January 31, 2008

President Clinton Tells Truth!

Hold the presses! Don Luskin says honesty in politics is rare So savor this morsel of truth from an unlikely source, Bill Clinton:

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?


Karl Popper talks about those who would have us go back to the caves. Instapundit links to the threat of a new ice age.

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Bill's stumping was working for Hillary, until he started putting on the "mad" face too. It just didn't resonate with voters when Obama would speak with charm and optimism. Now Bill really put his foot in his wife's mouth.

A "Law & Order: CI" rerun last night was about an intelligent, ambitious woman whose political campaigns always seemed to be sabotaged by her husband. Not that I'm in any way saying or implying Hillary will have Bill done in -- the ep was loosely (and unfairly) based on my former county DA, Jeannine Pirro, not Hillary. But I couldn't help but think, wow, Hillary will soon enough be praying that Bubba has a heart attack so he'll shut up.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2008 2:23 PM
But jk thinks:

I still think he's a net gain in the primaries -- I think she might be encouraging him to have that third cheeseburger when she's in the general.

Posted by: jk at January 31, 2008 3:13 PM
But AlexC thinks:

Awesome.

Three points.

How arrogant do you have to be to think you can regulate our economy to some "slower" number by saying so.

... and what is that number?

If the "economy stupid" is the new resurgent issue, and Bushco's GOP economic policies are too blame for the pending depression (Obama save us), why is a slow economy a bad thing?

Posted by: AlexC at January 31, 2008 3:24 PM
But jk thinks:

AC, I think the trouble is that Bush is slowing down the wrong parts of the economy. President Hillary Clinton would slow down the right parts. Government knows best!

Posted by: jk at January 31, 2008 5:59 PM

A Fork In Mitt?

I think Dan Henninger pens the first political obituary of the Romney campaign. Premature or prescient? I post, you decide. For the record, it is unusual for the Deputy Ed Page Editor's work to appear in Political Diary. Was he burning to get this out or is Rupert reworking the org chart. I post -- oh never mind:

At last night's (blessedly) final Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney had the look, and sound, of someone who knows it's over. While predictions in this political season have become a fool's game, I am going to venture that no matter how many states he competes in, Gov. Romney knows he will never close the five-point gap that separated him from John McCain in New Hampshire and now Florida.

Last night the famous Matinee Mitt smile of self-confidence seemed to have been replaced by a more relaxed, wistful glance over at the Arizona Senator seated next to him. That resigned, tight smile said something: I am smarter than you are, Senator, on virtually every issue other than who ran Pakistan 10 years ago, but I am still losing. Why?

Here's why. As was clear again in last night's debate, Gov. Romney's message on the campaign trail or on TV was a perpetual data-dump. Yes, Mitt was smarter than the other guys, but he had the smartest-kid-in-the-class malady of compulsively trying to show off his brain with what in the end merely amounted to a lot of policy details, a lot of "stuff." Did anyone ever understand his explanation of his Massachusetts health care reform?

Result: His message was disorganized. The bumper sticker was "Let Mitt Fix Washington," but the Mitt fix itself came across to audiences as a grab-bag of analysis, nostrums and pieces of supporting data pulled randomly from some folder in his brain. As Mike Huckabee might put it, the bane of the Romney candidacy was Bain & Company. Bain is the consulting firm where by his own admission Mr. Romney learned how to think about the world -- through the eyes of a management consultant. As any CEO who has ever hired one of these firms will tell you, they are fascinating guys to talk to but you wouldn't want them actually running your company.

The Romney candidacy never quite came into focus. Yeah, fix Washington, but beyond that a blizzard of technocratic data at every whistlestop. One can see why he'd be maddened losing to the almost stolid McCain candidacy. But no one could miss the McCain message: national honor, a duty to fulfill the nation's responsibilities and the real and present danger of an external threat. It's a mindset they teach in the military but not in consulting: Keep it simple, stupid.

Mitt couldn't. He's done.

UPDATE: John Fund, in the same PD, says that the campaign is not buying media.

But HB thinks:

Everybody is an expert when the writing is on the wall. The Republican establishment and conservatives in general were dead against John McCain and had written him off for dead on numerous occasions. However, now that he looks like the inevitable candidate (mathematically), suddenly the establishment has embraced him and left Mitt for dead.

McCain is NOT my candidate. I have long admired his honesty and service to this country and I was one of the few who actually thought McCain was winning the early debates. However, McCain's continuous demagoguery of capitalism cannot and should not stand. His criticisms of Mitt's experience in the private sector and of the pharmaceutical industry are particularly troubling. He frequently crosses the aisle to vote against freedom -- freedom of speech and the freedom to spend money how on see fit on candidates of my choosing.

My friends (that's a McCain pun, btw), I have only to look forward to 2010 when the Republicans can take control of the House and the Senate after two miserable years of Billary.

Posted by: HB at January 31, 2008 1:27 PM
But jk thinks:

I have missed things before but I was surprised to see this. I considered McCain a front-runner but by no means the presumptive nominee. Governor Romney has $$$ and very active support in the talk-radio community. I figured him to have a good shot at taking a delegate lead next Tuesday.

Posted by: jk at January 31, 2008 1:34 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Ahem - The second political obituary of the Romney campaign. LOYAL ThreeSources readers know!

Posted by: johngalt at January 31, 2008 2:43 PM
But jk thinks:

The second, jg, the second. I'm still not sure they are both premature.

Posted by: jk at January 31, 2008 3:09 PM
But johngalt thinks:

NED do I HOPE so!

Posted by: johngalt at January 31, 2008 3:35 PM

Lilliputian

The GOP debates have lost 50 points off their mean IQ since Rudy! and Fred! left.

On paper, I was committed to supporting my third choice, and I am pragmatic enough that I probably will do the GOP thang this year, BUT --- But I was extremely disappointed with the debates last night. I tuned in late and don't know if I perhaps missed "the good parts." But what I saw made me nauseous.

Last week's Weekly Standard has an amusing cover illustration of Senators Clinton and Obama on playground swings, scowling at each other. But the Dems looked like Lincoln and Douglas compared to the Mitt! and John! show last night. They both appear petty and small and everything but presidential. They make Rep. Paul and Governor Huckabee look good, I'll give them that.

McCain actually ridiculed Romney for working in the private sector! "While I was serving my country, he was making money, and selling companies, and I think some people lost their jobs..." IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM SENATOR!!! ASK PHIL GRAMM TO 'SPLAIN IT TO YOU!

Governor Romney did nothing to capture my support while I was wavering on McCain. He was gonna "run the economy" 'cause he's such a good manager. Rep. Paul laid that claim to waste, nicely, but then -- on cue -- launched into a pessimistic rant about how we're broke and the dollar is worthless, and what can’t these people see how bad everything is...

The final question in the Reagan library, with Reagan's Air Force One behind them, was "Why would Reagan endorse you." Romney was certain of it, 'cause he's gonna amend the Constitution for life and for marriage. McCain was equally sure it was he, 'cause he doesn't flip flop. Paul said that President Reagan had campaigned for him in the house -- a nice play without the bravado of the other two. Then Governor Huckabee said it "would be presumptuous to assume he would be endorsed" which was the right answer. I could not help but think of Reagan’s 11th commandment: don't speak ill of other Republicans. Romney and McCain will need to say a few Our Madisons in restitution.

A grim, grisly, awful night to be a Republican. On the other hand, did you see Senator Obama's "Response to the SOTU?"

UPDATE: Mark Styen seems to agree

Just because McCain can poke Mitt in the eye is no indication he'll be as effective with Putin, a remarkable number of whose enemies wind up splattered on the sidewalk outside their apartment house after opting for a strangely uniform manner of fatal auto-defenestration.

Although, oddly enough, after tonight's debate, I'm tempted to join them.

GOP2008 Primary Posted by jk at 11:31 AM

January 30, 2008

Pictures are worth a thousand words...

Via Yahoo!

Dem2008 Primary Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 11:02 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

Merciful Zeus! If she wins the nomination, we might have to replace the blog header with that.

Posted by: jk at January 31, 2008 11:28 AM

Body Trafficking

Who knew there was a market? (well, I did)

A nurse admitted Wednesday he plucked body parts from 244 corpses in Philadelphia and helped forge paperwork so the parts, some of them diseased, could be used in unsuspecting patients.

