From long familiarity, we know what honor is.
It is what enables the individual to do right in the face of complacency and cowardice.
It is what enables the soldier to die alone,
the political prisoner to resist,
the singer to sing her song, hardly appreciated, on a side street.
Mark Helprin
"As Newt's World Turns":
Case Closed, But Marriage Open?
Payback's a Bitch
As I contemplate the world of Gingrich's marriages, almost nothing could bore me more. Faithful readers may know because I've mentioned it, but for other readers, do you know how close we came to not having a President Obama? I moved to Maryland after the Illinois primaries in 2004...
Consider this 2003 poll, just a year before Obama a stunning come-from-behind majority-vote victory in the crowded primary: "“[State Comptroller] Hynes is favored by 24 percent, followed by [Cook County Treasurer] Pappas with 21 percent, state Sen. Barack Obama with 9 percent, former Chicago Board of Education President Gery Chico and health care executive Joyce Washington, each with 5 percent, and commodities millionaire Blair Hull with 1 percent.”
Blair Hull spent millions on his campaign; I remember he seized on a phony Democratic issue about importing American pharmaceutical drugs from Canada. Any first-semester economics student understands the core issues involved. Companies often face competing goals like maximizing revenues/profits and maintaining market share. For a company to be profitable in the long run, it has to cover its costs (including ongoing drug development and federal drug approval, company overhead and executive management, and a reasonable profit) There are some practical constraints on pricing models. For example, if you have a limited population of people with a specific medical condition, price cutting only gets you so far; healthy people won't buy it no matter how low you price the drug. (Democrats will understand this concept but you have to phrase it in terms they understand, like cutting income tax rates on the upper 1%.) Keep in mind there are a couple of important things to keep in mind: limited lifetime of exclusive distribution rights (i.e., generic drugs) and high margins for drugs for a particular condition attracts the development of competitive drugs, which will be aggressively priced to win over market share.
At the risk of oversimplification, after one covers overhead costs, it makes sense to expand sales provided you are able to cover your incremental costs in producing a product with some markup over costs. Canada regulates (or has regulated) prices on drugs. Keep further in mind that the market can vary because Canada could accept competitive products not approved by our federal government. American pharmaceuticals may elect to sell at a lower price in Canada because it can increase its revenue and profitability by gaining a larger population for its drug. Exporting the same drug back into the states under undermine the business model, because it could cannibalize existing US sales covering overhead. Democrats may disingenuously suggest that this is the free market system, except the market is distorted by regulations, both in terms of drug approval and pricing. In essence, that pharmaceuticals have made a contract they will have exclusive pricing for a limited period of time. If you change the rules of the game after the game has started, the federal government needs to make compensatory changes, e.g., extend the tenure of a drug's exclusivity. Most likely, the drug companies would withdraw their products from the Canadian market since drug imports would likely decrease aggregate revenues and profits.
The problem is--it's a lot easier for Democrats to demonize discriminatory pricing in different markets, at the expense of "greedy" drug manufacturers because all you have to do is point at higher prices here and lower prices there, and let people come to their own conclusions, not understanding the business implications. For example, a company may need to outsource production to cope with lower prices.
I realize this is a long introduction into what happened in the spring of 2004, but Blair Hull picked on the drug import issue, and I recall innumerable ads featuring Hull leading bus runs across the Canadian border from Michigan.
Let me outline some excerpts from one of my sources:
2/14/04: "Hull has been continually gaining momentum, showing that his record breaking $18 million spending spree has not been wasted. Since August he has raised his poll numbers from 3%, to 10% in October, to 19% in January and now 29%. " Hull's 3 main competitors (Hynes, Obama, and Pappas) ranged from 14% to 20% over two monthly poll comparisons.
On the 15th news broke out about spousal abuse allegations involving Hull's ex-wife. (The rumor is that the story was planted by the Obama campaign.) Hull never recovered: the genie was out of the bottle. Somehow Obama's campaign caught fire. Knowing the intelligence of Illinois voters, whom twice put currently convicted felon Rod Blagojevich into the governor's mansion, I suspect it had to do with Obama's substantive policies as exemplified by Obama's campaign jingle:
Barack Obama, oh yeah, say it againJust in case you think I'm pulling your leg, here is the original hit song:
He's solid as a rock, Barack Obama
If you believe like I believe that children are our future
You're ready to move forward
Instead of things being like they use to be . . .
Oh, my goodness, now all my fellow libertarian-conservative readers are going to be inspired to vote for Obama's reelection, and I'll get blamed... Yeah, right... You see, Obama believes in challenging our children: leaving over $5T debt in less than one term in office was not by accident. It demonstrates his confidence in our children's ability not only to balance their budgets (just like the examples being set by their parents), but his as well.
