Gallup released a poll recently showing the Republicans with their largest ever generic ballot lead since the firm has conducted polling. The gap is 10 points and, by way of comparison, the ’94 surge that Republicans enjoyed was predated by a 5 point margin. Definitely not a good sign if you’re a Democrat.
With the President’s and Democrat’s popularity plummeting, a thought develops that perhaps a political reset of sorts is in order. More specifically, that politicians should stop claiming credit regarding the country’s economic condition.
Even though I’m not a fan of the current President, and even less so the Democrats at large, I don’t entirely blame them for the current economic doldrums. I think what ails the economy right now is something that is, and was, unavoidable.
The economy is too vast. There are too many variables and forces to be quantified and accounted for. There are “unknown unknowns.” So, in my humble opinion, anyone declaring that they know how to “fix” the economy is over estimating their knowledge domain by at least an order of magnitude. Probably several.
So, given the complexity of the economy, I also believe that attempts to control it are fated for disaster. Or, at the least, failure. And here’s where I hope that the political parties might, out of their own self-interest, start to actively distance themselves from such notions.
It would seem that Rod Blagojevich has dodged all but one of the charges against him. The total would be guilty on 1 count(not sure which one) and 23 others were declared mistrials.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m pretty sure I’m completely unqualified to offer the opinion that the fact that this guy could not be found guilty of any wrong doing means that the justice system as it pertains to politicians is a joke. A very big, very unfunny joke.
A couple of days ago, Robert Gibbs had some uncharitable things to say about the “professional left” which I guess means journalists, bloggers and op ed writers. In a nutshell, it was a kind of whiny “There’s only so much we can do you bunch of ungrateful jerks.”
Well, the reviews are in and they aren’t good. It struck me because, at the end of Bush’s term, he had basically no support left from anyone, even his base. Judging by the responses from his base, I wonder if President Obama isn’t headed for an identical fate.
There were a couple of articles out earlier this week regarding preschool and kindergarten education and the impacts thereof on the child’s later life. Here is the one on preschool and here is the one on kindergarten.
I’d meant to comment on these, but other duties continually get in the way. The thrust of the article on kindergarten is that a good teacher at that level can make a staggering difference in the future success of the children they teach. The pre-school article links to a study which shows similar findings, but approaches it from a non-IQ standpoint. Characteristics such as self-restraint and perseverance are learned in the early childhood years.
Most of the commentary I’ve read related to the article centers on what these studies might mean regarding public policy. Perhaps we should be spending more on early-years education and the like. But this misses the 800-lb gorilla in the room- what these studies really demonstrate is the importance of good parenting. A point that the vast majority of commentary I read doesn’t bother to make.
Prof. Bainbridge is skeptical about whether Republicans should return to control of Congress. I agree. The one chance they had to be serious about the budget, Paul Ryan’s plan, they couldn’t get away from it fast enough. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d say their plan is to grab control in the hopes the economy shakes off its current doldrums so they’ll be in position to claim credit.
Sorry, not interested.
I want to see proposals for spending cuts. I want to see healthcare reform repealed, or gutted to the point that it doesn’t matter. I want to see serious discussion about regulation that can be shed. I’d like to hear about bureaucracies and departments that can be closed forever. I want smaller government that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves.
No one in Congress right now is serious about any of that. In return, I’ll neither consider any of them serious, nor consider them seriously.
This seems to be the latest meme anyway. Considering how most pundits require some kind of exhaustively researched study, and there’s none I’ve seen referenced, I’m not sure where the justification for the statement comes from. So a couple of talking-heads identified with conservatism spout off about soccer, and now all conservatives are soccer haters? I’ll just quote Riggs from Lethal Weapon: boy that’s thin.
I grew-up on football, basketball and to a lesser extent hockey and baseball. I understand those sports. They are available every year. Soccer has never been a major sport to me. To the extent it was available, it was always a “rival” to football. Sorry, but football’s better. Anyone who says different is a fool.