Lee Cruceta, 35, of Monroe, N.Y., was the lead cutter in a group that trafficked in more than 1,000 stolen body parts for the lucrative transplant market, authorities say.

Cruceta pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy, taking part in a corrupt organization, abuse of a corpse and 244 counts each of theft and forgery.

Prosecutors also expect accused ringleader Michael Mastromarino, 44, of New York, to plead guilty, Assistant Philadelphia District Attorney Bruce Sagel told a judge.

Mastromarino, a former oral surgeon, paid funeral directors $1,000 per corpse, then sold the parts to tissue banks, Sagel said. The body parts fetched up to $10,000 apiece, though the tissue banks resold them to hospitals for many times that amount, he said.


Actually, I think if more people were allowed to sell the body parts (post-death, where applicable), there would be a lot more available for transplants etc.

Gruesome? Well... not as much as other "procedures" in medicine today. Certainly not as icky as the under-the-radar corpse trade.

Think about it.

You could sell a kidney, while you're still alive. Yes, the kidneys would go to the highest bidders. But as more kidneys came on the market (we've all got a spare), prices would fall.

Right now your drivers license says "ORGAN DONOR"... what if it said "ORGAN SELLER"?

Hospitals would then get a cut (heh) of the cost for handling fees. Brokers would be around to take care of the transaction. An entire on-the-up-and-up economy would be born.

Side benny is that people would take care of their gear to fetch the best price.

"Low cholesterol?" Clean bill of sale.

"Low weight?" Mo' money.

"No smoking?" Cough up the cash.

Altruism only gets you so far, that's why we have waiting lists... but people are dying all the time.

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

I don't believe the govt has thought about it, but by accident, it is prevented. You see, you REALLY want that flat screen tv. Mkay. That lazy spouse of yours without health insurance, a job or life insurance ... they'll be taking a ride down the stairs on their neck so you can harvest his 'net worth'.

Got a lot of kids? Remember that scene in Monty Python's 'The meaning of life' where the father tells the kids that he cannot afford to feed them so he is selling them to the Pharma Industry as test subjects? Yep.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at January 31, 2008 9:01 AM

Ice Chewing

I'm not quite as bad as some of these folks, but it could be that I lack opportunity:


Ice Crunching video


The next big thing.

Posted by jk at 12:10 PM

GOP Coronation

No links here kids, just my loveable prose to get some stuff off my chest. You see, my GOP primary candidate didn't make it in the early primaries because he started too late and didn't work hard enough. And JK's candidate didn't make it because ... he started too late and didn't work hard enough. Now it's a "two-man race" between Mac and Romney. Nope. It's done.

Romney has the goods to continue the challenge to the senior statesman from Arizona but GOP voters are already in the tank for the "war hero, maverick, straight-talker" who, by the way, "deserves it." (Just ask Florida's Mel Martinez.) And no one wants to contemplate the pouting he'll indulge in if he isn't nominated this time, much less witness it. And why wouldn't he pout? After all, he "deserves it." (Just ask Chris Matthews.) He's as close as this country now has to political royalty, at least in the GOP.

But what about the man who changes his tune on tax cuts to appeal to conservative voters while at the same time calling his opponent a flip-flopper?" Or the man who says the President's most important job is to protect the American people, but says dipping foreign terrorists upside down in water up to their eyeballs is "torture?" OK, I guess he "deserves it" because he's been a Senator for a long time and knows how to "get things done in Washington." Problem is, that's what frightens me - I worry about what Prince McCain might get done if he becomes King.

On the positive side I should appreciate his relative secularity versus Mitt. (Take that Bill O'Reilly!) He'll be less dogmatic on social issues, which suits me just fine and gives him something to compromise with Democrats over. And, of utmost importance, he's pro-Second Amendment.

So since the train has already left the station I suppose I'll print my "Don't Blame Me - I Caucused for Fred!" bumper stickers and warily grab onto the caboose of McCain Train.

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Yeah, but what about Ron (Bat Ass Crazy) Paul? If we are lucky, he will pull in a vp candidate as entertaining as Perot and 'The Admiral'.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at January 30, 2008 1:00 PM
But jk thinks:

The GOP has the sad tradition of offering its nomination to the next in line (cf, Sen. Bob Dole 1996) but this time I find myself on board.

The WSJ Ed Page has a disturbing piece on judges. Might President McCain look for judges who would uphold his "landmakedly-bad" Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002? But I have not heard or seen anything on Governor Romney that gives me warm fuzzies on judges.

I'm down to my third choice, but c'est la guerre. Senator McCain is a powerful -- and eloquent -- prosecutor of the war. That's enough for me in 2008. And I can hope that his stellar economic team keeps him on a Prosperitarian track.

Posted by: jk at January 30, 2008 2:02 PM

Rudy II

I appreciate your post, hb, but please indulge me. I find this to be one of the greatest political speeches in recent memory. I encourage everybody to watch to all the way through. I remembered one of the reasons that I supported Hizzoner: eloquence. We need somebody who can explain the benefits of liberty (listen at least to 5:30 - 6:30; and 8:00 - 10:00).





I think the GOP has made a mistake, but I've lost before and I will pick up the pieces and move on. Go McCain!

But Terri thinks:

Thanks for putting that up. It is a great speech.

go McCain.

Posted by: Terri at January 30, 2008 9:13 PM

January 29, 2008

Rudy

Matt Welch:


Rudy's loser speech -- filled with "self-government," school choice, broadsides against "the central government" -- is better than anything I've heard from him all season.

Indeed. I always felt that the mayor's strength was on economic issues and arguments for freedom. Unfortunately, he made national security his central issue even when the economy became the number one concern of voters (and despite the fact that he has no national security experience). Sorry jk, your man is gone now too. Equally unfortunate is that it seems that my prediction about McCain is starting to come true. The Republican Party as we knew it is dead -- at least until we get a real candidate (hopefully) in 2012.

GOP2008 Primary Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 11:31 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

"Loser speech." I really enjoy Reason, but I find that phrase offensive. It was a superb and eloquent encapsulation of the things most Reason readers believe. No, Mr. Welch, Rudy and Fred didn't start sounding good when they quit -- rather, you started listening to what they were saying instead of listening for reasons why they weren't perfect libertarian candidates.

Posted by: jk at January 30, 2008 10:52 AM

Mark Steyn Endorses Hillary

Kidding! But he does echo my view:

Here's a thought to chill Andrew [Stuttaford]: Is Barack the new Blair? That is, if elected, will he be able (like Tone's first ministry) to push through big transformative changes under cover of the sheer dazzle of his glamor?

My trouble is that I cannot follow through. I truly share this belief and feel the cause of freedom hinges on my supporting Senator Clinton. But I do love to see her lose.

Dem2008 Primary Posted by jk at 7:43 PM

Cool Site

This site has semantic analysis on all the SOTU speeches (not yet counting last night's). Each is analyzed for length and grade level required for comprehension. Each has a "word cloud" visualization of important words in the speech, and a mouseover shows the number of times they appear.

Most cool. Yet another Club for Growth Hat-tip

On the web Posted by jk at 5:22 PM

Only In America

Twenty Five good jobs that do not require a college degree

What do Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and entertainment mogul David Geffen have in common? Huge bank accounts and no student loans. These industry leaders are some of the most successful people in business and none of them has a college degree.

They left out drug dealer and jazz guitarist! Hat-tip: Club for Growth

Posted by jk at 5:16 PM

Giants Walked This Earth

A good friend of mine and a good friend of this blog sends a link to an obituary in the Denver Post, with the subject "We have known giants." I took German from this man in High School. But I was an absolute idiot because he taught Russian, Latin and Classics before and after school and I did not sign up.

Martin Globocnik, 88, passed away on January 17, 2008. He is survived by his beloved wife, Vera. Born August 1, 1919 in Cerklje, Slovenia, Martin taught at various elementary and high schools in Slovenia, Italy, and Colorado. He survived Italian and German POW camps during WWII and came to marry Vera Martelanc February 2, 1954, in Trieste, Italy. In 1955 they immigrated to the US and settled in Colorado. Martin taught languages at Machebeuf H.S. from 1962-1982. His passion was Latin. Martin's students competed in national events and won numerous honors. A devoted Catholic, Martin fled his Slovenian homeland as the Communists came to power. He is also survived by various nieces and nephews in Slovenia and Italy.