Let's get a recap from the Gray Lady (my edit) [Barbra Streisand must be so proud that the column title was "A Democratic Star is Born"]:
As recently as three weeks ago, polls showed both Mr. Obama and Mr. Hynes trailing Blair Hull... But Mr. Hull's campaign suddenly imploded over his former wife's accusations that he had behaved violently toward her. In a field of seven, Mr. Obama received more than 52 percent of the vote statewide while his closest competitor, State Comptroller Dan Hynes, whose family has long held power within Chicago's Democratic Party, had less than 24 percent. Mr. Obama even won in Mr. Hynes's predominantly white home ward on Chicago's North Side.Now let's turn to Republican Jack Ryan, JFK-handsome/telegenic Wall Street investment banker whom gave up the lucrative career to teach in an inner city school:
We’ve all heard Jack Ryan’s story – how after going to Harvard Law and Business schools and working for Goldman Sachs, he left corporate America to teach. He took a job at Hales Franciscan, an all African-American Catholic high school on Chicago’s south side.What undid Jack Ryan's political career? He married a seriously gorgeous blonde National Merit Scholar and a 1990 Miss America third runner up and actress, Jeri Zimmermann. When Jeri Ryan joined the Star Trek Voyager cast, ratings jumped 60%. The physical separation of Wall Street-based Jack and Hollywood-based Jeri eventually resulted in divorce. Jeri, in a custody hearing for their young son, filed a sealed complaint, which I'll quote from Wikipedia:
It was revealed that six years previously, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public, and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris. Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."And the Democrats thought that Bill Clinton had an interesting sex life...
For the record, Jack denied the claims, but any geek in the world (including myself) will vouch for the fact that Jeri Ryan is a goddess. [Of course, geeks are willing to do anything...go on a 3AM run to find an outlet selling Popeye's fried chicken and also bring back a half gallon of Blue Bell cookie dough ice cream...agree to stay in a room of her choice without windows, wear a mask and/or agree to arrive and depart at separate times. I mean, if you wait in line for hours just to see a Star Trek movie...]
Jack Ryan never had a chance. To give an example, in late February, Ryan in one poll had a 46-14 lead over the next closest challenger, investment guru Jim Oberweis. His lead took a hit and he won the primary 36-24. As the scandal grew, Obama jumped out to a 10-point lead, and the GOP leadership, which self-righteously felt "betrayed", put pressure on Ryan to quit the race. The rest is history; those same geniuses which failed to field a competitive alternative to Blago, decided to replace Ryan with carpetbagger Alan Keyes, whom ran a spectacularly bad campaign, including a confrontation with his lesbian daughter.
[These geniuses must have thought, hey, how do we compete against a young telegenic African-American Democrat? I know: we'll field our own African-American candidate. Let's see: what (failed) GOP statewide or national high-profile African-American politician is available... These same political geniuses got into the 2008 McCain campaign and thought: let's see--what is our answer to politically exploit Obama's boneheaded, petty decision to pass on Hillary Clinton, a national runner up and proven vote-getter, whom was willing to serve in the largely ceremonial role of running mate? I know--let's look for a first-time governor in a lightly populated state, currently under investigation for abusing her authority in a transparent attempt to have a despised former relative by marriage, a state trooper, fired; the investigation findings are due to be released right in the middle of a general election campaign. Any adverse finding would torpedo the front runner's campaign. It's not like we have to expand on the investigation of an obscure Alaskan politician being considered as the running mate of the 70-year-old nominee, a heartbeat away from being President. Let me see: who were those brilliant GOP strategists whom suggested the BEST WAY to spotlight GHW Bush's experience argument was to select an obscure second-term Indiana senator. No need to check on those fourth-grade spelling tests... Having Dan Quayle on the ticket must have reassured those moderates and independents on the fence. Yes, indeed, Sarah Palin on the ticket would help reassure wavering undecideds sold on McCain's experience argument against Obama: why, if there are any rumors of bears on the prowl in Wall Street, President McCain will send out VP Mama Grizzly with a shotgun to take them out!]
And you thought Rick Santorum lost in a 2006 landslide.
I voted for Jack Ryan, and if I still lived in Illinois, I would still have voted for him or anyone whom wasn't Barack Obama. I didn't buy the Obama hype when I lived in Illinois, and we now have more than enough reason to vote against him today.
I have made it clear that I do not support Newt Gingrich, but unless the sex in question involves a minor, is involuntary and/or contextually exploitative (i.e., sexual harassment, such as Clinton's behavior pattern in Arkansas and the White House), I am more concerned with the suitability of knowledge, abilities, skills and experience relevant to being President. Is Gingrich qualified to be President? Yes; he's negotiated with the White House from the other side of the table, and he thoroughly understands federal policies. Would I vote for him over Barack Obama? Of course. Any reasonable person would have to; Obama is easily the worst, most unqualified, unfit President in American history--and I would pass a polygraph saying that. We cannot afford another 4 years of adding another $5T to the national debt and unbridled, growth-sapping regulatory empire building. Is he the best Republican candidate? Of course not: just to give a short list of people I prefer (in addition to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul): Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Eric Cantor, ...