But I don’t hate soccer. I can even appreciate the skill involved in the game.
Seeing as if one was to pigeon hole me politically it would be as a conservative, I just wanted to note that at least one ‘conservative’ doesn’t hate soccer. At best I’m ambivalent. Now if the lass or the boy gets involved to any degree in the sport, then that may change. But for now, soccer has plenty of fans and it’ll do fine without me.
And if hating soccer DOES become a conservative requirement, then conservatism will also have to do without me. Even though I really don’t give two hoots about who wins the World Cup.
When I mentioned earlier my criticisms of the President’s leadership related to the Gulf, I mentioned that he should either suspend the red tape, or blatantly disregard it in order to facilitate cleanup and containment. Via Instapundit, here’s a perfect example of what I’m referring to.
The opening lines:
We learned a simple thing this week: that the BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So while, for instance, the U.S. Coast Guard can accept such help as three kilometres of containment boom from Canada, they can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.
This is. Stupid common folks, they are SO troublesome and unreliable. Best to hang out with donors and flit about to create the illusion that they’re representing voters.
Via Instapundit.
Reading this (hattip: Instapundit) pretty much cements in my mind how Obama should have dealt with the spill. He should have been straight from the start- explaining that the process was going to be long, that there would be horrible ecological damage, that the federal government itself could not stop the leak but would do whatever is necessary to aid BP in getting the leak closed. That, in addition to the technology and know how, BP had all the incentive in the world to plug the leak. That now was not the time for the government to start investigations- the time for that would be after the leak was stopped.
Treat us like adults, in other words.
The problem, from my perspective, is that he’s been opportunistic- trying to figure out how to twist the outcome to his advantage. Thus, we get statements about “boots on the neck” and the like. Further, his base won’t hear that BP’s incentive is to plug the leak. So any kind of statement from him to the contrary will only piss them off. Modern politicians just don’t piss off their base. At least, not by telling them to sit down and be quiet.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens if the latest attempts at stopping the leak are successful. Will he try to glom up credit by claiming he was whipping BP behind the scenes or something?
Amazing that he didn’t think his words would come back to bite him in the ass when he uttered them. This commercial by Sestak is brutal because of how Specter says he’ll be able to “be re-elected.”
Not this time, methinks. (Hattip Josh Green)
Having read the email, I’ll say I don’t understand the controversy. Alright, on the part of the usual suspects I understand it. People are the same. Everywhere- full stop. Deviation from this dogma WILL not be tolerated. Full stop. Do not go there. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The email itself, contrary to what’s been widely reported, is not that controversial. Go ahead, read it. The argument relies on the science of intelligence. As of this day, the science hasn’t resolved anything related to race and intelligence. That’s a fact. That’s all the email says.
I’d also like to know- why does this matter? Why do we care that one race might be smarter than another? Why is it so crucial that all races be completely identical, except for those pesky physical differences? Why does it matter? If everyone is equal, isn’t the argument bolstered by the notion that even though not everyone is equally capable (physically, intellectually, whatever yardstick one chooses) everyone is born into this world with the same rights to pursue their life in a way of their own choosing?
Just an observation, but doesn’t it seem like the same ones screaming “scientific consensus” regarding global warming awfully eager to kick science to the curb regarding this topic? Why is that?
Another post over at Professor Bainbridge’s place centers around the definition of freedom. More specifically, he takes issue with Bruce Bartlett and James Joyner regarding a Heritage Foundation paper that “downgraded” our freedom status and now rates the US as less free than places like Singapore and Hong Kong. Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Joyner skoff at the notion, while Prof. Bainbridge is more apt to take this downgrade as a warning about our future.
In a political context, whenever the word “freedom” comes up, a quote from a high school English teacher comes to mind:
Freedom is our ability to move within the harness.
Or at least, that’s a close approximation.
