined.

This is all beginning to have the feel of inevitability to it. I don't see it necessarily as pro-Romney in nature but more of a case that none of the other candidates are connecting with voters or showing they are more electable than Romney--and in the end, it's more important that the GOP puts up someone whom can beat Obama, and Romney has been able to fend off his opponents' attacks.

There were reports over the weekend that the evangelical wing of the party has coalesced behind Santorum. Ironically, this may be the best possible outcome for Romney. First, Santorum is a weak opponent; he has no friend in conservative GOP Senator Toomey, Specter's successor. (Santorum backed Specter, a real-life RINO whom switched parties and lost the Dem nomination.) Second, he's got baggage from nearly 20 years in Congress. Third, he lost by 18 points to Casey; he can spin anything he wants about initially getting elected in Congress from a Democratic district, but an 18-point loss for reelection in a purple state eviscerates the electability argument. He also lacks administrative experience, just like Obama, which puts him in a weaker position to argue the experience argument. This has not been an issue in the GOP race to date because disgruntled conservatives are focusing on ideological purity, but the fact is that Romney can point on his experience in both the private and public sectors. Moreover, Santorum's high profile on social issues allows Obama to appeal to independents and moderates whom otherwise are unhappy with Obama's economic record. Fourth, the evangelicals have put themselves in a box: if Santorum places third, their endorsement will undermine their political relevance; if they win, they undermine Romney's strongest opponent, setting Santorum up for a decisive crushing blow just like Gingrich got in Iowa.

In my view, if Romney wins in South Carolina by 10 points, he basically wins the nomination. And, unwittingly, Gingrich and Perry may have paved the way with their populist attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital. It undermined their legitimate conservative credentials and boosted Romney's standing with conservatives. I think any kind of Romney victory boosts him to the mid-40's in Florida and high-30's  nationally. A Romney loss means the race continues past Florida. However, the two polls released Saturday showed Romney over the margin of error, and Huntsman withdrawal and endorsement should give Romney another slight boost.

I don't have to point out that Huntsman's withdrawal leaves Romney against the non-Romney bracket (technically Huntsman was in the non-Romney bracket, but he was more in moderate/independent vs. conservative bracket). I think Gingrich has to go after Santorum, or he's done. Finishing third or fourth in a 5 man field is not going to give him any momentum towards Florida. Even if Gingrich scores points on Romney at this point he doesn't take votes away from Romney and in fact Santorum could benefit from the results as well as him. This is like a pro wrestling match  where two heels (bad guys) take on the babyface. You know the heels have to turn on each other at some point, and the primary weapon you have available is the element of surprise. I don't know yet when or how it'll happen, but he can't afford to let Santorum knock him out of an expected second place. I THINK what it might be is Gingrich argues that it was his agenda that led to consecutive budget surpluses and the GOP lost its way in the early 2000's, giving up its ideals in an effort to remain in power at all costs. I think he brings up the Medicare expansion.

I did want to bring up a few of the arguments that have been advanced against Romney. First, there's the concept of 75% voting against Romney. That's silly. There were 6 candidates in Iowa. Roughly 17% gives you a tie among 6 players. Clinton scored in the low 40's in a 3-way race in 1992. Romney's number should improve as other candidates drop up.

Second, there's the whole question of Massachusetts' elections. Gingrich argues that Romney is a career politician wannabe whom would still be a senator if he beat Kennedy in 1994. Let me point out only two Republican candidates during Kennedy's Senate career got over 41% of the vote against Kennedy: his first (1962) opponent (George Cabot Lodge) and Romney. This is in a state which in 1994 had a simple majority of registered Democratic voters and nearly a 3-to-1 party registration advantage?. This is before the advantages of incumbency and having one of the most storied names in American history. A first-time political candidate? Whereas a win is always better than a loss, one should never underestimate how difficult it is for a minority party nominee to win a statewide election--that is why I was appalled that the GOP  threw away the open Delaware Senate seat in 2010 where Republican Mike Castle, whom had won multiple statewide elections as governor and Congressman, had a lock on the seat.

Santorum argues that Romney would have been defeated for reelection in 2006, too. That's somewhat debatable. Polls were mixed between Romney and the likely opponent, Attorney General Thomas Reilly before Romney backed out. But Reilly lost his primary fight against Deval Patrick and Patrick won 55% of the vote against the then lieutenant governor Kerry Healey and other candidates. But it was also clear that Romney was eyeing the first open Presidential election (without a defending President or Vice President on the ballot) in decades in early 2005. I didn't like Romney's exchange on the issue in last Sunday's Meet the Press , i.e., "I accomplished everything I set out to do as governor"--whereby Santorum came back with the obvious "would you commit yourself to a one-term Presidency?" The answer was obvious: "No". Romney makes a good point about the kinds of problems we have aren't likely to be resolved in one term, but you give up a lot of leverage by becoming a lame duck in one term. But who would have done better in his reelection campaign? I think it would have been a tough reelection given Obama-like approval numbers. (Maryland Governor Ehrlich (R) lost in 2006 despite a majority approval rating.) Romney would have done a lot better against Patrick than Santorum did against Casey, although it's possible he would have lost (Blagojevich in 2006 won reelection despite low approval numbers, and he still was raising funds for his next campaign at the time of the Obama seat scandal). Romney was clearly hedging his bets even after exploring a run for the White House, but he got the RGA chair position he wanted as a springboard for a Presidential bid.

Political Humor

"Mayor Bloomberg wants to outlaw alcohol in New York City. How about outlawing rats in the subway?" - David Letterman

[Since Prohibition worked so well in the Great Depression, Mayor Bloomberg figured it would work during the Great Recession... 


Note to Letterman: it gives James Cagney impressionists a whole new take on the misquoted line: "Mmm, you dirty rat!"]

"The State Department issued a new travel warning yesterday, urging U.S. citizens to avoid Syria. Yeah, it was part of a new set of warnings called, 'Things you were probably doing already.'" - Jimmy Fallon

[In retaliation, Syria issued a warning its own diplomats that there are certain places in DC where you don't want to venture alone at night. Like Capitol Hill.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Styx, "Dear John". This song is a Tommy Shaw tribute to the late Styx drummer. There were a couple of pop songs I particularly recall listening to on my daily 83-mile commute to a Milwaukee suburban county to single-handedly turnaround a failing ERP project: BBmak's "The Ghost of You and Me" and this one. I don't see it currently listed in the Wikipedia Styx discography, but it is well known to any Styx fan. This is my final Styx selection. In my next post, I'll start a brief Doors series.