He was the real deal as a scholar and as an inhabitant of this wonderful planet. A thin, small, academic-looking fellow, he had also escaped from friendly POW camps because of intelligence work. When I was in school, he was indefatigable in his efforts to teach, raise funds for the school, and impact his students. A giant.

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

It bugs me too that I was so oblivious to the giants whose feet I pranced about as a child. Oh, the folly of youth!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at January 30, 2008 8:47 AM

John!

I am pretty grouchy with our buddies in the pollster business. The FOX31 weather team has a better record and they told me it was gonna snow today (blue skies and sun out my window).

It disturbs me that these guys who -- let's be fair -- don't know their ass from their elbow, are telling Florida voters that "it's a two man race." Primary voters might try to vote strategically. If I (still) lived in Florida, I would be tempted. All the lost votes will come out of the totals for my favored candidate, Mayor Giuliani.

Have I given up? No, but if the pollsters successfully predict or create a two man race, I am ready to switch my allegiance to Senator McCain. Stephen Moore has a nice piece on him in the Political Diary today, on his "economics education." He admits the votes against the Bush tax cuts were wrong, but:

But Mr. McCain has arguably the best stable of economic advisers in the race, with only Rudy Giuliani's team rivaling him in economic expertise. His primary confidant on the economy is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration). Jack Kemp has signed up with Mr. McCain, and Mr. McCain talks frequently to his longtime friend, the godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer.

The big source of agitation for conservative voters over the past several years has been the federal spending explosion. Here, Senator McCain has teamed with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, another endorser of the Arizona Senator, to cut more than $100 billion out of the federal budget. He has voted with Mr. Coburn on nearly every anti-pork measure introduced in the last several years. "I will cut the budget more than any other Republican," he told me in an interview late this summer when his poll numbers were in the tank. "Maybe that's what makes so many people nervous about me."

Mr. McCain is also an unwavering supporter of two other issues critical to the economic future of the nation: free trade and school choice. Education is always an issue foremost on the mind of the key "soccer mom" suburban vote. "The day that members of Congress will send their kids to the public schools in Washington, D.C., is the day I'll know we've fixed education in America," he has told me. "Why won't people like Hillary Clinton send her child to the public schools in Washington, D.C.?" Great question, and one he should save for a debate with Hillary if the two are the nominees.


GOP2008 Primary Posted by jk at 12:55 PM

January 28, 2008

Quote of the Night

"Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

-- George W. Bush, SOTU

President Bush Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:10 PM | What do you think? [3]
But AlexC thinks:

Good to hear the President is finally using my material.

I drop that bomb on the "tax cuts for the rich" douchers.

Posted by: AlexC at January 28, 2008 10:42 PM
But Terri thinks:

Looks like I snagged your instalaunche! Thanks.....

Posted by: Terri at January 28, 2008 10:57 PM
But jk thinks:

Maybe I am completely in the bag for this guy, but I thought the speech was very good. I didn't hear any kind words from the TV pundits, but I felt that he put up a credible defense of the tax cuts and the War on Terror. Jay Nordlinger is right -- we will miss this guy.

I'm sure it was lameduckness and not religion, but it was good to hear fewer initiatives.

Posted by: jk at January 29, 2008 11:04 AM

Would We Complain about Too Much O2?

One thing I've never heard addressed by the DAWG crowd: Isn't the added CO2 good for plants?

Terri at I Think ^(Link)... links to an item on treehugger.com that says the additional carbon dioxide provides a longer and more productive season for trees.

Scientists have been at a loss to account for why the traditional autumnal spectacle of disheveled trees and changing colors has gotten gradually pushed back over the last few years. Some have attributed the delayed autumnal senescence to increasing global temperatures; others have attributed it to the length of day.

David F. Karnosky, a professor at Michigan Technological University, believes rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be to blame — and, perhaps surprisingly, to thank. Karnosky explains that delaying senescence may in fact be good news for forestry industries since it prolongs the trees' growing season. The extra carbon dioxide taken up in the autumn, in addition to that taken up during the growing season, would also boost their productivity.



Phil!

Too late to draft Senator Phil Gramm? I'm glad he is working with Senator McCain, but I wish his name were on the ballot.

The Everyday Economist was kind enough to send me a link to an interview with the Senator. (~20MB, ~10:00)

Posted by jk at 4:14 PM

Dave Barry on the Primaries

Dave Barry tells his fellow Floridians that it's time to stand up and be counted, unless you're a Democrat. He explains the contests so far, better than most, then sizes up the Democrat and Republican races:

THE REPUBLICAN RACE: It's still wide open. Mitt ''Mitt'' Romney holds a slight edge in delegates, plus a heifer he got for winning Wyoming. Right behind him are John McCain, Chuck Norris and the late Ronald Reagan.

Bringing up the rear is Rudy, who needs a win and has been frantically courting Florida voters. He's mowing your lawn right now.

THE DEMOCRATIC RACE: It's down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it's getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. Edwards is still running, but at this point they don't even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he's going to take on the big corporations.


Posted by jk at 2:24 PM

Not Endorsed

Not a Rudy! supporter, but this is a good ad.

But jk thinks:

Awesome.

Posted by: jk at January 28, 2008 1:51 PM

Could Have Happened To You

The DailyMash finds out why the SocGen trader went off the rails:

FRIENDS of rogue trader Jerome Kerviel last night blamed his $7 billion losses on unbearable levels of stress brought on by a punishing 30 hour week.

Kerviel was known to start work as early as nine in the morning and still be at his desk at five or even five-thirty, often with just an hour and a half for lunch.

One colleague said: "He was, how you say, une workaholique...


Hat-tip: Don Luskin

Posted by jk at 12:11 PM

January 27, 2008

Only Fair

MissMichigan.jpg The good people of Michigan have Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow in the Senate. It only seems right that they should get Kirsten Haglund, Miss America, 2008.
Posted by jk at 7:02 PM

I Was Born In the Wrong Country

I'd put up with the NHS to hear speeches like this! Imagine, for one second, Senator Carl Levin or Harry Reid trying something this deft and intelligent.





Samizdat Perry DeHavilland says "William Hague is on the money and bloody hilarious..." Insty just says "Heh"

Politics Posted by jk at 6:46 PM

Twenty Eight Points!

Although I still feel that President Hillary Clinton could do less damage to the cause of liberty than President Barack Obama, it does not mean that I don't love seeing Her Collectivistness lose big. I saw her speech in Tennessee, where she said that "now the eyes of the nation are focused on Tennessee" when the eyes were clearly focused on the Palmetto State, where she was losing about two to one. Her voice was raspy and her presence uncharming.

Senator Obama seemed energized:

"The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders," Obama said at a boisterous victory rally. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

Senator Edwards came in third in his home state. Though PowerLine notes: "[T]here's some solace for Edwards. According to Fox News, exit polling shows that he did well among voters who favor the war in Iraq and think the economy is in good shape."

Anybody who is not having fun this year is simply not trying. On to Florida!

UPDATE Bad math repaired in headline (I said 26).

Dem2008 Primary Posted by jk at 1:53 PM

January 26, 2008

Philadelphia Inquirer Endorsements

Obama

Given that, BARACK OBAMA is the best Democrat to lead this nation past the nasty, partisan, Washington-as-usual politics that have blocked consensus on Iraq; politics that never blinked at the greedy, subprime mortgage schemes that could spawn a recession; politics that have greatly diminished our country's stature in the world.

Obama inspires people to action. And while inspiration alone isn't enough to get a job done, it's a necessary ingredient to begin the hard work.

Obama's appeal to Americans to have the audacity to hope, even in the face of tragedies such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, has fallen on fertile ground. Americans want desperately to believe they can overcome any difficulty - given the right leadership.


Wow. I didn't know that 9/11 and Katrina still have to be overcome.

Why stop there? I have the audacity to hope we can overcome the metric system and rainy days.

If only we had the right leadership.

McCain

The GOP race has devolved frequently into a shameless contest to see who can bash illegal immigrants the loudest. McCain, who represents a border state, has resisted this pandering to the Republican base. He supports giving illegals a pathway to citizenship, when taking a harsher position would clearly win him more primary voters.