Don't get me wrong. I believe in the traditional ideals of lifelong marriage and family. I understand the hypocrisy of a Republican running on family values. And I think it's fair for people to ask whether someone who cheated on his marriage vows will respect his oath as President (consider, for instance, Bill Clinton's failure to testify truthfully to an Arkansas judge.)
But I was somewhat aware of the allegations that Gingrich's current wife had an affair with him while still married to his second wife, now accusing him of wanting an open marriage. (I have little doubt that any politician would prefer to portray a stable home life, have his cake and eat it, too. Whether or not the allegations are true is simply a matter of semantics: clearly he was having an affair.)
But in terms of "destroying him"? There are a number of men whom cheat on their wives. It's one of the oldest stories since the beginning of time.
What bothers me far, far more were the reports out there hinting at a scandal but not wanting to go with the story for the purpose of not affecting an election with some reports of a Santorum-Iowa surge (presumably based on his red meat sound bites delivered at a Fox News Channel debate earlier this week). EXCUSE ME! Intentionally withhold a newsworthy story from the South Carolina voters is a paternalistic violation of journalistic ethics. It is not the function of journalists to serve as a censor for the prospective voter: voters have a right and a need to know a newsworthy story sooner than later--what can they do after the vote is over? Recall their ballots? We do not have a right to decide whether a voter's judgment is mature enough to handle a sensational story. This fall I have to rely on the good judgment of the American people; if they are insane enough to vote for the reelection of the worst President of their lifetimes, they are stuck with that decision over the next 4 years, and don't expect him to be any better the next time around.
More Political Potpourri
Just some brief comments on the other happenings of the day (or recently):
- Santorum wins Iowa by a few dozen votes on a certified count. The problem is that there were so many questions about uncounted votes that we really don't know for sure who won it. Clearly the Iowa party has some things to fix for the future. The interesting thing is, the coverage was always anti-Romney from the get-go, with many commentators talking about Santorum's tie, 75% of the voters against Romney (not against Santorum). Mitt Romney handled it well--he simply applied the "virtual tie" rhetoric Santorum himself was using when he was on the other side of the ledger. The fact is, the Iowa win has not helped him in New Hampshire or South Carolina (so far). As I've written, Santorum's success was based on saturation politics in Iowa above all other candidates combined and being at the right place at the right time when Gingrich took a deep hit after some effective ads from a Romney PAC.
- Palin Endorses Gingrich in South Carolina. After I paid Palin a rare compliment for distancing herself from the Gingrich PAC's anti-capitalist Bain ads against Romney, the "maverick reformer" decides to embrace someone whom has been part of the problem, not the solution. Is it hypocritical and yet another example of bad political judgment? Of course.
- Perry Drops From the Race and Endorses Gingrich. I did suspect that he would do both things but thought it would happen after the primary, not before it. Maybe it was to preempt a likely last-place finish. Perry had co-authored a book ("Fed Up") with Gingrich, so I wasn't surprised at all by the endorsement. What I don't get is his logic in endorsing the ultimate insider after running an anti-Washington campaign.
- What Is Going On With the South Carolina Polls? Some 5 polls came out with 2 of them Gingrich with a slight (within error, essentially tied) with Romney, 1 with a 6-point lead, but Romney leads in the two others by 7 and 10 points. Gingrich was the prohibitive favorite before Iowa, so this last minute surge (the FNC debate?) may hold on, but if someone asked me, results unseen, which pollsters I trust least, I would have listed all three polls showing Gingrich in the lead. Not sure if the ex-wife "open marriage" scandal will have any effect. The Gallup daily tracking poll still sees Romney with a higher percentage than the combined second (Gingrich) and third challenger (either Paul or Santorum). I think Romney will hang on but I don't know if Gingrich's ex-wife comments will have any effect as we head into Saturday's vote. South Carolina likes to crown the eventual winner, and right now the polls strongly favor Romney over Gingrich. But it's possible South Carolina voters will signal the contest should go on past Florida, which Romney will almost certainly win. If Romney sweeps South Carolina and Florida--and he's got a good shot of doing it--the nomination is all but his. The long-sought non-Romney surge is imploding: Romney is now regularly creeping up in 30-40% territory in polls, which is significant in a fragmented field. That means undecideds are breaking towards Romney, probably based on the electability argument.
"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." - Jay Leno
[Romney thinks a 15% tip to the IRS is very generous given the poor government service, the fatty government pork, and half-baked programs. Besides, aren't school lunches on the House? He also thinks being charged $16 a muffin can't be justified...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Doors, "Hello, I Love You"