Professor Bainbridge has a post where he scoffs at the notion that libertarians and liberals/progressives/whatever-they-call-themselves can get together and make nice. There’s a fantastic comment to the post that I wanted to excerpt because I think it’s summarizes my own politics pretty well:
This is ultimately the problem with Progressives. Any real, sustained objection to their clawing for power is going too far. Here’s a very simple idea: if you, Mr. Just, Wise and Thoughtful Liberal believe certain things must happen why don’t you gasp go out and do them yourself? Why don’t you get your own resources together, get your friends together, and use your time, your efforts and your resources to build something useful and convince the rest of us to join in? You fascist Democrats talk about community, but you have no idea what it is: people willingly and freely working together. What you can’t get through your self-righteous head is that freedom is FREEDOM. There’s nothing dogmatic about it. There’s nothing immoderate about it. You’re free to go live in a commune in the hills not making your own food, your own clothes or your own electricity, and the rest of us won’t stop you. Go ahead. We’re that respectful of you that we want you to be happy doing what you want to do. So long as you don’t make us do it, too. But that’s not good enough for you. Because what you want is not the moderate thing: freedom. What you want is the ugly, immoderate thing: power.
If interested, here’s the post.
Glenn Reynolds has a nice article about some of the early consequences of HCR. He refers to it as a “second order knowldege” problem. I think what he’s talking about is better known as “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” My guess is this is just the opening round of these sorts of adverse, HCR related news. Ultimately, I think this will be a major thorn in the progressive narrative regarding HCR. They won’t be able to point to improvements as a result of HCR because it doesn’t fully kick in until 2014. But between now and then, these sorts of stories are going to be commonplace. The notion that legislation like this is “unrepealable” will be seriously challenged as a result.
A couple of days after the passage of the healthcare bill, I have a bunch of thoughts, as opposed to any kind of coherenet argument or rant.
The federal debt is in the trillions of dollars. As a service so to speak, here is a link to graphically illustrate how big $1 trillion is. Then keep in mind that our projected federal debt is 14 of those.
During the course of my normal blog readings, I came across this quicky. Naturally, I followed the link to Mr. Bartlett’s blog and read his entry quickly. The post that started it all was by Glenn Reynolds. Since then, a other bloggers have piled on to such as Matthew Yglesias and Mark Thoma. Mr. Sullivan has since followed up with this little beauty.
I am not going to defend Glenn Reynolds, he doesn’t need my help. But the arrogant, dismissive, “I’m-so-much-your-superior-that-I-don’t-have-to-prove-it” tone of the other bloggers just pissed me off.
I’ve lost count, at this point, of the number of Congressmen whom have decidedto call it quits rather than run for re-election. Based on the rise of the TeaParty, the seeming public rejection of the President’s policy choices, and thecontinued decline in confidence of government (Congress in particular) it’s hardfor me not to conclude we’re witnessing the “git’n while the git’ns good.’
The ones that come next will be interesting. How capable as governors will theybe? My own opinion is that the destruction will have to be both deep and wide.Politicians currently being groomed, or those who have been waiting in the wingswill need to be flushed from the system if We-the-People are going to trulyreassert our role as the boss of our country.
Interesting times, to say the least.
I don’t know if anyone is actually counting at this point, but I’ll just say that, in the absence of anything else to look at, I support his proposals. It sounds to me like he’s taken an honest shot at balancing the longterm Federal Budget. Frankly, I’m disappointed that more GOP politicians haven’t come out in support of it, or at least it’s aims. The GOP is supposed to show some fiscal common sense, meaning restraint. The fact that they aren’t getting behind this thing probably tells us where their motives truly lie.
Not that it was too difficult to discern before.
In a perfect world, the Democrats would give us something for comparisons sake. Since the GOP and Dems are all we have in Congress right now, I think it would be good to get a gauge for where these guys really want the country to go. My guess is the Democrats ideas are not anything I want to pursue. Regardless, I say put your cards on the table.
Until they’re willing to man-up, I think they’re criticisms are gutless bluster. For that matter, perhaps the fact that they haven’t come out with their own proposals means they don’t want to go there, for fear of what they perceive the electorate would think.