The former prisoner of war in Vietnam has stood tall against the Bush administration's condoning of torture for enemy combatants. He dared speak out against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's mismanagement of the war in Iraq - although McCain's willingness to keep U.S. troops there indefinitely is wrong, too.

McCain has shown an ability to learn from mistakes. Accused of intervening on behalf of a campaign contributor in the 1980s' savings and loan scandal, he later took up the banner of campaign finance reform. He waged a lonely battle in his party, pushing through the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002.

McCain was among the first in his party to treat global warming as a serious problem. He's also been a consistent fiscal hawk in Congress.


Incredibly, the Inquirer goes on to list his bad traits.

Feh.

Posted by AlexC at 8:26 PM

A Serious Critique

Hugh Hewitt has made a lot of marginal complaints about Senator McCain (It's almost as if he might be pulling for Governor Romney a little bit), but I have to admit that this one is spot on. I'm glad he supported The Surge and General Petraeus, but his attacks of Secretary Rumsfeld go a little too far:

Only small-minded people think Rumsfeld is other than a great American and patriot, though of course a controversial one. He continues to deserve the respect and thanks of the American people.

I thus wonder whenever Senator McCain snarls out "Rumsfeld" as he does in debate after debate if others beside me find it unsettling and off-putting that there is so much venom there? Rumsfeld was an opponent of McCain's and as a result the contempt the Arizona maverick has for the former SecDef is complete, but it is also unseemly and not in the best traditions of American politics, especially when Rumsfeld has left the field.


I think Rumsfeld was right about modernizing the military and was right about smaller footprints and greater use of smart weapons. I'll concede that he facilitated the plan to wait out the increasing factional violence after the Golden Dome of Samarra bombing, but I don't know that he wasn't getting bad data and advice from the field.

I do get uneasy when Senator McCain goes after a man who has given this country honorable and intelligent service.

But johngalt thinks:

Rumsfeld was made the tacit administration scapegoat for everything bad that happened in pre-Surge Iraq. I think he knows and accepts that, and I think McCain uses the man's name to complete his own image as the "war fightin' expert" amongst the candidates. I believe Mac was right that more troops were required for the job but to assert that he had some kind of crystal ball is ridiculous.

And for anyone to blame Rumsfeld for how long it took to passify Iraq without first considering the State Department's role is myopic at best.

Posted by: johngalt at January 27, 2008 4:37 PM

January 25, 2008

Uh oh!

Hopefully, this isn't true:


Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:38 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

That will cheer up Art Laffer...

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2008 7:52 PM

Reject the Endorsement

I mentioned yesterday that the New York Times had graced John McCain with an scathing editorial endorsement. Today, Larry Kudlow suggested that McCain publicly reject the backhanded endorsement.

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:26 PM | What do you think? [2]
But johngalt thinks:

I agree. It would be comparable to Rudy!s bold rejection of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal's $10M "donation" to 9/11 relief when the self-serving oil looter said the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack."

The Times' "praise" that "Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe" is analogous to the Prince's strategy of criticizing his supposed beneficiary.

Posted by: johngalt at January 26, 2008 5:46 PM
But jk thinks:

He was pushing that on his show Friday night. It would be an awesome move. It would heal some wounds with conservatives and yet it would still be there for any miniscule good it could do.

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2008 7:32 PM

Democrats' Tax Hike Folly

I waited all day for our resident Prosperitarian to post this but was left wanting. I guess my stilted analysis will have to do.

Blog favorite Arthur Laffer writes on today's WSJ Ed page of 'The Tax Threat to Prosperity' wherein Democrats want to "soak the rich" to return the federal treasury to surpluses and make milk and honey run in the streets. But then reality took over:

Using recent data, in other words, it would appear on its face that the Democratic proposal to raise taxes on the upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the middle- and lower- income earners, will result in huge revenue losses on both accounts. But some academic advisers to Democratic candidates have a hard time understanding the obvious, devising outlandish theories as to why things are different now. Well they aren't!

And this doesn't even count the oft-disputed supply side effects:

Even these data grossly understate the total supply-side response. A cut in the highest tax rates will increase lots of other tax receipts. It will lower government spending as a consequence of a stronger economy with less unemployment and less welfare. It will have a material, positive impact on state and local governments. And these effects will only grow with time.

Laffer ends with an ominous warning:

Mark my words: If the Democrats succeed in implementing their plan to tax the rich and cut taxes on the middle and lower income earners, this country will experience a fiscal crisis of serious proportions that will last for years and years until a new Harding, Kennedy or Reagan comes along.
But jk thinks:

I know the blog is always in good hands.

Laffer's piece was excellent, but it was unnerving to see the second most optimistic man in America (next to Kudlow) on Kudlow's show, expressing serious concern about the future of the economy if one of these folks win.

Laffer is by no means a partisan hack, he boasts that he voted for President Clinton twice. But this is not your grandpa's President Clinton.

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2008 7:29 PM

Quote of the Day

From Pajamas Media, where Michael Weiss "charts the pandemic disillusionment with Bill Clinton — especially on the liberal-left."

Clinton likes to blame the media, but how can the media help itself? The aged and flabby Mr. Slick thunders and grumbles about the youthful and lean Mr. Smooth – copy like this doesn’t just hand itself to you every four years.

Posted by jk at 12:44 PM

January 24, 2008

The Kiss of Death

The New York Times has endorsed John McCain for the Republican nomination. Well, if you can call it that. The editorial begins:


We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

What discredited economic theories? Free markets? Low taxes? These are not discredited in the least. I would also point out that contrary to popular belief the Democrats have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq and that is one of their stated goals.

Regardless of the content, this isn't likely to play well with conservatives who are already disheartened by Sen. McCain.

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:35 PM | What do you think? [2]
But jk thinks:

I'd hate to see what they said about the ones they did not endorse.

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2008 11:37 AM
But jk thinks:

Hugh Hewitt sez: "I hope very [sic] GOP voter with a ballot left to cast reads this telegram from today's left wing elite" It's not clear from Hewitt's website whether one of the current GOP field has attracted his support.

Johngalt wonders why I read Hewitt. Hugh represents -- intelligently -- a faction of the GOP which, whether I like it or not, has the numbers and energy to sway debate and elections.

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2008 2:32 PM

The Coveted Rendell Endorsement

Some guy named AlexC at Pennsylvania Water Cooler is less than enthused about his Governor's "gutsy" endorsement for Senator Clinton:

Besides, nothing says “let’s move forward” like “Four more years of President Clinton.”

Pennsylvania Posted by jk at 7:20 PM

I Was Wrong

I missed the point on this Kinder Gentler Capitalism thing. Google-dot-org has 1% of its parent’s profits to fix the world. I suggested that the incentives and methods for efficiently allocating resources would be lacking in this new, sweet corporate world. Clearly, I was wrong:

The process of determining what to finance was not easy, said Jacquelline Fuller, the head of advocacy at Google.org. Beginning in the spring of 2007, “the 20 team members had 20 ideas.” Team members, she said, “debated, cried and held hands as we tried to determine what kind of difference we could make.” It took them almost a year to winnow down the list.

Twenty people “debated, cried and held hands" for almost a year to establish priorities? I'll never compain about meetings at work again.

Philosophy Posted by jk at 5:56 PM

Sad

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is my favorite capitalist. I run with a UNIX crowd that exists to counter the evil Borg from Redmond, so I have to be careful what I say. But my life has been so positively impacted by Gates, I have to admire him.

I'm fond of asking my lefty friends who did more good: Mother Theresa or Bill Gates? Gates left dozens -- probably hundreds -- of millionaires in his wake, enabled my career and now my ability to pursue part of it from home in spite of disability, and ultimately empowered me to blog and to record my own music. Remove the inexpensive OS from the world and it is considerably darker.

Sad to say, Mr. Gates will not participate in the unabashed celebration of capitalism I offer in his name. Too many glasses of Château l'Fete with Mr. Buffet?

There's a gem of truth in there. Capitalism is certainly the best method for helping people. But I am saddened that he sees doing good and doing well as different enterprises. He doesn't hold the Friedmanite belief that a Corporation should maximize its asset value. Gates clearly wants some corporate resources devoted to fuzzy concerns.

But these will be immeasurable and unaccountable -- subject to none of the forces that made Microsoft and its impact. We need to turn to the words of Nancy Reagan: "Kinder and Gentler than Whom?"

UPDATE: His guest editorial in the WSJ is better.

UPDATE II: Don Luskin: "Translation: the old form of capitalism was fine for me, making me the richest man in the world. Now that I've got that position, though, let's change the rules for everyone else."

UPDATE III: Larry Kudlow wonders about the differences between free market countries and Venezuela:

It appears Gates is ignoring the global spread of free-market capitalism that has successfully lifted hundreds of millions of people up from poverty and into the middle class over the last decade or so. Think China. Think India. Think Eastern Europe (and maybe even France under Sarkozy). Gates wants business leaders to dedicate more time to fighting poverty. But the reality is that economic freedom is the best path to prosperity. Period.

But johngalt thinks:

Francisco d'Anconia, call your office...

Capitalism hasn't "failed many of the world's poor" - authoritarianism has!

Just what are "the needs of the poor?"

Progress of the third [of the world's population] that's best off is quite satisfactory. What's unsatisfactory is for the bottom third to lag behind. But what about the middle third? Shouldn't we all be forced to give them some of our stuff too?

Bill Gates Jr. gets more like his looney father every day. I blame his wife.

Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2008 3:47 PM
But jk thinks:

I'd rather continue blaming Buffet. "Bill, I don't want you hanging around with that Berkshire-Hathaway guy any more!"

You nailed it, brother jg. The failure is that people have not been given sufficient access to capitalism, not that a "kinder" capitalism is required.

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2008 4:22 PM
But dagny thinks:

JK the number of millionaires created by Gates is definitely hundreds and more likely thousands. I even dated a few when I lived nearby. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Posted by: dagny at January 25, 2008 12:52 AM
But jk thinks:

No doubt you're right on the magnitude, Dagny. I'm fascinated that you dated them and then married jg... (He knows I jest)

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2008 11:41 AM

Recession regression

Yesterday Ms. Rodham Clinton had some things to say about how American consumer spending is to blame for the "global economic crisis" that disrupted international equity markets beginning Monday and that ultimately, you guessed it: it's Bush's fault.

Today there's another explanation:

The huge losses in Europe on Monday -- which caused fright throughout the rest of the world -- probably were caused as much, if not more, by Societe Generale unwinding what had been a big long position [related to a securities fraud scheme] in Europe's top stock-market indexes than by any concern about the broader economy.

(...)

That's not to say that the fears of a U.S. recession aren't valid. But the market's recovery from lows earlier this week hints that perhaps those concerns were overblown.

Hillary's rhetoric overblown? Naaah.

But jk thinks:

Interesting link. There was much speculation on Kudlow & Co. last night that Trichet and the ECB will not follow the FOMC in easing because of current labor negotiations in Germany. If they signal any inflation, they will have to offer a more generous contract.

That, Senator Clinton, is another superb reason to have government less involved in regulating the market.

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2008 2:15 PM

January 23, 2008

I have to ask

I do not understand how candidates do so poorly in state primaries that they do not contest or work toward. I can see your average Iowan or New Hampshireman getting teed off if you don't "work every county." But why did the whole pack do so poorly in Nevada? Why, when Mayor Giuliani was leading the national polls, did he rack up so many single digit finishes?

I know I am hopeless, but it seems that anybody who would bother to vote in a primary would look over all the candidates. Every four years, the masses vote for the tallest guy or the best hair. But primary voters? I know I am showing naiveté, and I've no doubt Bryan Caplan's book will soon be suggested (read it, thanks!) But I am stupefied.

It comes up in a comment thread debate on Samizdata. Dale Amon is happy to see Rep. Paul come in second. From his home in Belfast, Dale sees a glorious awakening of the Libertarians! NED be praised! The commenters swiftly point out that there were only two men in the race, and that Paul actually came in last. The Paulistas, and some Samizdats (Sounds like a Lerner and Lowe Musical...) rejoin that the debates are televised in Nevada and that several members were on the ballot. How can I explain to furreners why a guy who doesn't run ads will not get any votes -- I really don't understand it myself.

2008 Race Posted by jk at 5:01 PM

Cal!

Sad proof of how far the GOP has declined in 84 years. President Calvin Coolidge makes quite a bit of sense:




This is said to be the first film of a US President with sound. Hat-tip: Rick Sincere

But HB thinks:

Second best president of the 20th century!

Posted by: HB at January 23, 2008 9:27 PM

"Genuine Front Runners"

I certainly don't object to advocacy for a primary candidate on a blog, but Hugh Hewitt has gone from driving me nuts on immigration to driving me nuts with his being so in the tank for Governor Romney.

I've admitted flaws with my candidate. Grown up politicking to me is finding the best match on your most important issues, then tempering that with pragmatic concerns. It's not the height of idealism, but it keeps me out of the Kucinich caucus. Hewitt posts three to six rah-rah puff pieces a day on Saint Romney from the Commonwealth. I'd have to concede that it has turned me less favorable to Mitt!, whom I admire and have much common ground.

Today, Hugh links to an article on McCain's money woes with the line "Genuine front-runners don't have to crisscross the country with a tin cup days before a crucial primary."

Nope, "genuine" front runners write themselves a check for a bazillion dollars. Of course, others could find interested parties to fund their campaigns if it weren't for campaign finance reform. Whose fault is that? Oh, yeah...

But johngalt thinks:

Who's Hugh Hewitt? Seriously though, if he's turning you off to Romney then stop reading him. I'm going to try blog.electromneyin2008.com instead (now that Fred has pulled into the veep rest area.)

Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2008 2:45 PM
But jk thinks:

I've softened to the Governor (The Northern one, that is) but he still trails Hizzoner and Senator McCain.

Do you disagree with my comment -- not my original thought -- that Mitt is a data-driven manager and not a visionary leader? He seems a good guy, but President GHW Bush was a good guy. I fear Governor Romney would participate in some bad ideas in the name of "getting things done."

Posted by: jk at January 23, 2008 3:04 PM
But Terri thinks:

I'm with you JK

I used to listen to Hugh on the way home, but his constant rah rah for Mitt was too much for me.
I don't dislike Mitt, but he is definitely not a visionary leader.

Posted by: Terri at January 23, 2008 4:45 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I still want to look closer at Mitt (and won't let either of your ad hominems dissuade me for now) because I'm desperately searching for a small government candidate who won't try to take American's guns from them. Damn Rudy and his subjective application of the Second Amendment! Were he not an "it depends" guy on guns he'd probably still have me in his camp (where I started out months ago).

Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2008 7:36 PM
But jk thinks:

I believe my suggestion is pretty well supported by "RomneyCare."

Fair and balanced: I was intrigued to see that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has come out for Governor Romney. (You should follow the link just to see the horse).

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2008 2:33 PM

Investing for the Apocalypse

Larry Kudlow offers great sense for investors during the current uber-volatility: buy and hold.

I always recommend buying broad stock market indexes. For example, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 or the S&P 500. Owning international indexes also makes sense, including emerging-market indexes. A package like this gives investors good diversification, keeps it simple, and covers the world.

I don’t foresee the overthrow of free-market capitalism, and not even Senator Clinton will bring back state-run socialism. Folks who bought the market in late 1987and held it for twenty years did extremely well. I don’t recommend timing the cycles, and certainly not trading on a daily or short-term basis. The idea is to stay long-term.


That's me. I love to watch Kudlow but I am the world's dullest. dollar-averagin' broad ETF-buyin' investor. I'm not selling, I'm buying. Jg is fishing for some John Deere shares on sale, I hope to fund my IRA this week with some more S&P500 indexed, dividend indexed, and international ETFs. If it goes down some more next week, that’s life. Larry and I know it will come back.

I'm struck by how little attention some market experts are paying to this. Don Luskin has a nice post bashing Paul Krugman today and a lengthy and thoughtful endorsement of Rep. Ron Paul yesterday. Larry has the short post I excerpted. I don't see them jumping off buildings.

CNBC, in contrast, is in full panic mode. Imagine FOX if a dozen pretty white women were missing. Kudlow & Company was preempted last night so that less stable commentators could have more time. Larry sat at the desk, and a handful of his regular guests were available, but the producers went around the world to hear financial journalists in London, Davos, and Hong Kong predict the future.

They would have done their viewers a far better service to provide an hour of Kudlow's thoughtful rationality.


January 22, 2008

Persuadin'

The vultures strike!

I seriously feel for the Fred!heads around here. One invests in a candidate (unless one's name rhymes with "Schmergeron") and I know your disappointment. My fondest hope is that it dissipates as quickly for you as my support of Rep. John Kasich did in 2000. I hope Senator Thompson's policy proposals carry on and I'd be happy to see him talked into a second spot on the ticket.

But super-duper-most-awesome-primary-tueday-ever Tuesday is on the way, and I would like to pitch Hizzoner as a fallback.


  • Mayor Giuliani has a deep appreciation of the War. His calling it "The War the Terrorists Declared On Us" lacks pithiness, but displays understanding. Senator McCain shares this depth of conviction, but I do not think he exceeds it. Governors Huckabee and Romney aren't Cindy Sheehans or anything but I do not hear their conviction to the work of our lifetime.

  • Mayor Giuliani has a deep appreciation for free market economics. He knows that what made cell phones cheap will do wonders for health care. He calls for lower taxes and less regulation. My Prosperitarian heart swoons. Senator McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. I am glad he is a spending hawk, but we are pricing our country out of the global business market and I am not convinced Senator McCain understands. Governor Romney pushes his business experience and understanding (Ross Perot?) but I have not heard a lot about economics. His mandate for health care in Massachusetts speaks against him.

  • Senator McCain is an American Hero and would be a superb Commander in Chief. I am troubled by his stands on Global Warming, free speech, ANWR, Guantanamo Bay, and "torture."

  • Governor Romney has had a good career in the private sector and in government, but he is ultimately a tactician and manager -- not a visionary or ideologue. Washington has a nasty habit of turning those people into consensus politicians and the Governor's career shows a susceptibility to that.

  • Governor Huckabee has a [oh never mind...]


On the bad side, Rudy is squishy on guns. Reading the WSJ today, it looks like Bush messed up badly. I think Hizzoner would nominate conservative, constructionist judges (he told Larry that he would have been proud to come up with Alito and Roberts as picks -- that's a good sign) and hope he does a good job on Solicitor General. I don't see Romney, Huckabee, or McCain doing any better.

I know he's considered authoritarian by some folks. If you're an ACLU-er maybe he's not your guy. I'm comfortable with strong defense and intelligence. It is hard for me to see any of the others stacking up in security.

You can chuckle or chortle. I'm put at ease at ease by the fact that he is not a moralist. I don't think we'll see Faith Based Initiatives, or abstinence programs, or a marriage amendment out of Rudy. He's not going to throw stones out of his house. All the same, he's not a man who lacks integrity like a President Clinton.

Good foreign policy, good economics. decent on the proper role of government. Likable, electable, hard for his opposition to pigeonhole.

UPDATE: I don't link to Dennis Prager everyday but he has a nice endorsement for Rudy! on Townhall.com.

But jk thinks:

Full disclosure: the other bad side, the worse bad side is Hizzoner's belief in an Apollo program for energy independence. How many levels of yuck is that?

But an R&D boondoggle is far less dangerous than a carbon cap and trade (Senator McCain) or a heath care mandate (Governor Romney) or rewriting the Constitution to accommodate God's Law (Governor Huckabee) or a gold Peg (Rep. Paul).

Yup, still with Rudy!

Posted by: jk at January 23, 2008 11:38 AM

Hillary and Hayek

It pains me to type those names together, but that is the title of a Roger Kimball piece that he has revised and reposted in honor of Senator Clinton's comments that we noted yesterday.

The urgency with which Hayek condemns socialism is a function of the importance of the stakes involved. As he puts it in his last book The Fatal Conceit , the “dispute between the market order and socialism is no less than a matter of survival” because “to follow socialist morality would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest.” We get a foretaste of what Hayek means whenever the forces of socialism triumph. There follows, as the night the day, an increase in poverty and a diminution of individual freedom.

The curious thing is that this fact has had so little effect on the attitudes of intellectuals and the politicians who appeal to them. No merely empirical development, it seems—let it be repeated innumerable times—can spoil the pleasures of socialist sentimentality. This unworldliness is tied to another common trait of intellectuals: their contempt for money and the world of commerce. The socialist intellectual eschews the “profit motive” and recommends increased government control of the economy. He feels, Hayek notes, that “to employ a hundred people is … exploitation but to command the same number [is] honorable.”


A great read. I am glad that Clinton was so direct in her call for collectivism. The debate can be joined in earnest.

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Philosophy Posted by jk at 2:51 PM

Say it ain't so, Fred!

So much for my general election prediction.

From Fred08.com, a Statement from Sen. Fred Thompson:

McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

I guess $50 bucks each from dagny and I wasn't enough to keep that ol' red truck rolling into Florida.

UPDATE: 14:44 EST - 850 KOA Radio, Denver:
Republican Fred Thompson has quit the presidential race, according to a statement. Details at the top of the hour on 850KOA and at 850KOA.com.

UPDATE: 14:50 EST - WSJ NEWS ALERT:
NEWS ALERT
from The Wall Street Journal

Jan. 22, 2008

Fred Thompson dropped out of the Republican presidential race this afternoon after a third-place finish over the weekend in South Carolina's primary and poor performances in other early caucus and primary states. The former Tennessee senator did not say whether he would endorse any of his rivals.

Thompson's departure leaves behind a still-crowded Republican field, with John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee battling for the lead in Florida ahead of that state's Jan. 29 primary.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103011452907237.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
READ THE TEXT OF THE THOMPSON CAMPAIGN'S STATEMENT at: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/22/statement-thompson-quits-2008-race/

2008 Race Posted by JohnGalt at 2:34 PM | What do you think? [3]
But AlexC thinks:

Damn! I've been split between Thompson & Romney.... now I'm with Romney.

Posted by: AlexC at January 22, 2008 2:41 PM
But jk thinks:

Sorry, jg. I know the disappointment. All the same, I'd like to invite you and ac to join Team Rudy.

Posted by: jk at January 22, 2008 3:02 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Let the persuasion period begin! ;) Rudy is on my list .... somewhere. He isn't last though, at least while Shuckabee keeps hanging around.

Posted by: johngalt at January 22, 2008 3:45 PM

I'll take the 75 bps

Now that it's all Kumbayas around here on immigration, I'll toss a stink bomb into the group hug: I think Chairman Bernanke was right to cut three quarters (75 basis points to us posers). I know the inflation hawks around here are displeased.

The Everyday Economist has a sparkling new design and a post "Ridiculing the Fed," posted in anticipation of the cut:

The Fed is proceeding down a dangerous path. We are experiencing quite a dichotomy with inflation above the Fed’s comfort zone and the economy experiencing a great deal of friction in the housing and credit markets (which are slowing spreading outward). Loose Fed policy encouraged this mess and now the Fed is seeking to remedy the problem with more liquidity. Yeesh!

I don't want to get on the Bernanke bandwagon. I think that he has shown his rookie stripes by projecting a lack of control or seriousness. I would have preferred a (Kudlow Shock-and-Awe) 100 bps cut a week ago accompanied by a firm disavowal of further cuts. "Here you go kids, that's all the candy you get, make it last to Lake Minnetonka..." I thought his testimony to Congress suggesting that Keynesian nonsense rebates might be effective was awful.

All the same, I followed The EE's suggestion and read Maestro file's book and still feel that we are in tolerance for Inflation Targeting. I'm comfortable with 2.25 core CPI and I disagree with my right wingnut buddies at the WSJ Ed Page that it is wrong to "chase" (I'd call it normalize) short term T-bill rates.

The DJIA is down 160 as I type this, recovering from a 300 pt decline in the face of world financial turmoil and more bad news at home. Yaaay team!

But johngalt thinks:

Can you say "buying opportunity" boys and girls? I've been looking at DE (Deere and Company) since late December and bought today on an uptrend at nearly a 10% discount.

Posted by: johngalt at January 22, 2008 3:03 PM

January 21, 2008

Bill Clinton Honors MLK with a Nap

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 9:44 PM

Hillarinomics

The Junior Senator from New York is ready to run the economy for us:

“If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.”

She added: “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market.”


Who better to decide the perfect balance than President Hillary Clinton?

David Harsanyi suggests: "Some of us still believe that the worth of a CEO should be determined by stockholders rather than the President of the United States." What an old fashioned guy.

And Dr. Helen thinks she wants to get us all on government cheese. (As a side note, Dr. Helen has received so many links from Instapundit, I'm starting to think she may be sleeping with somebody over there, As Drudge would say, "Developing...")


Quote of the Day

Take it away, Don Luskin:

WE'VE GOTTA BE NEAR A BOTTOM When subprime mortgage investors start murdering their wives and then killing themselves, you be sure we're near the climax of the present financial freak-out.

UPDATE: The second I post that, Glenn Reynolds gets the runner up:
AND IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVEN'T TRIED! "'We cannot ignore the recent improvements both in the security and political situation in Iraq,' Staffan de Mistura, head of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), said in a speech to the Security Council."


President Clinton Lied?

Say it ain't so, Senator.

“This has become a habit, and one of the things that we’re going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate,” Obama said.

Video.

But tuesday thinks:

I think Barack hit the nail on the head. I'm glad he's choosing to set the record straight. The Clintons are using their long-established political machine to attempt to intimidate Obama. The man has much more fight in him than they anticipated. I think Hill and Bill are both in for a rude awakening--their words and actions will likely come back to haunt them, and rightfully so.

Posted by: tuesday at January 21, 2008 2:03 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"It depends what your definition of the words 'I'm not making this up' is. If my wife made it up and I just repeat it then I am not, in fact, misleading anybody. This is just hypothetical, of course. Hillary didn't make it up either. If she repeated what she heard from ..."

Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2008 2:38 PM
But Tony Iovino thinks:

If he is going to confront Bill (the disbarred lawyer) Clinton every time Bill lies, Obama will be the busiest person in America.

In my lifetime I've had the privilege of watching Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and Michael Jordan play basketball, Wayne Gretzky play hockey, Muhammed Ali box, Tom Seaver pitch, Tiger Woods golf.

And I've heard the Clintons lie.

Greatness comes in many forms .

Posted by: Tony Iovino at January 21, 2008 6:01 PM
But jk thinks:

Don't stop believing, Tony!

Posted by: jk at January 21, 2008 7:12 PM
But AtTheWaterCooler thinks:

In short an attack on Bill is an attack on Hillary's experience. Honesty is what voters did not believe Kerry had in 2004.

How can Hillary claim to know everything Bill did in the White house except for the lies?

More can be read on my blog. Looks like I'm first in google for the words: clinton issue honesty.

Posted by: AtTheWaterCooler at January 22, 2008 4:07 PM

HB's Immigration Plan

Nothing gets the folks at Three Sources as riled up as a conversation on immigration. With that in mind, here is my immigration solution:


Do Nothing.

Okay, that is a bit facetious. In actuality, what I mean is that we should "do nothing" in terms of legislation. Here is why:

  • The sheer magnitude of the task of removing 12 million people from the United States makes any attempt to do so nearly impossible. This should not be the focus of any immigration policy. We need to treat the problem, not the symptom.

  • Secure the borders. There is no need for legislation. The United States government already has the authority, they have simply failed to do so.

Immigration Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 12:22 PM | What do you think? [5]
But jk thinks:

@#$^%& ^&*^(* , HB!!!

Seriously, the Prosperitarian in me likes your plan a great deal, and it is probably going to draw more ire from some others 'round here. As with all government enterprises, it is much better to do nothing than the wrong thing. And my animation about the issue is driven out of the assumption that the government will (surprise!) likely do the wrong thing.

At the same time, I'd have to point out a few very serious problems with the status quo ante:

1) Breakdown of rule of law.
2) Capricious enforcement (I know you're a Bastiat fan. I don't think Frederic would find current law "understandable and avoidable.")
3) Barbaric treatment of workers we need and should encourage. These workers must give money to "coyotes" to get them across the border and then are completely at the mercy of these people. They are subjected to rape, torture and further extortion because our government cannot connect willing employers with willing workers.
4) I think the terrorism card is wildly overplayed by the nativists, but a controlled border would provide more safety than an intentionally porous one.

Posted by: jk at January 21, 2008 1:35 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Again, I ask, why do we limit the number of immigrant visas in this country?

HB says we need to treat the problem, not the symptom. As I see it the problem is that our immigration laws since 1952 have criminalized individual pursuit of the American dream for those not born in America. Like Fred! said, we need "high walls and wide gates."

Citizenship is a different matter entirely, but I doubt you'd see widespread fraud to obtain citizenship (i.e. citizenship by marriage) if simple and lawful procedures existed for aliens to come here and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those who want to vote or hold office could pursue a separate citizenship process.

But enough talk of pie in the sky immigration dreams. Let's talk about something that has a greater probability of happening, like Fred Thompson winning the Republican nomination.

Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2008 3:14 PM
But Terri thinks:

I have to agree with Harrison except I would add one more change and that's make it easier to cross legally when you have no skills

I don't want to see specific work visas for hard laborers because then you have a permanent underclass who will never Americanize because we'd suck purposefully bring in serfs.

The reasons people cross over to work here in labor is because it's a heck of a lot easier and possible than coming across legally.

Continue to prosecute folks who knowingly hire illegals, secure the border and make it easier to cross with papers.
That would fix the problem.

Posted by: Terri at January 21, 2008 3:17 PM
But HB thinks:

jg, I will concede that I would repeal all legislation that limits the number of immigrant visas. I am much closer to being an open borders guy than an immigration hawk. However, my main point is that if we are not going to open the border, we should at least enforce it. I wholly support high walls/wide gates.

Posted by: HB at January 21, 2008 9:37 PM
But jk thinks:

Fred!'s candidacy seems up in the air as I type this, but he has united ThreeSources with a single phrase.

I suspect that if we dug a little deeper, we'd find that I want wider and jg wants taller, but we're all on board for "tall fences with wide gates." I hope the nominee adopts that line.

Posted by: jk at January 22, 2008 11:41 AM

Tale of Two Sports Leagues

I'll hawk James Glassman's superb American Magazine one more time. It's superbly written, beautifully designed, and printed on expensive paper and is very inexpensive compared to the more austerely produced weeklies. Even if you don't subscribe, I think it is all available on the website. I'd encourage you to at least sign up for their daily email.

The cover story of the most recent print edition is Hoop Dreams "With powerful global marketing, the NBA is pushing basketball past soccer as the most popular sport in the world."

The story chronicles smart moves that the NBA has made to expand its influence and revenue opportunities beyond North America. I'll confess I don't follow basketball too closely, but it is a fascinating story of smart business and promotion.

The game I do follow is hockey, and that's the top of their email alert today. This story says that hockey has patched its financial wounds, but still doesn't seem poised to break out of its strongly-delimited interest box. True to the story, the Colorado Avalanche draw huge crowds at ticket prices that keep me home. The games are televised on a station the team owners own.

I'd call the Avs a success on the ice and in the office. The Nordiques were a good franchise, and two Stanley Cups in five years is a great way to draw interest. All the same, there's little excitement around the game. The playoffs are not available except on pay per view. I like the game so, I have always assumed that the owners lack the smarts to achieve world domination.

Yet the ratings are bad when the games are on. Blog brother Sugarchuck told me that the pro-bowling ESPN put on in the strike year outdrew the NHL. Perhaps the product lacks appeal. The old advertising adage is that you can get the packaging and the message right, but in the end, the dog has to eat the food or it's all for naught.

Two good stories if you get a little time. I'm thinking I may have to start watching the Nuggets.

Posted by jk at 10:59 AM

January 20, 2008

McCain Victory Speech

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 9:20 AM | What do you think? [2]
But johngalt thinks:

John! sounded like Fred! last night. If elected, I hope he retains his speechwriters to help formulate policy.

Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2008 11:43 AM
But HB thinks:

Kudlow approves...

Posted by: HB at January 20, 2008 4:56 PM

January 19, 2008

Random Thoughts

  • jk, why on earth do you believe that Hillary will somehow be better than Obama? I see absolutely no difference in their ideology. (I do, however, see a difference in their rhetoric and in their campaign tactics.)
  • Dick Meyer asks: Obama's Age Gap: Is It Race? Yes.
  • Bill Clinton was a decent president (NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.), however, the things I disliked about him are slowly coming back into focus when watching him out on the campaign trail. The media has called him out for his ridiculous hissy fits, but these outbursts appear to be working.
  • Can Hillary really win the presidential election? Obama is the voice of the young and the optimistic. A Hillary victory would seem to stamp out the hopefulness of young Democrats.
  • My prediction (and therefore likely the opposite of what will actually happen) is that the Republican establishment will slowly get behind John McCain. He gave an excellent speech after his victory in South Carolina that included talk of less government, lower taxes, and a prosperous nation free of the "heavy hand of government." It was very Reagan-esque -- without the obligatory mentioning of the Great Communicator.
  • My views on which candidate to get behind have flip flopped more than Mitt Romney and John Kerry combined. At least -- as judged by the varying primary and caucus results -- I am not alone. Therefore, unlike some others here at Three Sources, I will not endorse a candidate.
2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:43 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

I have obviously not made myself clear. I have no policy preferences for Senator Clinton. I find Senator Obama to be a better politician and without question more charismatic. Both are bad bad bad, but I fear Obama would have better chances at enacting his bad ideas. (Notwithstanding Senator Clinton's 35 years of experience.)

I agree 100% on President Clinton. I had been lulled into liking him a little while he was gone (Art Laffer voted for him twice, how bad could he be?) but now that he is back, my visceral internal antipathy generator has locked on. I watch the video of his accosting the Nevada reporter and it is 1998 all over again (although President Clinton looks about 40 years older).

There is enough "there there" with Senator McCain that I will happily support him if he gets the nod. I think Senator Thompson is in deep Tennessee kimchee after SC and that Hizzoner has but a single chance for a "hail mary" in FL. McCain towers above Governor Romney in my book and I think our pal from Arkansas is dead as well.

I've already quoted Gertrude Stein and used a sports metaphor, I'll close with a little John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The Colorado Caucus might be in the context of a McCain-Romney race. I'll not think twice.

Posted by: jk at January 20, 2008 2:34 PM

January 18, 2008

Huck-a-Whack, Other Candidate Edition

Fred! is right:

This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.


Hat-tip; Insty

2008 Race Posted by jk at 5:34 PM

Carlos Mencia Call Your Office

On his Comedy Channel TV show, Carlos Mencia got big laughs when he riffed on the border fence. "Just who do you think will build it?" "You'll have to tell them to go over to the other side to check it out and then shut the gates."

Mary Anastasia O'Grady may or may not be getting laughs with the same riff. In Political Diary today, she says:

It turns out that to build barricades to keep "them" out, we might need to let "them" in because the construction companies building border fences need illegal workers.

Just ask Mel Kay, who runs a company called Golden State Fence and was busted two years ago for hiring undocumented migrants. On January 12th the Associated Press chronicled his path to arrest, explaining that he gave employment to illegals whose job it was to build fences along the U.S.-Mexico border and at two immigrant jails.

Mr. Kay says that over the years much of the output from Golden State Fence was produced by illegals. He hired them, he says, not because they were cheap, but because he relied on referrals from his Mexican employees as the only way to get reliable, stable help.

A prospective candidate's status with immigration authorities wasn't nearly as important, he said, as whether a potential employee's connection to family and friends meant he was "trustworthy and more apt to stay long term." A building boom in California made it hard for him to find workers any other way, even paying a starting salary of $35,000 that increased to $60,000 after three years. Full-time employees also got medical benefits, sick leave and two weeks vacation.


But I've used that argument around here and nobody has been convinced. So, here's her second point. I saw it in a FOXNews crawl a few days ago. To build this fence will require vigorous exercise of the hated "takings clause." ¿Kelo no beuno, anybody?
But that's only one barrier to building a wall to keep out illegal migrants. A second is resistance from property owners along the border who don't want a Berlin Wall in their backyards. Many are now vowing to fight the government. Texas's Rio Grande Valley has lately become flush with "No border wall" signs.

Does all this mean that Texans don't care about the rule of law? Not at all, says Mayor Richard Cortez in the border town of McAllen. "Our fight with the government is not over their goals, it's how they go about them." He says Washington should deepen the river, clear brush for better vigilance and create a program to allow for legal workers to cross the border. Then, U.S. law enforcement could spend its time going after real criminals rather than tracking down and deporting bus boys and construction workers.


But Terri thinks:

So because people can't find labor, the answer (in the all important free market) is to
a) increase legal immigration and make it easier
or
b) continue to allow illegal immigration to grow

Jk, you're still wrong by choosing b no matter how many ways you say it.

Posted by: Terri at January 18, 2008 5:39 PM
But jk thinks:

Actually, I want whatever combination of a plus b plus c -- allow guest workers will fill the labor pool.

I wondered if some of the property rights crowd around ThreeSources might be concerned by the eminent domain requirements to build the fence.

Posted by: jk at January 18, 2008 5:52 PM
But Terri thinks:

Yet 'a' wasn't part of the bill, and 'c' would all of a sudden be unfair competition for 'b' , just like 'b' right now is unfair competition for 'a' and citizens.

You can't have guest workers and illegals. Allowing for legal immigration in a faster way and increased amount while no longer easily allowing and hiring of illegal workers is the only answer to this problem.

Posted by: Terri at January 18, 2008 6:31 PM

Obama: He'll Be Here All Week!

Obama is getting laughs on the campaign trail about the ridiculous statements made by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton at Tuesday's debate:


Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night's debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork - something his opponents have since used to suggest he's not up to managing the country. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.

"Because I'm an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, 'What's your biggest weakness?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, 'Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"

"Folks, they don't tell you what they mean!" he said. Obama chuckled at his own joke before riffing on another Clinton answer in the debate, when she said that she is happy that the bankruptcy bill she voted for in 2001 never became law.

"She says, 'I voted for it but I was glad to see that it didn't pass.' What does that mean?" he asked, again drawing laughter from the crowd and himself. "No seriously, what does that mean? If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it!


I didn't watch the debate, but I saw some highlights and Hillary was particularly nauseating, invoking some of her husband's notorious double-speak tactics. jk may be on board for the Hillary presidency, but I am not, nor will I ever be.

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 1:25 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

Do you refute that an Obama presidency would be more effective at spreading collectivist ideas? Senator Clinton's "nauseating" personality is my exact reason for championing her. She'll get the least bad done. (The last sentence is pragmatism in a nutshell.)

Posted by: jk at January 18, 2008 2:00 PM

435 Economists-in-Chief

We had a dust up around here a while back. Rep Ron Paul was discussing the need for more Congressional overview of the FOMC. I was concerned that our dim bulbs leading lights in Congress were not really suited to the intellectual rigors of monetary policy.

I give you Exhibit A: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Doh!, I mean, D - OH)

Hat-tip: Professor Mankiw

110th Congress Posted by jk at 1:20 PM

January 17, 2008

Tax Competition

And the threat of an OECD Tax Cartel's dictating American rates. This video is eight minutes but it is well done.





Hat-tip: Mankiw

Posted by jk at 5:26 PM

Not So Dismal

The Everyday Economist links to an Alexander Tabarrok column in Forbes that makes Larry Kudlow look like a pessimist. Tabarrok says not to worry about recession or temporary ups and downs. In his mind economics predicts "a new era in which miracle drugs will conquer cancer and other killer diseases and technological and scientific advances will trigger unprecedented economic growth and global prosperity."

The central thesis of his piece is anti-Malthusian:

People used to think that more population was bad for growth. In this view, people are stomachs--they eat, leaving less for everyone else. But once we realize the importance of ideas in the economy, people become brains--they innovate, creating more for everyone else.

New ideas mean more growth, and even small changes in economic growth rates produce large economic and social benefits. At current income levels, with an inflation-adjusted growth rate of 3% per year, America's real per capita gross domestic product would exceed $1 million per year in just over 100 years, more than 22 times higher than it is today. Growth like that could solve many problems.


Amen, brother. He points out that, as India and China gain wealth, the market for these innovations grows. A hundered million new cancer patients with the means to seek treatment will mean more to research funding than a bake sale (though if every person on the contin